Total posts: 420
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
okay, now you're double talking. You literally just said before that people call morality whatever they want and now you're saying that I can't do that so which is it?
You telling me it's not morality is just you stealing the word from me, that doesn't change the fact that my evolutionary cue is the REASON that I'm not murdering people. You' not thinking rationally about this. You're married to this view that morality has to be subjective, so you're rejecting anything that contradicts it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes and I'm arguing that a subjective standard will allow anybody to make up any moral they want and that's not what happens in reality.
I agree with your statement, I'm just saying that it's not the best method. By looking at cases of morality, we can figure out where the standards are coming from by matching them up. When we do that, they get divided into edicts and inherent dispositions. The edicts match Religion and the inherent dispositions match evolution.
so we have Morality A and Morality B and you're trying to say that they're both Morality C. Ironically, this is a category error on your part because you've conflated religion (abstract) with a biological cue (physical) which is what you accused me of doing earlier when I wasn't.
I combined an apple and a pen which are both physical so it's not a category error. The name is always going to be an abstract because it's the category.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
it's a yes or no question. are they the same thing or not. would the name 4 mean 1 and 2 simultaneously?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not a category error, but just to make you feel better.
If I have the number 1 and 2 and then I name them both 4, are they the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
That's probably what he's working towards, but that's your call to make, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay. Let's say I have an Apple and a Pen and I name them both Rocks. Does that make them the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
he's asking why the light switch thing applies to animals that evolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You're just adding the word moral to biblical morals, you have no standard by which to call them moral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
First point.
Induction is to observe something. You make a base case by observing something and then you have a weak induction which is the step you're on and your have a strong induction for the total number of steps.
So if I've observed something X number of times with a Y percent success rate, then I get a probability of being right based on those variables.
if X is a ridiculously huge number and Y is 100%, then the induction is so strong that it's nearly a metaphysical proof by itself. Gravity is the best example. The X value for gravity is a number I can't even write because it's been observed since the dawn of time and the induction rate is 100%, so I have no reason to doubt gravity. The same goes for corporeal. X is too big to write and Y is 100%. That's induction in a nutshell.
Now induction is not perfect, however, there are other logical tools that can prove things more rigorously. Induction is kind of like the test for knowledge to get into the deduction club with the cool thoughts. Once induction gets strong enough, it can be fitted with a tautology which makes it a metaphysical truth if it can be proven sound, for that, we need proof by contradiction. These are the various gauntlets that knowledge has to pass.
Second point.
Well if it's 100% proven then not only will people kill themselves, but it would be justified to do so.
Third point
well it gives you hope, not necessarily everyone else. It wouldn't give me any hope because I could never believe it. You admit yourself that he platform is just intuitive and for the sake of convenience. If that's your concession, then you have to realize that you're tapping out as far as every finding truth because you've based your foundation on a feeling.
Fourth Point.
You're assuming that we need the whole picture to know about the parts of the whole. That's not true. We can know all the parts we see without knowing the whole and we can tell when we've reached the "wall" of the puzzle because things will start to act differently, like plank length for example.
Fifth Point.
I believe that you experienced those things, but that doesn't make them true. When red flag that often comes up in these types of stories is that people will allude to "hearing a voice" or "getting this feeling that said I had to do this" and there's always a huge assumption that didn't logically follow in the story like "and he was healed of his vomitting" and "this dream must have connected". I don't mean to pick at you, but this is not logical. There needs to be a method to ensure that your conclusions are justified, you got to do the leg work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm talking about the feeling you get in your stomach when you watch somebody get murdered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand how that logically follows. Please explain how the cue is subjective if it's not dependent on Opinion. You keep saying "because everyone doesn't have it" But that doesn't matter. The cue is either objective or it's not, it doesn't matter how many people have it.
Objective: Apart from opinion
Subjective: Based on opinion.
Universal: Applying without exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is incorrect. A psychopath does have an opinion about morals even if they are of the opinion that there should be no morals or that morals should not apply to them.
