Total posts: 420
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
On the first one.
I would concede that such a state of affairs is possible (incorporeal that communicates or interacts strictly through us.). so once I know something is possible, the next step for me is showing that it's necessary for my model of reality. Part of making sure we have true beliefs is to make sure we're not taking on unnecessary beliefs. Now obviously it's hard to just say that something is necessary unless It's intuitive, but the best way is the impossibility of the contrary. So I would then ask if the opposite is impossible. The answer is obviously no, so this leaves me having to be skeptical about it at least. I could go further and say that I would claim it's not true at all, but I can't go 100% there at the moment because it's a fresh concept that I have to slush around in my brain. So for now I'll say that there doesn't appear to be enough evidence.
On the second one.
Okay so one thing here is I don't believe we can empirically say that we "haven't even scratched the surface of the metaphysical" because we don't know where the surface is. We could be at 1% of all knowledge or 99% and we wouldn't necessarily know it. Although a good sign that we reach metaphysical is when we start getting self evidence and complete inductions. For instance. Math is technically metaphysical because we know it to be 100% true so there is nothing beyond it, therefore we can know that it's the metaphysical barrier of math. So to an extent, we can see how far we've come, but only to an estimation at best. The other thing is that I wouldn't exactly call it dogma. That term implies that scientists hold their views in a way that's unshakable or axiomatic in some way. Science is the opposite of that. Science tests the data and let's the results do the talking. That's why scientists have to be skeptical, because to assume too much leads to dogma. The last thing here is a question. You say that physical tools are not sufficient to test metaphysical things. What tools would you suppose that we use and why are we justified to go beyond normal skepticism and make metaphysical claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Right, but when you say consciousness, are you saying there's something behind the wheel experiencing it? Because that's what I think. Not necessarily a "mind" but something that is taking in the experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the main problem with AI is that we can't give it sensory ability on the level of organism. Humans do all kinds of millions of micro assessment of their environment and we do it using organs that are preprogrammed to work a certain way. computer programs don't have that intuitive function and have to be programmed so this makes sensory functions an issue. I'm a coding nerd so the problems with AI are apparent to me as I've had to make AI for my crappy games that I make when I'm bored, lol.
I think that the level of consciousness we experience definitely requires complexity. However, That doesn't mean there can't also be a more basic form of consciousness.
Amoebas appear to have good decision making skills and they're quite simplistic in terms of structure, so there is some small reason to believe that agency is not what we think it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think carbon is a likely candidate since conscious things all have carbon as far as I know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well, for me. It's a matter of necessity. That is to say that when we attempt to account for everything, we have nothing to account for consciousness that is not a particle, so based on our current information, it seems likely that whatever causes us to "view" reality is contained within that set somewhere. I'm not saying it has to be electrons. It could be something less basic or possibly more basic. It could be quarks when arranged properly, it could be proteins. The reason I tend to sit on the atomic level because that seems to be the most likely spot for it to manifest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I believe that some do yes. At the very least, I believe they fully account for it. i.e. the brain appears to be only particles. The extra step further is merely a hypothesis, but it's intuitive to me and I can't force myself to not believe it, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
incorporeal would be one example of something that's metaphysical yes. metaphysical simply means "at or beyond the limit of physics" So it could be something that we know 100% but in this case I was talking about that which goes beyond our knowledge. My only real problem with being incorporeal would be if it was define as being non interactive, that is to say it can't affect reality.
My problem with that would be that if something cannot interact with reality, it could not affect it either, so this causes a problem of "how is it making me conscious if it doesn't interact" so for me. Being incorporeal would have to have some physical aspect to it at least enough for us to interact with it even if we can't necessarily observe it directly. That also means that it could ultimately be detected with the best possible technology. (hypothetically speaking)
Do you believe that we're in a simulation? I'd be interested to discuss that as well. I have pretty good personal reasons why I don't believe that, but a lot of people disagree with me because of the nature of skepticism in the modern era.
