Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just that. I don't remember. Why don't you give me the quote you are referencing specifically where I said that and I will try to address the misunderstanding
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We can say that some things are objectively harmful to human welfare but first we must have humans whose welfare we can measure and we must agree that human wellbeing has importance before using it to measure whether some behavior or attitude is right or wrong.
The sun objectively exists and it puts out an objective amount of heat energy but that is just a sterile fact with no intrinsic meaning until we apply some subjective meaning or context against which to measure it.
Cold sterile facts are intrinsically meaningless.
A human without sufficient oxygen will die.
A fire without sufficient oxygen will die.
Both statements are objectively true but we subjectively attach greater importance to the death of a human than the death of a fire.
A human with cancer may die.
A human who is shot by a gun may die.
These are both objectively true statements but we subjectively attach moral significance to one and not the other.
Again this is a really important concept so if you still don't get it we can try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't know what you mean by rejection but if you understand the logical process of getting an objective statement based on a subjective standard we can move on. While you aren't under any obligation to supply one I personally would feel better about moving on of you would supply an example of an objective statement based on a subjective standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes.
My subjectively chosen standard for assessing right and wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Now your just contradicting yourself because one minute your saying it’s objective and the next your saying it’s subjective, which one is it?
You can make objective statements based on a subjectively chosen standard. Like the objective statement that the sun is not particularly hot for a star. Or that the sun is the hottest thing in our solar system. How can the sun be both the hottest and not particularly hot? Because we apply standards subjectively.
I will explain this as many times as necessary for you to understand because it is central to the miscommunication we are having here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Voldemort is a character in a movie and considering that movies exist and you can watch him in that capacity he in fact does exist but in that sense alone.
The afterlife you believe in is a concept in your head and considering concepts exist and you can think about it in that capacity it exists but as far as you can prove in that sense alone.
Great, so if we can determine it then it’s objective. Would you agree that something such as I don’t know murder is objectively harmful?
If we can determine what promotes wellbeing then we can objectively say it promotes wellbeing yes. We can make objective statements about that subjective standard. Murder is a legal distinction. Dying is certainly bad for your health though. I think we can objectively say that dying is bad for your health accepting that there may be some extreme circumstances, like long time coma patients or people in extreme pain from terminal illness, in which it is not as clear cut.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong.That makes no sense, you can’t put something into existence and acknowledge it doesn’t exist that’s fundamentally impossible.
That isn't precisely what I'm doing. I do use a different definition of right and wrong I think but it really doesn't even after as I can absolutely have a subjective opinion about something that doesn't exist. Voldemort is ugly. The force is strong in this one.
I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm"For the THIRD time what is subjective right, subjective wrong, subjective well-being, and subjective harm.
I don't remember saying subjective harm or wellbeing. I remember saying in as much as we can determine harm and wellbeing.
As for right or wrong, well as far as I know you cannot make objective statements about right and wrong without a subjectively applied goal. This is exactly the concept I was trying to explain in my analogy about the sun.
For example if the goal is to win at chess then there can be objectively right and wrong moves on the board and if your goal is to identify the hottest star you can say objectively that the sun is the wrong star and if we can agree to a goal for human behavior and attitudes (known colloquially as morality) then we can say if the attitudes and behaviors are right or wrong in that context.
The goal is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
the opinions themselves are still subjective.Yes, but that observation isn’t.
Actually this is my whole point. We can observe (share through dialogue) opinions about right and wrong even if there is no right and wrong. I can say "right = wellbeing and wrong = harm" and you can say "huh uh (some undemonstrated) god(s) decide what is right and wrong" and both of those are opinions.
Provided we could agree to a standard (like if you demonstrate some god(s) and that god(s)'s moral standard and an explanation of why this counts as more than just an opinion OR if you believe that some god(s) moral standard includes promoting and safeguarding wellbeing and so we can agree from there since our goal in this respect would be the same) then we can make (some) objective statements based on the standard we are subjectively applying for our own reasons.
For example
IF human wellbeing is a consideration in assessing moral behavior and possible culpability (to us as individuals for whatever reason) THEN we can agree that all things being equal it is better morally not to kill someone than to kill them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can’t conceive something that you don’t know,
Sure you can. It is called imagination.
what is subjective morality?
It is whatever we imagine morality is in the absence of any observable objective morality.
Observable things aren’t subjective.
You are making a category error here. In as much as we can say that humans, objectively speaking, have opinions the opinions themselves are still subjective.
The sun is hot.