The psychopath has an opinion about murder, but not for the negative cue for murder because the psychopath has never experienced it before. Just because a psychopath uses the word "moral" doesn't mean it's the same word we use. If they don't have the inner hardware to feel the cue, then they can only understand morality from an external standpoint. They wouldn't even know there was suppose to be a cue unless somebody told them first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
On the first point.
Right, so when I gave those percentages. I was talking about induction. So I'm not necessarily saying that incorporeal doesn't exist. I'm giving the induction rates that we currently have on it because induction is the only way for me to get external information directly. So since there's a 100% rate of induction on corporeal and a 0% on incorporeal, I have to operate under the assumption that only corporeal is real until I can find evidence for it. The problem here is that I can't even give something a name if it has a 0% induction rate. So it can never be anything other than hypothetical.
Now as for dark matter and energy, those could very well end up as the inductions that you need. However, at the moment we don't have enough information so without having that information, it's safer to assume that those things will end up falling into one of the categories that we have already made inductions for.
On the second point.
So let's say that's true and people will kill themselves. Why shouldn't they? If the new reality is so much better than wouldn't it be immoral to force people to stay in this world of suffering? Furthermore, if there is a reality where we can be whatever we want, than why are we in this reality to begin with and why do we intuitively work so hard to stay in it as long as possible and delay our inevitable happiness?
Third point.
Hinduism has it's advantage from theoretical stand point because it's foundation is built on a very flexible concept. However, from a political standpoint, I would say it's not doing as well as some other systems since people do sometimes get killed over there religion which is not as common in the more politically subdued religions like Christianity and Judaism.
Science might not be moving in the direction you like, but it's still moving forward. While money plays into it, it's not the only factor. Universities do plenty of fringe studies and there are plenty of theists with money. I promise you. At some point, we have to realize that part of the problem is we don't even know exactly what it is we're looking for. We don't know which tools to use, and we don't know how it fits into or is necessary for our model of reality. All of these things need to be addressed and then science would actually jump all over this. This scientist who discovers ghosts will get a Nobel Prize and a pile of money for sure.
Fourth point.
You say you're not jumping to conclusions, but you have this dream about vegas and then you connect it to a trip with vegas which you then connect with a guy throwing up blood (which is a normal thing that happens and people don't necessarily die on the spot from it.) and then you say something about hearing a voice (which could either be your inner dialogue or some kind of hallucination) and then you touch the guy and he stops vomiting. Which btw, touching people's backs sometimes helps with vomiting because part of vomiting is psychological and the physical shock of sensation can sometimes interrupt the vomiting process. Now if you say you're not jumping to conclusions, then can you explained how you ruled out all of the normal possibilities because you should rule out the most likely ones first.
1. I had a dream that happened to relate to something that happened later and then someone vomited and stopped vomiting at a weird time.
Sounds more plausible than.
2. I had a dream that predicted that I was going to vegas to heal my friend of his deadly vomiting problem and I think it was magic.
Furthermore, are you sure it was blood? If he drank something read, it could look EXACTLY like blood. I know this from experience.
To your extra point.
Well I can't understand the whole properly if I don't look at the pieces. If the story was true, then all of the pieces should work to justify the whole in some way. You can't just connect a dream to something if there's not logical reason to do so. It's not like you had the dream and then woke up and had a surprise trip to vegas the same day. Maybe then it would be a little odd, but it still wouldn't be evidence of much except maybe that you subconsciously new you were going.
I don't know how a natural explanation is anymore forced that a supernatural one. I mean yeah, it FEELS more smooth to suppose something supernatural because it's so easy to do "Why'd this cup fall over? Fairies did it. Well that was easy enough" But we're not doing the leg work here. there's a good reason that we go to the natural explanation first. Because statistically speaking, natural things have infinitely more. So that means that we have a data set to compare it to. when that data set doesn't match, THEN we go to supernatural.
On the millions of people thing. The amount of people doesn't matter. The problems is you can find contradictions in the claims and the claims only ever start to match after people have spread the claims around enough to agree on them.
For example. When people first started giving alien stories, all the stories were dramatically different. But as time went on they started to become more and more alike because people would see the news and it would cause a norm for it.
The important thing isn't the amount of people per se, it's that the stories match and we can find evidence to verify the stories outside of the accounts themselves.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
logical set as in set theory in math.
All logic is reducible to math.
Place holder as in how 0 is a place holder for the absence of value. (a conceptual representation of something)
Merely simply mean "this and nothing more" it doesn't speak to complexity.
To explain a logical set better. It's the equivalent to a parenthesis in math.
(A,B,C,D) It's a border that closes off a "set" of propositions each of which is a "set" unto itself (hence the name)
I'm sure you've spotted the infinite regress within what I just said.
Eventually, the set must be reduced to a tautology. This is where identity comes into play. At some point the set gets reduced to a bunch of identities that we placed on things and the validity of our logic depends on if we assigned the identities in a way that matches reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I dont believe, that, you have nearly as much history with EtrW, as some of us do from DDO. History of context is relevant.
I have no history whatsoever
So I may have been to picky but t your use of the word "with" bothered me, because to me, it makes it appear more as tho mind is and occupied space that exists along side. or inside the brain, and that is not the case. Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceepts not an occupied space.
Right. I don't think thoughts exist in the brain unless someone was to take a literal approach and say that synapses are "thoughts" which is what you have called chewing gum something or other, I forgot the wording.
I also don't think that thoughts occupy space. I divide everything into existence and abstraction.
"agency" is not a word I use except for insurance agency etc. People who avoid precise ---if not concise--- clearly explained definitions often are playing chewing-gum mind-games to avoid truth, not to find truth.
Seems intuitive to avoid a loaded phrase like that. Let me ask you this.
Do you think that people have a qualia? Specifically, do you think people "view/sense" their reality, or do you think that ARE their senses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No, they are blatant lies. For example, he claims consciousness is NOT a result of the brain and that science confirms it. Is that not an obvious lie? Are you actually saying that is a belief? Seriously?
You do realize that people can believe things that are not true right? That doesn't make them liars. To lie is to misrepresent your subjective assessment of reality. If he really believes that, it's not a lie and even a lie detector will tell you the same thing.
Wtf are you talking about? I didn't attack you, dude. Get a grip.
Really? so you didn't say.....
You're next up, it would appear.
hmm, I could call that a lie, but since I'm not a mind reader, I'll have to assume that you either didn't remember this or you just don't think it's a personal attack. Either way, you're incorrect because you're making an attribution to my personal character and that is, indeed, a personal attack.
Doesn't seem like you are. Seems more that you want to defend EtrnlVw's lies. Feel free. No one is stopping you. Why you would do such a thing is baffling. Are you another one of his sock puppets?
hmm. more personal attacks. This has nothing to do with his beliefs. He can believe the moon is made of green cheese for all I care.
I simply don't see the need for bullying and as you speak to me, your behavior seems to deteriorate toward me. So while you keep telling me that ET is arguing in bad faith, I see you here doing the very thing you're accusing him of. What do you have to say to that?
Created:
It has been shown that as long as the first and last letter are correct, then when context is also known, then that more often than not, the word can be figured out ergo it has meaning to the human.
You're talking about a mechanism in human biology that some people don't have. I wouldn't call that an intrinsic rule.
Ex the word "meaning" has a definition{s} ergo a meaning to the human. However, if take the same number information bits/pixels and rearange the patterned sequence ...agminen... of their occurrence then the meaning may be lost
dictionaries don't give meanings but rather usages. They're basically word surveys. That's why one word will have multiple usages. So we can't say that a word intrinsically has a "meaning" we can only derive the common dominators between the usages to try to figure out what the intended necessary meaning of the word is.