I personally think being corporeal can fit into infinite existence. Not if you believe in singular minds having afterlives. But if you believe in a collective consciousness like I do, then a corporeal and infinite cyclic universe works. I know most people cite heat death here. but heat death assumes that we're in a closed system which is unprovable with our current technology.
That's a good question. the reason I stop at the physical is because I've seen no good evidence of anything beyond the physical. I would be willing to entertain the idea if we had some sort of scientific jump off point, like if we could get the right data out of near death experience for instance. But so far, such attempts have not yielded sufficient results in my opinion.
Basically, I'm sticking with a physical model until it is apparent to me that physical is not enough to complete the model. If I reached the point where it just couldn't work without something bigger, then I would probably start asking the supernatural question to myself. I'm trying to find the right metric between healthy skepticism and healthy acceptance of apparent proofs. I believe going in either end too far is vacuous. It's not that I wouldn't welcome things like alternate realities and such either, but I would need a reason for it to be in the model and I would expect us to approach it scientifically regardless of how much mystic it might have. I know this limits my imagination a hair. But I'm okay with it.
I mean, I've had strange experiences that felt spiritual at the time, but seemed quite mundane when I looked back on it as a skeptic. I used to think the walls were breathing sometimes. But as an adult, I now know that's sleep deprivation. I used to think I could meditate to control the weather, but I realized that my body could feel moisture in the air before it rained. etc.
That's where we would heavily diverge. I don't believe that my individual mind has always existed. I believe that I'm just a collection of particles that have always existed and had consciousness and that when they break apart they'll form new minds that are nothing like mine except that they used a few of my particles. So in that sense, I will live on I suppose. There could be a case for maybe a collective conscious that has "agents" at their core. So the agent is the individual mind and the collectives are kind of like conductors or railroad tracks, however you want to think of it. Extensions of the agents. I'm not totally against that idea but it's an extra assumption so I'd need a good reason to assume it. Give me one and I will, lol. certainly agency would be nice if it was true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Yes, humans have to exist first. That has nothing to do with a baseline subjective leading into an objective. Do you deny that it goes both ways. Can Objective go into subjective and then back into objective? Because that's all I'm really saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
indeed. what's your point? Subjective can precede objective as well. Chess is a good example. The rules are subjective and the assessments are objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It's not that I don't want to explain myself, it's just that you don't explain yourself so I don't feel the need to reciprocate.
Tell you what.
You link me an explanation of synergy as applied to math (ergo how 1 + 1 = 4) and then I'll explain induction to you. fair beans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
you're in a philosophy thread and you don't know what induction is (the basis of all philosophical arguments) and yet when I ask for a definition to your overly complicated synergy thing, you flip your lid. Man you're a real piece of work I got to tell you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You can't say the psychopath has subjective morals because the psychopath doesn't have the cue and therefore has no opinion about it whatsoever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That's my objection, you saying it's subjective because It's not universal. That doesn't make it subjective. People's opinions about murder don't change the cue. That's the part where we disagree because I fully believe that you're mixing up objectivity with universality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, so. It's true that I could form an opinion off of the objective cue and it would completely be subjective, you got me there.
However. Because the cue is objective, we can develop a standard of assessment that is universal. A good example would be math. 2 + 2 = 4 is objective even though our definitions of the numbers are subjective. The idea of addition is subjective. The idea of equality is subjective. But once we have made these subjective ideas, We can then make objective standards off of them.
So there's a kind of trade off between the two. The part that makes it objective is once we all agree on the standard. So once we all agree that morality is based on this objective cue, while it's true that us naming it morality is technically subjective. The assessment we make off the standard is objective because we're not leaving it to opinion anymore.
I'm not saying that morality is intrinsic or universal or a living breathing thing. I'm just saying that when people talk about morality, in some way or another, they're talking about that objective cue that we get.
It's not that people have different opinions about murder being wrong. Everyone who has that cue (which is everyone but psychopaths) believes murder is wrong. But once we add opinions to it after the fact, then people get bogged down in the details and add up at conclusions that don't match their cues.