This sounds like a fact but it is not. It is a subjective opinion. In fact whether or not the sun is hot depends on context (what we are using to measure our understanding of what is "hot"). The truth is that the sun is not particularly hot for a star being mostly average in almost every way. The truth is that the sun is much MUCH hotter than earth and that you or I would not survive there.
[The sun is not particularly hot] (for a star) [subjective] (subjectively chosen standard)
{The sun is not particularly hot for a star}
{Objectively verifiable fact based on a subjectively applied standard}.
This is an important concept so if you don't understand you need to ask for clarification at this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what empirical data did you perceive to come to your understanding of subjective meaning (whatever that is)?
It is the human conception of morality. If that isn't "real" morality that is no impediment to my proposition. We do observably have conceptions of morality. I have one and you have one. Our conceptions of morality differ and therefore are subjective by definition. Did I just say anything untrue? If not you have at best an argument ad populi against the way I am applying terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If I accept that argument are you willing to defend your beliefs?
Defend them in what way? My current levels of CONFIDENCE in science are CONTINGENT upon the SPECULATION that my senses are perceiving REALITY and the EFFICACY with which science predicts events and improves human lives (as I understand human quality of life from my perspective as a human).
IF the universe can be demonstrated to be an illusion or IF one could demonstrate a better practical approach to understanding the universe (illusion or not) than science THEN my beliefs would by necessity be forced to adjust to this new information.
I do not choose my beliefs I am convinced by perceived empirical data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Either causality applies to everything or it doesn’t. One cannot argue that it applies to everything “except the thing I’m trying to prove” while claiming to be logical.
Well stated. I might "borrow" this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Google’s definition of soul = soul
- the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.(Undemonstrated)
- 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)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What do you propose as a mechanism of providing for people's basic needs?
I have not proposed a mechanism as yet. At present I am merely engaging in socratic dialogue to see if any progress can be made in our thinking on the subject.
And how would it be more efficient than the current system of working for a living?
I'm not sure but any system that does not throw away enough food to fill many football stadiums every year and for whom that is not merely the tip of the garbage iceberg would be more efficient. Farming is more efficient now than ever (though it is unclear how long our current farming technology can be fueled with fossil fuels before we must find an alternative or revert to a more labor intensive model) we could conceivably feed (provide minimum caloric intake at a very minimum) many more humans than we do but some humans struggle to eat. Sure some of them are far away and perhaps it would be impractical to feed them but even if that is true I am willing to wager that some human is hungry enough geographically close enough to you that you feel guilty for not finishing your food when you go to a restaurant, where often the portion size is inflated to give a higher perceived value although the practical value is the same as any portion that would maintain you. Food distribution as a business model promotes waste and devalues the right to life in direct proportion to poverty. Even if you or I personally cannot find an answer in this conversation I'm sure we could do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
government or charity.
Let follow the logic. Charity cannot be compulsory or it becomes a tax and taxes are the pervue of government so in this case they are the same (or close enough) and the government can only be expected to provide a UBI in as much as human rights are valued and it is the primary goal of government to protect and promote them.
People have the ability to find another job
They have that assumed right but is it a substantive right? And if it is a substantive right then why do so many still work in high pressure and dangerous unskilled labor positions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well even if you build a robot to pack the meat, you need a technician to maintain it.
We have already automated meatpacking to the highest currently possible degree but IF we had a robot make all the actual cuts rather than those who lack other career opportunities and MUST work to live THEN there would not be hundreds of undocumented injuries every year from coworkers accidentally cutting one another.
On a separate note IF those who lack other career opportunities had their basic needs met THEN they would not be forced to work in unreasonably fast and unsafe working conditions with such high productivity expectations that some wear diapers to work and others pee into bottles at their stations without taking the time to wash their hands for fear of falling behind and losing the job that they need in order to earn a living.
Maybe (some) people enjoy more liberty now but there is also just as much inequality as ever. Perhaps there is no solution to this problem but I still would like to discuss the problem and even hypothetical solutions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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
???
Created:
Posted in:
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Would you say that there is less need for labor now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't see any of that as a reason not to strive for improvement. Also what if it is imposing on freedom for them to have to work rather than to be allowed to? I don't know the topic of UBI and substantive freedom has just been interesting me lately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Far as I can see, charity and government are the best options.
Charity cannot be compulsory. Government should only be asked to help in as much and to such a degree as the goal of the government is to provide for, protect or assure human rights.
Does that mean that you value such concepts as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?Yes, we can use those as the human rights.
If we support the right to life and liberty should we limit people's liberty by requiring them to work for the basic necessities of life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
you haven't really put forth a practical way of making that happen
Nope sure haven't. Every human enterprise starts with imagining possibilities.