So while a dictionary is a good starting point, we can't treat it like an authority. Because it's not prescriptive it's descriptive. That's why I prefer the philosophical approach of "fleshing out the word" and getting to the root of what the individual is trying to say. Like when you say "synergetic"
I could look in a dictionary and see what you mean by it. But I have multiple usages to contend with so I'd have to ask which one you prefer, then I'd have to attempt to apply the word by your usage and see if it's consistent with how you use it. If it is, then the word has already been fleshed out to the usage. If not, then there is some context within the word that is not within the usage and I have to figure out what it is.
From an epistemological standpoint. A word is merely a place holder for a logical set. This is basically what a definition looks like to me:
[rock] = [rX,rY,rZ] so it doesn't matter how rock is used here because I will just reduce the properties of the set and then separate them into tautologies. This isn't really a critique of anything but rather my methodology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
No, it's what occurs normally when people do little more than lie, they get ridiculed. I seriously doubt you have never ridiculed anyone for lying.
Never said I haven't and if I was wrong to do so then I was wrong to do so, doesn't change facts.
Just because somebody has a belief that you disagree with doesn't meant they're lying. That's a strawman.
You won't have to believe it when you see it.
vacuous truth
No, just one of very many who have tried to get through to Et with reason, but he wants no part of that. You're next up, it would appear.
Nice deflection and then subsequent personal attack on me. So now I'm illogical huh? I'm not really seeing ET as the problem here. All of the contention seems to be flowing from you am I wrong?
Nio, it's simply the difference between what you would expect and what you'll actually receive. Feel free to continue discussing your beliefs with EtrnlVw, no one is stopping you.
Another deflection. Smooth
I'm not trying. I have no problem sitting back and watching the entertainment. Feel free to bang your head against the wall.
Really? If you're so content to sit back and watch, then why are you being so verbose?
If you're not trying to win me over, then why are we even speaking right now? Seem dubious.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
it also works in math.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
it's a philosophy thing. It's one way of proving something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
If speaking truth and rational, logical common sense hurts the ego a little, that can be a good thing as it may actually cause the person to reconsider placing rational, logical common sense and truth as a priority of their ego.Yes, there may be some circumstances where an individual is so insecure and depressed with themselves that pumping their ego, even a little bit, may be all that keeps them going.
Well some truths are vacuous. So while it might be objectively true that somebody is illogical, that's fine. If somebody has bad thought processes and you point that out. Also fine. But once you step into the character of a person, that is when we're not being productive anymore and any truth revealed at that point would be vacuous. Now if we're talking about ethics, then maybe personal attacks are not vacuous, I'm on the fence for that because I just thought of it. But I digress.
Okay, hypothetically, there are SOME circumstances where it's okay to ridicule. I'm not convinced this is one of those times.
Barring incorrect wording that is basically rational, logical common sense. Win/Win.
I'm asking this merely for the sake of self improvement. What could I have done better with my wording here?
Again the wording is not correct.Vehicle = hardware ergo biologic{ soul } ergo,Access to metpahysical-1, mind = access to software i.e. the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts associated with code writing exists via the binary coding system.You { W-Ralph } are far more rational, logical and common sense oriented than EtrW. if you cant see that truth then we can do is try to inform of this and other truths.
I was trying to make it succinct with what he was telling me. I'm not sure what analogy I would use for myself. I tend to think of agency as me watching a screen that is a perfectly congruent abstraction of the physical world. But even that doesn't sum it up because it's not a screen in front of me, but rather the "screen" surrounds me in the form of my collective senses. I do make a distinction between my senses and my agency. I'm not sure if I would segregate thought from agency nor am I sure if I would segregate thoughts from instincts. The lines seem blurred there probably because of their synergetic nature. That word use was a coincidence, lol. You would probably say that it wasn't and that the term was necessary for my explanation. :)
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Not necessarily. The conclusion would have to support that we're justified to call that thing meaning. It would have to not conflate with other words (like if we took the word rock and put it in for example)
Even if it was something close, the result would have resemble what we see in the real world and then of course there would have to be science, lol. So don't think of this as you conceding nihilism, think of it as proving your nihilism by contradiction. If you can assume nihilism is false and still get nihilism or a logical contradiction, then it proves nihilism and it's a good thought experiment
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How would you feel about basing meaning off of internal cues that are objective? Just a thought experiment. Essentially "meaning" is just a word and we can try and figure out what people are really saying when they say meaning. One way to do this is to presuppose that X = meaning and then take it for a test drive to see what happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm not a deontologist.
I'm a moral particularist
I believe morals are decided by the situation, not the outcome.
deontologists are more about following a prescribed ethical standard.
My view says that every moral situation is unique.
It's similar to utilitarianism, accept that I can reject appeals to utility when they're immoral. You're view is a slave to the doctor problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Ridiculing someone who constantly lies and contradicts himself on a public forum is exactly what they deserve. There lies and contradictions are abusive to our intelligence.
That's an appeal to justice. I would say that's a contradictory irrational belief that is a lie. Should I ridicule you?
He will get extremely rude, soon. He hates it when you show him his claims are as empty as his head.
I'll believe that when I see it and it doesn't change the fact that your behavior is wrong.
He has never gained one shred of knowledge from anything anyone has ever explained to him. He doesn't care about knowledge, he only cares about peddling his lies and delusions. But, you'll find all of this out soon enough.
Oh so you're a mind reader now? That sounds like a contradictory irrational belief that is a lie. Should I ridicule you?
I couldn't agree with you more, but Et is not looking for answers, he believes he is our ultimate teacher, that we know nothing, that he has special knowledge we all lack that we must learn from him. If not, he'll get pissed off and start calling you names and tell you you're an idiot for not believing him. When was the last time you conversed with someone who claims they often speak with Overlords in other galaxies, and the conversations were reasonable, raitional and logical?
You agree and then you say but? tisk tisk. That sounds like special pleading. I could say that's contradictory, irrational, and a lie. Should I ridicule you?
You're not really winning me over here. You've made a great case for me to doubt your temperament so far, but not his.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
@mustardness
@disgusted
I did not start this conversation to ridicule people on a personal level so I'm going to ask everybody to stop bullying this user.
If any of you actually consider yourself intellectuals then you'll check your personal qualms and give him the same liberties that everybody else gets with there knowledge.
I know there's at least one of you who's views I highly disagree with but that doesn't permit me to attack you personally which is why I stopped discoursing with that user because I didn't want to sink into more pettiness.
Obviously, I can't force you to stop, but I will make your transgressions transparent so you can feel the same pain that you're inflicting.
Please consider what I've said and leave the user alone please.
If you want to get into arguments, there's a perfectly good PM section that you can use.
Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Most likely, we've had a whole lot more experience with EtrnlVw, this website and the prevoius (ddo) where Et has made claims he regularily speaks to Overlords and other Beings on planets in distant galaxies. That being one of his less delusional beliefs. He'll say one thing and then contradict himself, often in the very same sentence. Good luck.
Sure, so let's assume this is true.
Does that permit abusive behavior?
Is he being rude?
If yes, does two wrongs make a right?
Does calling somebody delusional help them gain knowledge?
If you really care enough about his "delusional" beliefs such that you're willing to talk down about him, wouldn't it follow that you want those beliefs to change since you're putting in so much effort?
If you want to change those beliefs, doesn't it follow that we should lead by example and come at it with our minds open and provide them with the answers they seek?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I like my profile pic, but I'll check it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sorry about the winded posts, it's not a topic I can articulate in a few paragraphs but yeah I'll try and make it easier. I'll get to your post a bit later.
No problem. If you could just change paragraphs when you change thoughts, that would give me enough to make sure I cover everything regardless of the length. I don't want to restrict the depth of your rigor, lol.
If you've been paying attention, it's all he has is ridicule so there's nothing ever to debate. I just mainly ignore it most of the time.
I just noticed it so I'll audit and see if you're right. If you are, it will become apparent very quickly, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
To the first point.
okay, I think I see what you're getting at. The mind is a vehicle of the soul. So what about memories and thoughts? When my hypothetical soul leaves my mind, what does it take with it? Do I assimilate until the ether with the other souls? Do I ever come back as the same soul? Do I assimilate and then come out a different soul? Do I assimilate permanently? If so, does the soul pool just get bigger? I ask these questions to get a better idea of what you're talking about, feel free to categorize them for sake of convenience.
To the second point.
Sure, so I admit that right now, I'm an agency. But in my view that agency is enhanced by my physical being. So when I break down after death, my agency will become far more simplistic. the major divergence in our beliefs comes at the break down. I believe that my agency only happens because of groups of complex Mini consciousness that form a type of hive mind. This is not completely a bare belief because the body appears to function like a hive mind if you think about it. I'm made up of billions upon billions of microscopic primitive life forms that seem to all intuitively function towards my existence. Sounds a lot like Bees doesn't it? The difference is that this network doesn't have it's own agency. So it's kind of like this is a town and my agency is the mayor who delegates the macro tasks while leaving the micro tasks to the city laborers.
I could imagine a model with individual minds that go on after death, but I don't see the need for it. It would just be something to comfort myself. So as a thought experiment How would you consolidate agency in my worldview where everything is strictly physical? I understand you might think this is impossible. But just for the sake of rigor, I would like to see your best try at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I understand your frustration with supernatural claims. But ridiculing him isn't going to produce much. I know from personal experience, lol. You got to give people the best answers possible and let them find the truth for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
but don't conflate awareness (consciousness) with the mind
I don't. Consciousness is the disposition of experiencing reality and the mind the abstraction for how our brain works. But both of these things are physical. Could you explain to me how they're not? My mind only works with my brain, there's evidence for this. There's not evidence of immaterial minds as far as I know.
Energy exists because first conscious activity exists
That's a claim. What's your reason for believing this? First of all, there's a conflation with the word energy There's physical energy (bosons) and abstract energy (kinetic, potential.). There is no evidence that anything created bosons nor is there evidence that bosons have ever stopped existing, so what exactly makes a mind necessary in that process? It seems to me that bosons get along just fine on their own.
The reason I pointed this out is so you understand that physical death does not mean the death of the mind
Well death is an ill defined word to an extent. Sure if your whole body stops working at once, you're definitely dead. But if just the heart stops, the brain can be saved and if the brain loses oxygen, then it gets damage and you're not you anymore. There's plenty of evidence to support that nothing of the "self" survives death. Most people don't like this, but it's the grimm reality. The mind is your brain and all the evidence points that way. While I'm not against outside the box thinking, I believe that it is foolish for us to ignore evidence that is right in front of our faces.
You keep talking about the creator, what's your evidence for a creator? I'm not really okay with bold assertions, I don't need a picture, but could you give me the logic of what a creator would be like? Because any creator I've ever thought up is a logical contradiction or is not sufficient to be a creator by measure of it's power.
Ahhhh, Brahman. While brahman is not as nonsensical is the Christian God, it's still pretty nonsensical. Any God that starts with "I am everything" Is already writing a check that it can't cash. Brahman of course goes farther than this and creates subsets of himself in the other gods, which makes it even more unlikely.
Non interactive is misleading, because you have an omnipresent conscious Reality that has access to every individual channel of conscious awareness and can experience and observe through all those channels
Well it's not misleading because I'm using science to draw that conclusion. You saying that an "omnipotent creator has access to us" is a claim without evidence. Here's an indisputable fact.
There are four known forces in the universe that humans interact with. If there's a fifth, it's because we don't interact with it because we don't see it at the moment and probably never will without a third party factor. In order for anything to be observable by humans, it must interact with one of these forces. If it does not, not only is it not observable, but it is also unable to interact with anything. So this type of being would just float around in it's own universe interacting with it's own things never seeing our world. Even if such a thing existed, it would be effectively identical to nonexistence to us because it's not a contingency of ours and is it contingent upon us. We'd be in separate plains of existence for all eternity, in a manner of speaking. (not an actual different plain, but rather it occupies what we can't and visa versa in the universe.)