That's why I made the comment about peeling the layers off. People take that initial objective thing and then add cultural opinions to it. But when we don't do this, we get an objective morality.
For instance. A Christian sees the bible as a book with moral edicts, so they conflate biblical morality with that cue and this adds their opinion.
If we just took the cues as they were and applied particularism to them, we get something the equivalent of moral math. That's about as objective as it gets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless everyone has the same cues we are talking about something that is subjective to the individual. Admitting that different species have different moral cues is tantamount to admitting that morality is subjective when we examine the fact that people don't even necessarily share them well... As for universal morality that would be the only objective morality and I don't believe that exists.
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, 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Been there done that and your ego blocks all access to my explanations of truth to you Sad :--(
The only thing blocking me from knowing about your position is you. I've asked several times for an explanation of mathematical synergy and you will not explain it, nor will you provide me with a comment number of when you explained it, nor will you provide me a link that explains it. so who's really blocking whom here?
Just provide me with the information and put your ego aside please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
False. Your still play your ego based mental blockages to ignnorance of truth with regurgitating a false-gum, mind game. Sad :--(
Okay, if you've explained it, then cite specifically where you explained it to me instead of just saying "false" like that means anything. I'm being quite patient with you in trying to figure out what you're talking about and you're making every effort to ensure that I never do. So just give me the comment number or internet link showing what mathematical synergy is and be done with it. Otherwise, you're just being rude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Do you ever take anyone at their word?
Yes, I really wanted to know what the topic was about.
Please stop calling me a liar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I could see how experience precedes thought. But if you looked in the other direction, couldn't you also say that induction precedes thought?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It's really not hard. IF someone asked me what a tautology was. My answer wouldn't be to insult them and tell them they don't have logic just because they asked a question.
I would explain it to them because that's how people work. usually
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You answered some of my questions. You still haven't explained mathematical synergy. So do that or don't but I'm ignoring your insults. Save your mind games for somebody else. Cause They're not for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Sur you get it but your ego blocks you ability to acknowledge truth when it is presented to you in clearly and concisely. Sad :--(
Nice personal attack. You know what's really sad? when somebody who's interested in your ideas ask a question because they want to know more and you insult them. That's very logical of you.
No, your ego based mental blockages to truth is not cool. It is immoral.
You gave me no choice but to assume it's nonsense because when I asked you to explain how synergy applies to math, you shut me down. How am I suppose to understand a foreign concept that you bring to this forum when you won't even explain it to me. You keep telling me to sift through some link or something. Just explain it to me.
If you cant handle the truth then you need to get out of the kitchen of truth.
You mean the truth you refuse to share with me? That's rich.
More ego based false accusations by you is immoral chewing gum that you repeated regurgitate, to chew and repeat over and over. Sad :--(Please share when you actually have any significantly rational, logical common sense that, addresses the specifics of my comments as stated. You ego does not allow you to to do this and that is further evidence the lack your being mature adult when engaging with me. Sad :--(
How about this. When you're ready to stop tacitly insulting me and have an actual logical discussion, you can reply to me. I genuinely wanted to understand you ideas but you've made it clear that your only goal here is to insult me. So when that changes, you can explain mathematical synergy to me. Otherwise, you're just being rude and hateful for no reason. Have a good day jerk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I wasn't playing dumb. I was actually trying to understand your position because I thought it might have been cool. You're so fricken obtuse that you can't even see when someone is genuinely interested in something you have to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
What's really ironic was that after making a big deal out of dictionaries, I actually tire dot give you a chance to define a word for me so I could understand your argument and you condescend onto me with your stupid ego talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Oh, I get it now. Your math is made up nonsense. Cool. That's all I needed to know. I was actually interested in what you had to say for a second there but all of your rudeness and ironic critiques of ego kind of turned me off of the whole thing. I will not make the mistake of actually trying to be civil with you again because I now know I was wrong to think you actually had a good thought to share with me. My mistake.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No biggie, the beginning part is the most important. The math is just jargon and isn't required to understand the base concept. I'm not throwing shade on math because it's awesome. Just saying you only need to understand the beginning part to use it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
explain the difference between adding two triangles and adding them in a synergetic way. I need to know what the specifics are of adding things by synergy. If you can't give me details about that, then it is impossible for me or anyone else to comprehend, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Can you drop the insults please. I know what synergy is. Please explain what you mean when YOU say it. I can't intuitively see how synergy applies to math so I need you to tell me your semantic methodology and put aside your EGO that keeps making you insult MY EGO
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Here's one that shows an induction that isn't just mere math. If the math part confuses you, just keep in mind that all logic is reducible to math so all words can ultimately be given mathematical values and applied to a type of "word arithmetic"
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Induction is always the first step to reaching sound deductions. If you do a deduction without induction, then it's valid but you don't know if it's sound so induction always ends up in the mix.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Here's a link on induction. You might find it interesting. It's a decent form of knowledge for people who don't like absolutes.