At a societal level, it should be structured to treat people as ends in themselves rather than instruments to the satisfaction of ends. Mutual means and contracts don't violate this.
Does that mean that you value such concepts as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think humans have an innate dignity that should be respected.
Ok. What does that mean in practical terms. How can we derive actionable data from this dignity and what for should this respect take?
What do you mean by "removing landlords as a factor?"
I mean stop charging people rent and forgive all mortgages and discontinue all property taxes. Stop profiting from peoples need for shelter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How would this system determine who should get these needs?
Well.... how do you determine who should be afforded human rights?
And if there was something providing housing and food, is that like a charity? Or the government? What institution do you propose to distribute these resources?
I am not proposing any specific model I am initiating conversation.
Anyway different needs might be met in different ways. For example being a landlord doesn't actually create anything so strictly speaking removing them as a factor doesn't really remove value from the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Would it be provided to all families, individuals, or only qualifying applicants?
It would be provided only to those whose rights should be promoted/protected
And how much income are you proposing? Just assuming the USA.
I am not necessarily suggesting any income. Just your basic needs and no one needs money if their needs are being met without it. This doesn't mean that most wouldn't still want money and be willing to work for it.
All basic needs and no play makes Jacky a dull boy.
For example if you did not have to pay for food or shelter or medicine would you still like to sometimes buy a beer? Would you like to own a car? Like going to the movies or watching disney plus? Go earn that stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Is it an income provided by the government?
I suppose it could be but it doesn't have to be. In fact I'm open to ideas concerning exactly how we might achieve such a system.
Anyway it is only worthwhile to consider if you value human rights and if it makes those rights more substantive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Like basic needs being met because people have the right to them even if they refuse to work dangerous jobs for too little pay. Like for example you would no longer see single mothers working sixty hours a week for only a fraction more than they spend on child care and living out of a car.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps this will be some help in understanding what earning a living can lead to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well I can explain the difference at least so let's start there.
A minimum wage is the lowest amount an employer is allowed to pay. A UBI would provide for everyone's basic needs without asking for anything in return.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
how are you able to understand the meanings of words if it’s all arbitrary?
Only through agreement with another individual. Many words are agreed to colloquially but if the colloquial definition is not specifically agreed upon more discussion will become necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It behooves us therefore to remove any undemonstrated sufficient proposition from consideration if there are any demonstratedsufficient propositions available.So what’s the “demonstrated sufficient” proposition in this case?
That humans are a social organism. This is in fact true and it would be enough with no other reason to explain why people care for and about each other. It may not be THE answer but it is a more reasonable answer than a magical love wizard or care bears or some undemonstrated intrinsic meaning.
An answer being sufficient doesn't make it true.Then what makes it sufficient?
Just that it would have explanatory power. Like if the cookies are gone and your (hypothetical) five year old says that a burglar stole them. A burglar is a sufficient answer since it would explain the cookies being gone. Do you believe that a burglar stole the cookies?
I have no idea how we would fund out in this lifetime why the soap bubble is round and the flipside of that is that in as much as we don't have a why there may be no why.But that’s not equivalent to the why I was asking, because why you care shouldn’t be something to find out you should already know because the answer comes from within.
Every sensation and feeling and realization must by necessity "come from within" since we have no one else's sensations, feelings or realizations to use. We only have our own. 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?
Is there any reason why we could not just between the two of us refer to the concept with any label we wanted?Because it makes dialogue difficult to follow if there’s not a common standard met in terms of language.
I agree. 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) 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 are more focused on the labels than we are.But in this case I’m not, I was solely asking about the concept.
The "concept" of nihilism? Your subjective concept? Are you asking for a term we agree to more readily or why we, after making many many linguistic concessions until it becomes an excercise in linguistic acrobatics to get across a concept as simple as someone's idea of morality as separate from any objective morality (if there even is any) are now asking for a similar concession? Nihilism is true or nihilism is correct seems like nonsense, a non starter, word salad. We don't need a special word for something not existing. You wouldn't say objective morality is incorrect or untrue you would say it doesn't exist why would you would so saying that no objective morality is true or correct. Just say morality does(n't) exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "if our basic needs were seen to[o]." Do you mean like if water and food remain cheap, but Iphones prices skyrocket? Or are you suggesting that Food and Water (and shelter?) be subsidized?
I mean provided either in the form of a stipend or just provided directly.
Also, how would people not need employment to live? As things stand, it's pretty important to those of us that work to pay our bills.
Well they would not have to pay bills unless they want little extras like streaming services, unhealthy food, video games, recreational drugs like alchohol or cigarettes etc etc etc.
There is always a place for unskilled labor at the various fast food and grocery institutions. If a business is forced to pay a minimum wage, then the worker necessarily cannot compete below that threshold against other laborers for a job.
I am not talking about the minimum wage. That is a separate issue. In fact if no one had to work I do not believe we would need to enforce a minimum wage since the entire reason we have such a thing is to give a living wage and especially this is a bit self defeating for the reasons of inflation as you outlined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
My primary concerns with UBI are1) That it would cause inflation, as businesses pass the increased labor costs onto the consumers through price hikes.
Well if our basic needs were seen too then only luxury products could see any effective price hike and frankly speaking that isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as basic necessities are not something anyone needs to worry about.
2) That it would increase unemployment, as businesses cut employees to offset the increased labor costs
This is a non issue if people do not need to be employed to live.
3) That it would strip many unskilled workers of their ability to compete with their labor.
The need for unskilled labor would not go away but it would give unskilled laborers better leverage in negotiating for their labor if they did not strictly speaking need to work at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, prove to me that a single event had no cause - prove to me that ONE SINGLE EVENT was "not involving causation or arising from a cause"Isn’t that what you are trying to prove to us?
Good question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No, prove to me that every single event had to have a cause - prove to me that EVERY SINGLE EVENT was "involving causation or arising from a cause"
And I'll tell you why. Because otherwise we are engaged in a black swan fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Ok. Show me a few examples of events that had no cause.
Would you settle for a few events which have no known cause? It is INDISTINGUISHABLE from our perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
How do we determine the difference between an event that has no cause or one whose cause is unknown?It's simple, all events have a cause or no events have a cause <<or some events gave a cause and some events do not have a cause>>. Therefore, since SOME events have a cause we know that all events have a cause.
You missed one option. I created an <<addendum>>. All things considered your statement doesn't seem a logical necessity anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
P1: Every event has a cause
How do we determine the difference between an event that has no cause or one whose cause is unknown? That being the case how can we know the every event has a cause? We only need one to get the ball rolling. Until this can be somehow resolved I reject this premise.
P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible
Why? So long as there is a causal chain and so long as there is a time segment (any subset of this proposed infinity) you can measure time within that segment. For example even if there is an infinite chain of events if we choose one that we can demonstrate (the big bang for example) we can measure time from there and still expect subsequent events to happen. Until this can be somehow resolved I reject this premise.
C: There exists a first cause
In as much as I have rejected your premises and in a much as the rest of your argument hinges on this argument and its conclusion you will have to resolve he structural flaws of your argument before we can move on to your subsequent argument. (Or whoever's argument this actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Pardon me, I meant to ask in regards to the concept not the label.
Is there any reason why we could not just between the two of us refer to the concept with any label we wanted? Could we not arbitrarily refer to the concept of no intrinsic meaning as floopity doop? You are more focused on the labels than we are. So much so that language begins to have less utility in the conversation rather than more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We might want to talk about sufficiency I think. An answer being sufficient doesn't make it true. In fact of there is more than one sufficient explanation it specifically means that no one is necessarily the correct explanation. It behooves us therefore to remove any undemonstrated sufficient proposition from consideration if there are any demonstrated sufficient propositions available.
For example IF no souls (as yet undefined) are demonstrated THEN we have no reason to suppose that souls and their movements have anything to do with whether or not people can and do talk so long as humans being alive or dead is an observable and sufficient explanation for that.
In the same way if no objective meaning is demonstrated then there is no reason to suppose that objective meaning has anything to do with humans caring for and about ine another when the biological need for other humans for survival is an observable and sufficient explanation for that.
Biology is how the soap bubble is round
I have no idea how we would fund out in this lifetime why the soap bubble is round and the flipside of that is that in as much as we don't have a why there may be no why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe it’s because their souls left their body.Maybe it's because they are dead.
Looks like we both qualified our statement with maybe. Perhaps if you explain the difference between these two qualified (maybe) statements (other than in as much as one is suggesting an undemonstrated proposition (that souls [as yet undefined] exist and survive corporeal death) while one is suggesting a demonstrable proposition (that people have corporeal deaths and that this is sufficient to explain why they aren't so chatty).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How so?
In as much as you are using it to MEAN no intrinsic meaning exists instead of just saying no intrusive meaning exists. I mean if you are going to slap a label onto the concept of something not existing I don't really see how it is other than arbitrary.
Now for some fun with word salad!
Arbitrary is an arbitrary label. It just means no specific reason exists. It is what it is right? You could as easily say "for no reason". Fun right?
Created: