-->
@secularmerlin
In that case human opinions are objective and the term becomes meaningless.
how does that follow? A feeling is not the same as an opinion. I can change my opinion, I can't change my feelings. That's a huge difference.
Tell me what you believe.
Posts
Total:
353
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
all of our opinions are initially based of cues we receive from biology.
-->
@Outplayz
First Point.
You induced those things and I'm assuming that in some cases it could have been the same induction. So you've induced it X number of times with a Y rate. Input those two things with as much honesty as possible and that will give you the strength of your induction. Y is the most important part because if it's 100% then your inductions is better. But you also have to include every time that you SHOULD have induced it, but didn't.
This is where things get murky because then you have to try to figure out what is causing it so you have to go back and look at details to find correlation and then you have to test those correlations by comparing the induction rate and try to find something that correlates 100% of the time. (If you can find more than one 100% correlation, that also helps). So that would be the task at hand for you. If it's done correctly, you might be able to build up to some kind of deduction eventually that will probably amount to "Something did A when B was present" and that could be your jump off point for the study of the metaphysical.
Obviously, you can probably see why this is difficult, but I'm not against studying the metaphysical if it's done logically.
Second Point.
Indeed
Third Point.
Fair enough.
Fourth Point.
You are attributing a lot of logical scenarios to an event that happened in one way.
It would make sense that you would think this is what I was doing since you work in a law office. Law enforcement tends to use abductive reasoning because it works better in criminal cases when there's not a lot of information to go on.
Abductive reasoning is all about finding the most likely conclusion. This is not what I do.
Induction is about setting a precedent and when I combine two or more inductions for a deduction, there are rigid rules I must follow to connect them. This is not the same as abduction because abduction is more like an educated guess and leaves freedom to explore strange arguments. With induction and deduction, you have to rigorously prove each and every step starting from a solid foundation and you can never add anything to the picture that is unnecessary for the model. that is to say that for every belief that I add to my worldview, there must be a congruent thing in reality that I'm believing in. Otherwise, the piece I'm adding becomes vacuous and only hypothetically true.
Fifth point.
I believe you're being reasonable for the most part. It really depends on how seriously you take these beliefs. For instance, if you tell me "I believe in platform Z" I might say cool beans, but if you said "I believe platform Z so much that I'm going to kill myself to go to Heaven Z" then I would say you're being unreasonable. I can appreciate that you can't force yourself to stop believing something. That's just the human condition. All you can do is address why you believe it and try to put that reason to the test time and time again. If it stands up, then maybe you'll always believe it and maybe you could be right. But the key thing is not to marry the belief (don't put a ring on it) because then you'll reject basic logic for it. A good belief is one that you're willing to throw away at any time, but you never end up having to. But the key part is the being willing to throw it away when the time comes to do so. So if that time ever comes when you realize that some random thing you believe is false, make sure you're ready to throw it out. (don't put a ring on it)
-->
@secularmerlin
Not necessarily. Opinions are influenced by all kinds of things. External factors, Past experience. Even if your cues affect your opinions, that still makes the cues objective. The subjective part is that some people might act or think differently based on the cue itself. That's the subjective element. The objective element is if we develop a strict methodology that is congruent to the cue. All of the cues ultimately amount to various survival instincts. Some of them are personal and some of them are group oriented. So now we have an objective standard that is true regardless of feelings. Death in the pack will always be avoided and Life in the pack will always be sought after. These facts have nothing to do with opinion. Furthermore. The fact that people have different cues in rare cases helps to prove that we are in fact getting or morals from evolution. Gene mutations are random, therefore, no matter how many normal genes you get, there will always be outliers. Natural selection favors group friendly genes and that's what we see in society. It fits the model and it has explanatory power and it accounts for both the majority of popular cues and it also accounts for the exceptions.
Subjective morality does not account for the exceptions because if it was fully subjective, then the numbers wouldn't be so heavily in favor of specific moral ideas.
Also keep in mind that just because somebody calls something a moral doesn't make it a moral. So some cases of subjective morality that you think of are not actually morality but rather just an opinion that has been named morality. like the bible for example.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That's not how objectivity works. Objective doesn't mean "the same for every person" That's universal.
Objective means "true regardless of one's opinion"
So it doesn't matter how many cues there are or who has them. If the cues function the way they do regardless of our opinions (which if human beings are evolved to firm opinions that contribute to our survival they must), then they're objective.
Now if you want to say our assessment of those cues could be subjective, then I would agree.
But what you're really saying is that the cues aren't universal which has nothing to due with objectivity.
-->
@secularmerlin
Why does it matter if humans evolved to form opinions? That doesn't change the fact that the cue is not an opinion. That is the only requirement to make it objective.
-->
@secularmerlin
Let me ask you this.
Do you think morality is subjective
and if so why?
Furthermore, how does this account for the way morality happens in society? (i.e. most morals are held by the majority of society.)
Why does it matter if humans evolved to form opinions? That doesn't change the fact that the cue is not an opinion. That is the only requirement to make it objective.
Because the cue is objective, we can develop a standard of assessment that is universal.
I'm just saying that when people talk about opinions, in some way or another, they're talking about that objective cue that we get.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Thank you for further explaining that... it actually sunk in much better this time. Okay, so i'm trying to think of what... in the metaphysical sense i can do this induction with. My profound experiences just happened. The healing one, that fuzzy feeling has happened twice. Therefore, i can say, at least, if i get hit with that fuzzy feeling again... it should be some kind of healing event. But, i'm assuming with just two times... it's not a very good case yet. And, since i can't control it... i'm assuming doesn't make a good case as far as inductions go. There is however an experience i have that has been consistent. Has happened every time before a specific event (an event that is emotionally tragic). So far, it's happened every time. I can't remember the exact count... but i can remember specific ones so i can say it's happened at least 6 times. Therefore, since these events will happen again in my future... this should happen again. So, i guess i can do an induction in that regard. But, i still don't see how this benefits anyone other than myself. If i turn 60 years old and say it's happened every time... it's only good for me. I'm sure you'd still doubt it.First Point.
This is where i'm finding a problem with doing induction for the metaphysical. How can it be useful for someone other than the observer? This is a problem with studying the metaphysical logically... how can we extend it to everyone other than the observer? If we presuppose that the platform can only interact through us... than, it's only the observer that gets the message. I don't know... i think that's a hard question to answer.
Abductive reasoning is all about finding the most likely conclusion. This is not what I do.
Oh okay, my bad... i didn't understand your inductive reasoning until now so that's probably why i made an error in how you're deducing these events. To be honest, i don't have much else for these events. If you're looking at it with that type of logic, then there isn't an answer i can give. I think i addressed why in the first post, so we can go from there in that regard.
It really depends on how seriously you take these beliefs.
I've changed my beliefs probably like 6 times (or more) now... actually, let me rephrase that, i've change the platforms that allow for my belief that many times. That platforms are the puzzle pieces. They should be subject to change bc i don't know what it is either... only time and knowledge will tell. Interestingly however, my belief itself hasn't changed since i was like 5 and i imagined i was on a space ship having a war with other spaceships (teleporting into another spaceship when mine was shot down). I was a weird kid bc i'm pretty sure i've never seen that but still imagined it. I really didn't feel i was from this world. I can imagine all types of stuff out of this world. But, imagination is imagination. I remember being on the school bus for the very first time going to kindergarten. In the back of the bus, two kids were bullying another kid by pulling his pants down and showing his privates to everyone. I remember being so frustrated that my powers didn't turn on. I was like, "why, why aren't my powers turning on... i can help him." I find all that curious as much as we can call that imagination. So, what i believe individually, hasn't changed. The only refutation to my belief is when the brain dies, your gone... But, that's really it. I acknowledge it could be true... however, there are so many other possibilities.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Let me ask you this.
Go ahead
Do you think morality is subjective
Yes
and if so why?
Because what is and is not moral is,subject to opinion although if we can agree on a SUBJECTIVE standard (your cue I believe) then we can make objective statements based in that SUBJECTIVE standard. Personally I like to use harm versus wellbeing but that's just my opinion.
how does this account for the way morality happens in society? (i.e. most morals are held by the majority of society.)
Because like many opinions morals are formed in large part by your upbringing.
-->
@secularmerlin
Right, the matt dillahunty standard. I'm aware of it and it's true assuming that we choose harm vs benefit subjectively. The only difference is that I claim that harm vs benefit is programmed into use and therefore it's objective. My biggest contention isn't really that, but rather that you seem to confuse objective with universal.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
The only difference is that I claim that harm vs benefit is programmed into use and therefore it's objective.
Then why do some moral standards have the potential to harm? (Example: that opossing religions should be punished for heresy.)
-->
@Outplayz
6 times huh? that's at least worth looking into. about the part of not controlling it. One interesting test of the inductions is that if you add that related factor and it lets you produce the event willingly, that's a really good sign that your induction is on the right track. Predicting something 10 times is worth 100 random inductions easy (the actual ratio is my opinion and just for affect, but it's higher). As for the proving it for other people. If you got to the point of prediction, then you could possibly start making it a deduction and then you can prove it by contradiction (meaning the effect never not happens when the trigger happens). Once you reach that point, you could actually show other people and they could use things like brain scans. I know that sounds impossible to pull off but you might be able to find other people like you especially if you had deductive proof.
On the last point. It's good if you're willing to keep evolving those beliefs. I know how hard it is to give in to logic sometimes because logic is not always intuitive. and you never know what belief it's going to be. I found out in my mid 20's that the idea of female virginity was a myth and it blew my mind but the proof was right in front of my face so I accepted it. Things like that. I find that the childhood beliefs are always the most fallacious. Most things my parents told me were horribly wrong and were just popular idioms that didn't really hold truth. I was so young when I heard these things, that I never even thought to double check these later on in life when I was rational. Now, just in case, anytime I have an old belief that comes up, I google it first to make sure it wasn't a hoax, lol.
-->
@secularmerlin
Biblical morals aren't morals. They're edicts. The guy who wrote the heresy law wasn't using his harm benefit cue when he made heresy law. I
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
What precisely is the difference between a moral and a moral edict?Biblical morals aren't morals. They're edicts.
The guy who wrote the heresy law wasn't using his harm benefit cue when he made heresy law.
No he was not because he was using a different SUBJECTIVE standard.
-->
@secularmerlin
morals are descriptive and edicts are prescriptive. i.e. The first tells you what is happening after the fact while the second is telling you how things should be.
-->
@secularmerlin
You're just adding the word moral to biblical morals, you have no standard by which to call them moral.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If you got to the point of prediction
It is at this point so far, but not in any way i can control it. The events that trigger them are random, so i feel it's really hard to test it. Coincidentally, my uncle i golf with every weekend is a neurologist. I talk to him about this stuff all the time. He said the only way is if i wore some kind of brain scanner my whole life. I really don't feel like proving to others that much to do something like that lol. Plus, the most recent time i had this precognition was when his father died. I feel it's hurtful to tell people this, and i haven't been able to muster the courage to tell him (don't think i ever will). It's truly not events i'm looking forward to... But as to the brain scan... i think we need to know consciousness fully to make a correct assessment unless it's just clear.. which i doubt it's that easy.
Most things my parents told me were horribly wrong and were just popular idioms that didn't really hold truth.
This is really interesting to me bc i was the exact opposite. I remember events that my parents forgot... literally from ages 3 to 4. They later confirmed it when i reminded them. I had 4 "spiritual" experiences when i was anywhere between 5 to 8 years old. Of course, they can easily be mistaken as dreams or misplaced memories, logically. But, as soon as i was old enough to have rational thoughts... i looked back and thought, what i saw shouldn't have been possible... 2 of them, even if they were dreams don't make sense. It's just curious how different people are. I of course wrote them off as dreams or memory problems... but every time i doubted they were real, an experience happened. That's why my life's experiences are kinda weird. Every time i start doubting, something else would happen even more profound up to these one's i've shared. An interesting thing about my personality (or what i know now) is that i would never come to this reality not remembering. But who knows man... i'm at least glad you have critiqued my beliefs and opinions intelligently and respectfully. I had a feeling you would... i've gone over this stuff probably 100 times now... but few do so respectfully so i have to thank you for that.
I just want to expand on the memory thing for fun.. i've thought all this stuff through even if i'm totally wrong, but if i am going to assert it, there needs to be some kind of logic behind it. In regards to remembering, i think it depends on what experience you want to have here. Since it is a shared experience, you can remember at whatever level you want, but you can't prove it bc others don't want to remember. I feel i came here remembering to a degree that benefits myself. It's like if we chose to download into a zombie simulation. If you download into that experience fully knowing, well then, it's not much of an experience rather than just a fun shooter. However, if you download not knowing... you will have the full zombie experience. That's why i think everyone remembers to the degree they wanted to for their experience. Richard Hawkins wouldn't be who he is if he fully remembered. You wouldn't be who you are if you weren't you. I just think that's an interesting correlation... however, evolution also answers this. Darn natural explanations are always there.
I just remembered i was looking for the right time to ask you this. A source platform would fix certain paradoxes. Specifically infinite regress. If you are an ultimate mind that manifests into experiences... then infinite regress isn't a thing bc a source platform doesn't travel like time... time's linear. A mind is instantaneously where it chooses to be. I bring that up bc i remembered you said the cycle universe thing... i am interested in how you address that paradox.
I just remembered i was looking for the right time to ask you this. A source platform would fix certain paradoxes. Specifically infinite regress. If you are an ultimate mind that manifests into experiences... then infinite regress isn't a thing bc a source platform doesn't travel like time... time's linear. A mind is instantaneously where it chooses to be. I bring that up bc i remembered you said the cycle universe thing... i am interested in how you address that parado
I only use a few basic principles to stop the infinite regress. I use the principle of self evidence as my foundation and that allows me to introduce logic with ease. Then I can use the principles of congruence and induction to get out of solipsism and then it's all science from there.
My mom used to say she got precognition before people died. The funny thing is, that she would never realize it was a precognition until after they died, which actually made it a postcognition, which is not nearly as impressive. It's not hard to do. Someone dies and then you think back to a time you were thinking about them or you had some weird feeling and you connect the two. It's only intuitive if you're looking for the "hints"
Right so kind of like reincarnation. I could think of some scientific scenarios where that would work out hypothetically. It's easy on a "simulation platform". In real life, chunks of memories would have to be left over in particles. It wouldn't surprise me. Also, dreams can feel like memories as well. Have you ever went back to a place that you dreamed of before? I have. It's weird and brief when it happens. But it could have something to do with the mind pushing towards certain scenarios.
One thing to consider when you dream. Dreams are a mechanism to keep your body asleep, so it's designed to trick your desires so that you don't wake up. Keep that in mind when you remember your dreams and you'll realize so cool stuff.
-->
@Outplayz
forgot to tag you, read above.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You're just adding the word moral to biblical morals, you have no standard by which to call them moral.
I did not mention the bible at all but as an atheist I do not personally have such a standard no. This does not prevent those who have such a standard from calling them morals.
morals are descriptive and edicts are prescriptive. i.e. The first tells you what is happening after the fact while the second is telling you how things should be.
Morals do not in fact explain what is happening before or after the fact they are concerned with what we ought to do and I'm pretty sure an ought is a subjective opinion.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I only use a few basic principles to stop the infinite regress.
I may not understand your platform well enough so tell me if i'm wrong. But if it's something like a cycle, wouldn't there be infinite cycles before it... so, then how do you ever get to the present? Also, what is outside our universe? If it's only a cycle of our existence... does it say anything if there is something beyond or existence? Or, is it a finite platform? Which has the same problems as above as in what's the end. Sorry, feel like critiquing your belief a bit now lol.
postcognition
Exactly, and i think that helps her deal with the event better too. Actually, that's probably why it happens. In my case, it's a specific thing that happens before i learn of the event or the event happens. It's so specific... man, i really want to tell you, but not this one... i'm still testing it. Let's say in two of them i gathered my things and said bye freaking the people out in how i knew what was about to happen. It's that specific... so much so i'm not shocked to hear the event happened (edit: i wish i could have stopped some of them though.. that's the curse of it i feel).
Have you ever went back to a place that you dreamed of before?
Yeah, dreams are a trip man. I've had some really crazy ones. One really vivid one i remember i was walking down a shopping places and all the sudden looked up in the sky and a bunch of war planes coming my way. Saw the very far back one drop a bomb and just ran. One bombs hit so close i felt the shock wave and fell over. I saved someone, and when we both got clear... a nuke went off. I just looked at him like, we dead bro lol. But the crazy part was as the nukes heat got closer to me, i started burning up, and when it hit me, i woke up literally burning up. I've gotten hot flashes before, but damn i was burning up. Interesting thing for me about death dreams is in all of them... i'm not scared at all. Even the person i saved said in my dream how are you so brave. It's an extension of who you are i guess.
Another interesting thing is, i practiced lucid dreaming. I had 4 in total. One of them was insane. Bc, i walked up out of my body looking at myself sleeping on the floor. I touched my fingers and remember feeling them... it was so vivid it felt like the real me. And i thought, "holy crap i can do anything i want right now." Bc of that though, i had a rush of adrenaline and it woke me up (dammit). I say it's interesting however bc my uncle didn't believe me... he said, i couldn't have been dreaming. He thinks some kind of chemical (i forget exactly) had to have dropped. But he wouldn't believe it was a dream. How can i argue with a neurologist... but, i had 3 others that were dreams i'm pretty sure.
-->
@Outplayz
WHY would this be the case for an animal that evolved on this planet and is it the case for all the animals that have evolved on this planet?Death is just an off switch from this reality with infinite realities facing you after.
-->
@disgusted
Man... i'll give a short attempt. How do you know animals aren't animals in infinite realities? Dead here, pop up somewhere else. That's the implication of the platform.WHY would this be the case for an animal that evolved on this planet and is it the case for all the animals that have evolved on this planet?
-->
@Outplayz
The question was WHY?
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay so if you're going to say that anybody can just call anything a moral and that's what morals are, then we can't have a discussion about morals because then it has no meaning.
We have to agree upon what a moral is.
It's a judgement of right or wrong based on "some" standard. That's a fact.
You put subjective in the "some" but when you do that, you don't get congruence with reality because there are plenty of people who's morals don't match their opinion.
"Ought statements" are prescriptive. That would be a law based on a moral. The moral is not an "ought statement", it's an "is statement" and that makes it descriptive.
For example:
The statement "You ought not cause harm" is prescriptive and is basically a moral edict. However, the statement "Harm is immoral" is a descriptive statement and is true because the harm is being used as the standard.
The difference is that the first statement has no justification, while the second one does.
Matt Dillahunty would word it "if harm is immoral and you want to be moral, then you ought not cause harm."
How does it not explain what's happening? How do you explain murder being ALMOST universally punished. If it's subjective and evolution has nothing to do with it, then why is it not 50/50.
Doesn't evolution want beings to live?
Doesn't it makes sense they would program us to live?
Isn't there a gene for group behaviors?
Aren't morals mostly group behaviors?
I'm telling you, there's staggering symmetry between the two.
-->
@Outplayz
@disgusted
I'll try to clarify. I think what outplayz is trying to say is what makes you think that an animal can't have an off switch as well? is that correct?
-->
@disgusted
I don't understand what you mean by why. Why would animals survive death? I don't have an answer other than the hypothetical i gave you 'if' they do; if you are asking me within my belief. If you want me to give you all types of why's: They were simulated, god created them, Zeus likes cats... i don't know.
-->
@Outplayz
he's asking why the light switch thing applies to animals that evolved.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
This is incorrect. Subjective meaning is still meaning. In fact all meaning is subjective. Meaning is qualified not quantified.Okay so if you're going to say that anybody can just call anything a moral and that's what morals are, then we can't have a discussion about morals because then it has no meaning.