Created:
Well this is where people tend to disagree on what is sound. This comes down to the Black Swan argument.I am sure to be consistent would require sound premises but it would also require consistent results in order to get a good conclusion.Sound premises ---> Consistent results ---> Conclusion
I'll use gravity as an example. Gravity has a 100% induction rate. That is to say that every time we've expected gravity to act like gravity it does so. Some people see this as sound and others take it as a presupposition but say it's not justifiable. If you're in the first camp, then deduction is easy and one should do it. if you're in the second camp. Then you don't get "sound" premises but rather you have "weak" and "strong" inductions. I feel like you fall toward the second camp but you go the extra step and say the "strong" induction is sound which I'm okay with.
I think it would be im-probable but eventually humans might get their bearings. It will still be going through our brain like the current world we live in but if have improved senses then it would open more doors in science but would still be hitting the same roadblocks.
I don't think we could every observe better with our senses, but rather we could develop a new sense apart from the others. Like for instance. Neutrinos don't really affect us but let's say we had a gene that produced this thing that interacted with neutrinos, we would then be able to sense how fast they flow through our body although I'm not sure this would do anything for us, but I could be wrong.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well since all we perceive goes through our brain it does become subjective value. If there was physical value then we would never know it but we can using what we can know and in what we interpret that into an idea of physics.
Well, we could know it's out there via our interaction, but we might not ever see it "intrinsically" which as I've mentioned before, I think if we seen reality how it actually was it would be impossible to navigate.
Yes we require to have a grasp of physics to understand how bad a walk can be. That is elevated to being objective because it has shown to be consistent. Objective should mean consistent I don't like the current definition of the word.
Well the difference between objective and consistent is like the difference between induction and deduction. You're basically saying that you prefer induction because it keeps your reality updated, so to speak, without you having to make too many assumption, whereas deduction you have to have sound premises that lead to a sound conclusion and you don't like taking that step because you feel like you're professing knowledge out of your view. But changing the terms never works. I get you're just saying you wish it was like that. I wish synonyms didn't exist myself, lol.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Since you're an existential nihilist I believe, Would you say that physical world has a physical value and that this is not the same thing as the subjective value that is place on thoughts and feelings?
For instance. While you have your subjective value of needing to walk somewhere. You have to impose your body onto the objective values of physics to meet your subjective goal.
Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Right so you think that all value is endowed by humans. Just for fun. Would you say that motion has a value? or weight? I realize the numbers themselves are chosen subjectively, but is there no value in motion?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Sounds about right.
when you say objective meaning do you mean that nothing has value apart from the opinion of humans?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you've been tagged. \m/
Created:
Just want to hear some thoughts. Lets keep it civil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Oh I misread what you said about the post, lol. Thanks!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
lol. so it was.
Sure, you take your time and get back to me. I'd be interested to see how it ends up. So far, it looks like the start to one hell of a conversation. lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thanks for commenting!
I believeTHERE ARE NO RULES.PlusI am 38 years and 5 months old.Thus My so called "morals" are a ( result* ) of ME living 38 years and 5 months with NO RULES.* may not be the best word to use.
Unique view. what do you mean by rules? Do you mean morals? I'm assuming your not talking about the rules of physics, lol.
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
So it seems you're saying that it's all subjective and you just make the best rules you can with your 38 years and 5 months of existence. I find this a good practical approach and assuming that you didn't accidentally pick up some horrible moral, I'm sure you've probably don alright for yourself.
I probably lives most of my life under a similar system until I got married and stopped going out to hang with people and stayed in watched philosophy videos all the time, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Also, I think evolution could also produce "immoral cues" as well. I kind of never got to that part, lol. Must have slipped my mind. Cause gene mutations don't care about good and evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
in my view, the words morality and immorality refers to an imaginary 'stuff' that suffuses things. When we judge something as moral or immoral we can think we are detecting the presence of morality-stuff or immorality-stuff within it.
I don't count people's actual beliefs as being morals. To me, the moral is the feeling itself. I guess the honest way to put it is I believe we start off with an objective moral in our bodies and translate it based off our opinion. However, I believe that since their is an objective root to morality, that we as a society can use our intelligence to get an objective interpretation since we are able to scientifically see past the core reason for having the morals in the first place and we can properly interpret the objective cue.
I believe that subjective morals are not morals at all, but rather just opinions about morality. Once example would be "Biblical Morality" Looking at this as an atheist. It becomes clear to me that while Biblical morals might have initially been based in objective cues, that ultimately these morals were subjective and made for political reasons to control the people of the time.
So I consider it an equivocation fallacy when people refer to subjective assessments of morality as being morals. to me, those are just opinions about morality.
My quintessential example is a person who believes murder to be moral will still get a negative response if they witness a murder regardless about their opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How does that correlate to one changing their mind concerning what is moral and what is not? Morality is after all just an opinion.
I don't know the specific comment you're rebutting, but I assume it's the one right before you. I don't think morality is an opinion. Even if I believed that murder was moral, when I see somebody get murdered, my evolutionary cue will send me a negative response (that sick feeling in your gut) My opinion has no control over that sick feeling so that feeling is objective automatically. That can't be denied. You can only deny the objectivity of our application of that feeling but society seems to follow it with near accuracy. Don't confuse objective with universal either. objective doesn't mean that everybody agrees on it. It means the source or the "moral" is objective. As for sociopaths. Random mutations explains this. Not everybody is going to get the "no murder cue" but 99% of us do because we've been favored by natural selection. that's not an opinion, that's objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I actually hold a similar belief but I'm not agnostic about it (it's in my nature to want an answer, I'm not faulting you for healthy skepticism.)
I think the only difference between us, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe that "your" specific mind will survive in an afterlife and I believe that consciousness is a collective of certain particles that produce agency. so my mind is a clump of consciousness particles that gives me advanced perception when combined with my sensory organs. I believe that once I die, these particles will separate back in into their own individual primitive consciousness (think of this like your consciousness being like static) and that eventually some of all of these particles will reform to make a new consciousness. I also believe in a cyclic universe. Do you think your consciousness is ultimately physical or metaphysical?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Not everyone has the same cues.
Okay, do some people have the same cues and if so if that cue reacts the same every time is that not objective since their opinions of it don't change the cue? I feel like you're not arguing against objective morality, but rather universal morality which is not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
also explained by evolution. Random mutations = random biology = random objective morals. Everybody with the same cues has the same morals. That makes it objective because it's an objective fact that my body sends me a negative cue when I watch someone die in front of me EVEN IF I have a different opinion about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would have to disagree there. objective means "true apart from our opinions" If there were multiple different cues which are all objective, then they're all true regardless of human opinion. So the moral isn't subjective, just people's assessments of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
well that was an unnecessary response. I just wanted to know what the topic was about. geez louis.
Created: