Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 1,299
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tarik
    You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.

    Nonetheless:

    "Why?" ....Because  I'm not Tarik.

    "How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.


  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @FLRW
    A lot of religious people define consciousness as the soul.
    Well I didn’t, so I don’t see the point of bringing that up.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    That humans are a social organism.
    ...So what about antisocial humans?

    A burglar is a sufficient answer since it would explain the cookies being gone.
    Since you put it that way an afterlife is a sufficient answer because it would explain why we should or shouldn’t live a certain lifestyle because of the reward or punishment that awaits for us on the other side.

    I do not have to know why I think in order to think why would I have to know why I care in order to care?
    ...To avoid ignorance? I’ve told you this before, not thinking before you act is the epitome of ignorance.

    It does make dialogue difficult if there is no common standard (for example terms agreed upon at the beginning of the discussion regardless of any larger consensus)
    “no common standard” and agreement aren’t synonymous (in fact they’re antonymous) so I don’t know why you linked the two.

    like for example if the person one side of a discussion refuses to define their terms adequately while simultaneously rejecting many of theit interlocutors terms on the grounds that they dogmatically disagree with using the word any way but their own and especially if they offer no alternative terminology to refer to those concepts.
    You literally just threw shade for no reason because that’s not in the slightest responsive, nonetheless what term haven’t I defined adequately? For the sake of this discussion I don’t have my own way of using the term and due to lack of consensus that’s why it should be avoided. Lastly I’ve said this before your concept is too vague with many holes in it for there to be any terminology for it.

    We don't need a special word for something not existing.
    I didn’t say we did, I was saying there’s nothing subjective in regards to nihilism.

    Only through agreement with another individual.
    But how can you agree if you can’t adequately explain it? Isn’t it all arbitrary in the end?
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @zedvictor4
    You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.
    Not saying I agree or disagree with this but I was always told growing up that there was no such thing as stupid questions, nonetheless your
    inability to answer doesn’t make it dumb the contrary is some could argue your inability to answer and your lack of comprehension is what makes YOU dumb in this specific sense.

    "Why?" ....Because I'm not Tarik.

    "How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.
    There may or may not be dumb questions but that was definitely a dumb answer because it wasn’t in the slightest responsive to what I said or asked, so quit clutching at straws now zed.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    That humans are a social organism.
    ...So what about antisocial humans?
    What about them? They are the exception not the rule.
    A burglar is a sufficient answer since it would explain the cookies being gone.
    Since you put it that way an afterlife is a sufficient answer because it would explain why we should or shouldn’t live a certain lifestyle because of the reward or punishment that awaits for us on the other side.
    So like the burglar it is sufficient but undemonstrated. I still think the child ate the cookies.
    I do not have to know why I think in order to think why would I have to know why I care in order to care?
    ...To avoid ignorance? I’ve told you this before, not thinking before you act is the epitome of ignorance.
    You keep equating not knowing with not thinking. These are separate issues. 
    It does make dialogue difficult if there is no common standard (for example terms agreed upon at the beginning of the discussion regardless of any larger consensus)
    “no common standard” and agreement aren’t synonymous (in fact they’re antonymous) so I don’t know why you linked the two.
    In order for there to be consensus there must be agreement. 
    like for example if the person one side of a discussion refuses to define their terms adequately while simultaneously rejecting many of theit interlocutors terms on the grounds that they dogmatically disagree with using the word any way but their own and especially if they offer no alternative terminology to refer to those concepts.
    You literally just threw shade for no reason because that’s not in the slightest responsive, nonetheless what term haven’t I defined adequately?
    Morality, moral standard, punishment, reward, meaning, soul and higher power off the top of my head.

    For the sake of this discussion I don’t have my own way of using the term and due to lack of consensus that’s why it should be avoided.
    IF we are the ones having the discussion THEN the only concencus that matters is the one between us.
    Lastly I’ve said this before your concept is too vague with many holes in it for there to be any terminology for it.
    If I am using a term that is ill defined please request clarification of it. If it is that I am using a term subjectively and you find that uncomfortable and confusing perhaps the problem is not actually with me.
    We don't need a special word for something not existing.
    I didn’t say we did, I was saying there’s nothing subjective in regards to nihilism.
    I did say I disagree with how you use the term. You cannot ban my language but refuse to acknowledge my request unless you are using a double standard.
    Only through agreement with another individual.
    But how can you agree if you can’t adequately explain it? Isn’t it all arbitrary in the end?
    I cannot adequately explain things to those who are unable to understand or unwilling to listen that is true. That the definition and value of a word can change is no impediment to language or understanding however. Open a window acquired a new and very different meaning in the mid nineties. 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    A lot of religious people define consciousness as the soul.
    Well I didn’t, so I don’t see the point of bringing that up.
    I see this as an opportunity to offer your own definition. You missed that opportunity in the original post merely objecting to a definition rather than supplying one. I am giving you that opportunity again. 

    SOUL
    Noun
    ???

  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,325
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @secularmerlin
    SOUL
    Soul = biologic ergo complex consciousness i.e. consciousness is at minimum twoness aka otherness  OO or as * * i.e. two events, is least complex set of consciousness. They share a line-of- relationship but that gets into more complicated set of physics.

    Woman { Xx--2ndary symbolisastion  as /**\---} the most complex set of souls we know of in Universe, with man { Xy --*Y*--} coming in a close 2nd to woman.

    Spirit-2 is the finite set of fermions { matter particles } and bosons { force particles } that, aggregate collectively as elements, molecules, rocks { substance }, biologics, planets, stars, galaxies etc.

    Spirit-1 = Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

    ---conceptual line-of-demarcation-----

    Spirit-3 = Metaphysical-3 conractive/mass-attractive Gravity (  ),

    Spirit=4 = Metaphysical-4 repulsive Dark Energy )(.

    Gravity and Dark Energy being geometrically, 180 degree, geodesic opposites of a torus geometric set of  inner outer surface curvature seen here as expressed as a vertical { side view } equaltorial  bisection  (  )(  ).

    A birds-eye-view { top view } is more like this (  (  )  )




  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @ebuc
    I do appreciate your input but I'm relatively certain that this is not Tarik's definition especially since he specified that he does not mean conciousness. (He has told me some things that it isn't but not what it is).
  • ebuc
    ebuc avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,325
    3
    2
    4
    ebuc avatar
    ebuc
    --> @secularmerlin
    ...I'm relatively certain that this is not Tarik's definition especially since he specified that he does not mean conciousness......
    I saw two openings to express my thoughts and clarity on definitions, so I chose yours to reply to. Your welcome and good luck with others definitions and clarity.

  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    What about them? They are the exception not the rule.
    They’re not social and they’re humans so to make a statement claiming that they are is inherently false, and what makes your statement a rule?

    So like the burglar it is sufficient but undemonstrated. I still think the child ate the cookies.
    The only way you can know that is if the child eating the cookies is demonstrated otherwise the burglar theory is nothing less than a lie and there’s nothing sufficient about that.

    You keep equating not knowing with not thinking. These are separate issues.
    Pardon me, if you don’t know you shouldn’t act, that’s like going driving unsupervised without your license, if forbid you get into an accident you have no one to blame but yourself because you shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place.

    In order for there to be consensus there must be agreement.
    ...Yes but that’s not what you said before, you equated no consensus to agreement.

    Morality, moral standard, punishment, reward, meaning, soul and higher power off the top of my head.
    Okay I’m not even gonna address morality because that wasn’t apart of my argument (despite how hard you try to make it) and I never defined punishment, reward, soul, and higher power because I thought we agreed on the MEANING of those terms we just disagreed on the existence of some of them but maybe I’m wrong, how do you define them?

    IF we are the ones having the discussion THEN the only concencus that matters is the one between us.
    Well there is NONE here.

    If I am using a term that is ill defined please request clarification of it.
    ...Really? Do I need to start quoting instances when I requested exactly just that?

    I did say I disagree with how you use the term.
    Then that’s another conversation we can have, why do you believe nihilism is subjective?

    I cannot adequately explain things to those who are unable to understand or unwilling to listen that is true.
    Well if that’s how you feel then I don’t know why you even bother.

    That the definition and value of a word can change is no impediment to language or understanding however.
    I think the more important thing to note is whether or not it should change and when did I say there was an impediment to understanding?

    I see this as an opportunity to offer your own definition. You missed that opportunity in the original post merely objecting to a definition rather than supplying one. I am giving you that opportunity again.
    Unlike you I believe one of the purposes of semantics is so we don’t define things any way we want to, so I’ll go out on a limb here and say I agree with Google’s definition (which is free BTW so feel free to look it up if it interests you).

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik

    Okay I’m not even gonna address morality because that wasn’t apart of my argument (despite how hard you try to make it) and I never defined punishment, reward, soul, and higher power because I thought we agreed on the MEANING of those terms we just disagreed on the existence of some of them but maybe I’m wrong, how do you define them?
    You are proposing a thing exists. You must know what you think that thing is. You cannot begin to demonstrate something you cannot even describe in words.

    I don't have to know what a soul is to say that I've never been shown evidence of any.

    I would like to clarify my definitions but you didn't actually object to my definitions but only to the words I assigned them to.

    Your problem with my using meaning as a descriptor of human attitudes and behaviors was not that humans have attitudes or behaviors or even the specific ones I am defining but only that this doesn't constitute "real" meaning and that calling it meaning is "unjustified". Ok so what? Does that mean we can't acknowledge that human attitudes exist? I'm not claiming that it is "real" meaning especially not before you have explained exactly what you mean by "real" and by "meaning".

    If you are going to try to clarify the terms "real" and "meaning" please don't just repeat that it is objective (we have established that you think they are objective just not how they are objective) and please don't bring up punishment/reward or morality unless you mean to define them and explain exactly what they have to do with and how they justify "real" meaning.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    Google’s definition of soul = soul 
    1. the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.(Undemonstrated)
    2. emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance.(subjectively applied. I am of the opinion that kool and the gang have soul)


  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    I can’t help but notice you dodged a lot of my arguments, I’ve ignored it in previous posts but considering it can lead to a circle I’m wondering why and would like an answer.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    No thanks. You really aren't in charge of this conversation and I think we can try to focus a little to avoid any gish gallop. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,733
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tarik
    Typical Tarik.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    I never said I was, I was just making a suggestion (you’ve made plenty of those) but fine by me I guess I’ll return the favor by picking and choosing what to respond to as well, with the expectation of my points being brought up again anyway.

    because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
    I’m gonna change my soul argument to a question and that’s how do you know what it appears to be (to you) is what it actually is?

  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @zedvictor4
    Another pointless comment, goodbye zed.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    I’m gonna change my soul argument to a question and that’s how do you know what it appears to be (to you) is what it actually is?
    IF what it appears to be (what can be demonstrated) isn't what it actually is THEN I still have no reason to believe any differently until it is (demonstrated).

    I don't have to know what a soul is to say that I've never been shown evidence of any.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    IF what it appears to be (what can be demonstrated) isn't what it actually is THEN I still have no reason to believe any differently until it is (demonstrated).
    That makes no sense, because if we established that something isn’t what it seems then we can only do that through demonstration.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    IF what it appears to be (what can be demonstrated) isn't what it actually is THEN I still have no reason to believe any differently until it is (demonstrated).
    That makes no sense, because if we established that something isn’t what it seems then we can only do that through demonstration.
    That is true.  ONLY through demonstration can you show that something is not what it seems thereby CHANGING  what it seems to be to come in line with this new information. 

    IF a soul could be demonstrated THEN it would seem by definition that there were a soul.

    The reverse however always applies in a syllogism.

    IF no soul is demonstrable THEN it would seem by definition that no soul exists.

    IF I may we can only know something is a fact IF  we can discover it. A (not a) fact is indistinguishable from a (definitely a) fact IF we don't know the fact.

    The only reasonable stance therefore is to only call those things facts which we can discover as facts. Any unknown/unknowable "facts" are irrelevant. 


  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    That is true.  ONLY through demonstration can you show that something is not what it seems thereby CHANGING  what it seems to be to come in line with this new information. 
    Not if the demonstration is in death.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    Not if the demonstration is in death.
    IF something is only demonstrable in death and IF we are both alive THEN it is by definition undemonstrable to us.

    IF it is undemonstrable to us THEN it is irrelevant to this conversation. 
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    Your the one that’s so hellbent on arguing my beliefs, if you really feel like discussing an afterlife is irrelevant than just say the word and I’ll gladly turn the floor to you.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 5,698
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Tarik
    Your the one that’s so hellbent on arguing my beliefs, if you really feel like discussing an afterlife is irrelevant than just say the word and I’ll gladly turn the floor to you.
    My stance on this has not changed. An afterlife is irrelevant in determining ones attitudes about an afterlife if (and only if) one cannot test and observe this supposed afterlife. Then it cannot effect ones attitudes or behaviors even if SPECULATION about any possible afterlife can.

    Or in other words.

    IF we cannot observe an afterlife THEN all our ideas about it are by necessity only speculation.

    I will now define this new term.

    SPECULATION 

    Any unverified idea, "fact", or explanation. One's best guess in the absence of any definitive evidence. An off the cuff hypothesis which may or may not even be falsifiable.

  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 984
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @secularmerlin
    If I accept that argument are you willing to defend your beliefs?