Explain how that works. How does being corporeal fit into an infinite existence?
Well when I say infinite, I mean that matter and energy never stop existing. I don't mean eternal as in "heaven" It's not a contradiction at all. Evidence suggest that all matter and energy have always existed. There is no evidence of a "soul" so there's not reason for me to think that my agency is anything other than physical as well. There's not evidence to the contrary.
I don't mind talking to you but in the future, bulleting your stuff would make it easier. I can only read so much in a short time span and I want to be able to address you as thoroughly as possible. I await your responses :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Well, what is the opposite for you to say it's possible?
well the polar opposite is "no incorporeal things". which is a claim of non existence. So then we ask ourselves, what shows if non existence is possible? Well for existence to be proven, we use strong inductions (i.e. we sense something existing 100% of the times we encounter it) for non existence, it's the opposite (i.e. We have a lifetime 0% induction rate). Since corporeal has a 100% induction rate and Non corporeal has a 0% induction rate, it is only rational to begin from the position of the corporeal. While I would like their be something metaphysical out there, my opinion doesn't matter. The induction rate tells me all I need to know at the moment and to not follow it will lead to contradictions of logic.
I don't think we can know of its existence until this earth is so good that people will finish their time here over killing themselves
While that's an interesting theory and I commend of you for the good outside of the box thinking (seriously, this is a good hypothetical) I do see at least one flaw in it. Humans are programmed to survive. Even if we had proof of a heaven, we'd probably be incredulous enough not to waste our guaranteed life on earth. It comes down to "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Furthermore, wrap your mind around this concept. If people know as an indisputable fact that killing oneself sends them to paradise, then why would suicide be wrong in this case? Wouldn't this be the same as people taking a permanent one way trip to Europe? They're not suffering, they're in heaven. Mind blowing right? I can't jump to these types of conclusions with logical seriousness though because I don't have any evidence for it.
Not let's find out if their is higher intelligences... that wouldn't get funded.
Well Christians get research grants all the time. So there's that. I haven't head of any special paranormal research coming out of the east. Is this based off current events or just your gut intuition about their spiritualism their? The Tao is probably the most popoular religion unless you go to india then it's Hinduism. Both of these faiths are actually just as rigid and strange as Christianity but us westerners look at it with mystique most of the time because it's foreign to us. I used to think Taoism was a great life philosophy until I realized that it has a bunch of silly mythology behind it and same goes for followers of Brama. Furthermore, there are plenty of paranormal researchers. Haven't you ever heard of Rupert sheldrake? He's done al kinds of metaphysical research.
I was just saying if i'm the only one that has metaphysical experiences...
Well solipsism is a claim and therefore it has a burden of proof. This is one of my main issues with it. Solipsism walks up to us and say "Your reality is false and now you have to proof it's not" while ignoring the fact that it just made a claim and needs to prove itself first. There's far more proof for reality than there is solipsism so that's my methodology for reject it. I obviously have more reasons than just this, but that's the base of it.
He wasn't just vomiting... he was vomiting blood. I talked to family members that are doctors and they said most cases is poisoning and a bad sign.
Well bad sign doesn't mean dying on the spot and sometimes people just vomit blood and then stop. I'm a little troubled that you're so quick to jump to the supernatural when you haven't ruled out all of the more likely solutions first? Don't you think it makes more sense to go with mundane causes when they apply?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
On the third one. I reject solipsism outright, so this is a point of contention for us. I'd be happy to explain my reasoning behind this and hear your reasons for supporting it to whatever degree.
On the story. That's a pretty trippy story but they guy didn't sound like he was dying and vomit is an unpredictable thing so there's no way to know if it was your doing or not. The dream, while creepy, doesn't really show anything other than a little deja vu maybe. I would say that jumping to the supernatural conclusions in that situation would be unjustified since I could think of it least one or two ways to explain what you experienced via the natural. In general, we should except the most simple and likely solutions to problems unless there's good reason to believe otherwise.
Created: