Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If there’s no afterlife
This still doesn't get at the heart of why a soap bubble is round. You can't demonstrate any afterlife (or at least you aren't going to) so you at least don't have any observable reason to care and it still leaves us with the question "why would an afterlife constitute a reason to care?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
My consciousness exists, and it is me.That's it.
Virtually identical to my own it would seem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF humams have emotions and IF there are humans THEN it is logically necessary that emotions exist.
Are you asking why humans exist or why they have emotions?
Listen this isn't entirely Unlike asking "why is a soap bubble round?"
Sure there is a simple (or comparatively simple) surface answer which is that given the laws of physics as we observe them it is unlikely or perhaps even impossible for then to form in any other configuration. That however does beg the question "why do the laws of physics behave as we observe them to?" and while that us an interesting philosophical question if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves I don't think we can actually answer that question.
Are you asking why humans exist or why they have emotions?
Listen this isn't entirely Unlike asking "why is a soap bubble round?"
Sure there is a simple (or comparatively simple) surface answer which is that given the laws of physics as we observe them it is unlikely or perhaps even impossible for then to form in any other configuration. That however does beg the question "why do the laws of physics behave as we observe them to?" and while that us an interesting philosophical question if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves I don't think we can actually answer that question.
We as humans struggle enough with the undersstanding the how of things. The why may just be beyond our understanding.
So IF we don't know why humans care about things SHOULD we stop caring about things (assuming we even can stop)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Aren’t you among the ones that agreed with the premise you can’t derive an ought from an is?
I'm not constructing an ought. I'm not saying human beings ought to look out for each others wellbeing I'm saying that it is completely unremarkable that they do because the likely alternative would be that there are no humans.
Humans don't live TO care for each other they live BECAUSE they care for each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But death is also a goal, and what if you have no goals in regards to life or death?
IF a human disregards their needs THEN they will likely die.
It is therefore not surprising that all living humans tend not disregard their own needs and they need each other.
This means that LIVING humans caring about each other rather than disregarding other humans and their wellbeing is a logical necessity more than a goal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But do we need air, food, or sleep? Or it only seems that way because survivals your goal?
In as much as survival is in fact a goal at all I present this syllogism.
IF a human disregards their needs THEN they will likely die.
It is therefore not surprising that all living humans do not disregard their own needs and they need each other.
This means that LIVING humans caring about each other rather than disregarding other humans and their wellbeing is a logical necessity more than a goal.
You say you are mostly concerned with the "why" of it. That is ok but you cannot suggest anything as a potential cause until you demonstrate that it actually exists.
That means that whatever the "why" is and even if we cannot determine what the "why" this syllogism is true.
IF we cannot demonstrate any higher power THEN it is unreasonable to assume that a higher power is the reason people care about one another.
I understand that you are not going to be demonstrating a higher power and I respect that you can admit that you cannot. I think that is intellectually honest. However IF you cannot demonstrate one and IF you demand some hypothesis THEN we must still form our hypothesis based on things we can demonstrate.
This may mean that we don't get any satisfactory answer. I understand that can be confusing and uncomfortable. How it makes us feel doesn't change the facts though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Everything’s a choice
Bald assertion. If beliefs are a choice then please demonstrate by choosing to believe something, anything, that you do not currently believe.
the why’s of them all is the interesting part.
Does why become uninteresting if we simply believe what we find convincing rather than choosing to be convinced? Indeed how is choosing to be convinced not a nonsense idea? You can't just choose to believe as I do. You might be convinced by my arguments or not but you will not just choose on a whim.
Created:
Posted in:
A large body of research shows that solitary confinement causes adverse psychological effects and increases the risk of serious harm to individuals who experience it.
Apparently the NEED for human interaction is not entirely unlike the NEED for air or food or sleep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But you do choose to interact with them.
You mean I "choose" to get out of bed in the morning rather than lay in a pool of my own coagulating fluids? Is that really a choice though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes you do, if you saw no value in human life you wouldn’t care for them period.
I don't choose to see value in human life any more than I choose to breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s more than just an observation if YOU AGREE with said systems.
I think you might be overstating my argument here.
YOU CHOOSE
If this is the operative objection you have then I can resolve it. I didn't choose to care about human wellbeing any more than I chose to be human. I do feel that human wellbeing (a standard not a system by the way and the only one I really have mentioned "supporting") is preferable to harm to humans but I don't choose to think wellbeing is preferable I just don't like to be harmed and I'm not sure why I would have to justify not liking getting hurt.
We’re literally discussing YOU SUPPORTING “systems of accountability” meaning
Again this overstates my argument. I observe human systems of accountability. Are you arguing that such systems don't exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And I already told you that nihilism was a negative position (if objective morality is false).
So nihilism is a position the way not collecting stamps is a hobby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you object much more to what I don't support than to what I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not sure what I'm supporting other than that humans have systems of accountability. That is an observation not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't really understand what your objection is and you still haven't even defined morality/punishment/reward/meaning and you haven't completed the syllogisms as I requested. I don't know what you think I need to justify but if you don't have more evidence to offer than I do don't hold your breath.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But it is attainable otherwise it wouldn’t exist
What is attainable? What exists?
man created the systems that your advocating for at the end of the day.
Or perhaps just some behaviors make humans more successful at surviving and reproducing and so we tend towards those behaviors but I think we can agree that humans are the logical source of human systems.
Not that it matters. If there is no alternative to human systems and we don't know why humans have systems then what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let me rephrase. If we don't know why then why does why matter?
Let's assume that I don't know and that you aren't arguing for any reason. Then what? Even if why is important it is unattainable.
What course of action would you then suggest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do I need to know why I care about some things in order to care about them?
What do you mean by support?
I don't choose my beliefs I am convinced or not by the evidence. I do not decide not to believe in the supernatural I am unable to believe in the supernatural because I am not convinced.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let's say I don't know why humans make systems of accountability.
So what? What is the larger point you are getting at?
IF I care about human wellbeing BECAUSE I am human and I would like to have my wellbeing be a consideration AND I don't know why humans are alive or have emotions THEN ???
What about this scenario are you specifically object to? What are the implications? What justification do you think I need before I can dismiss things that are indistinguishable from imaginary (undemonstrated) and to favor one of the remaining apparently real phenomena as likely?
More to the point considering that you have been very clear that you are not actually arguing that any possible position is more or less likely why have you demanded that I make some kind of argument to justify my beliefs? Or more specifically my (not a) belief.
As far as it goes I have the same evidence for reality that you do and like you I have far less evidence to offer for some higher power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let's say I have no answer at all. That doesn't obligate me to accept any particular answer.
Let's say I don't know what compels us that doesn't mean I have to accept that some unfalsifiable proposition is the cause and I am absolutely justified in saying that an observable phenomenon like biology is more likely the cause than some unfalsifiable phenomena like morals/punishment/reward/meaning.
That is also why I don't think we are compelled to cooperate and care for each other by fairies and magic wishes.
If you want to criticize the idea that being a social organism is sufficient explanation for social behavior that's fine but it is a more reasonable explanation than any supernatural explanation until anything supernatural of any kind is shown to exist.
In every case without exception throughout history whenever people assign a supernatural explanation to some phenomena that we were then able to investigate more fully the cause it has never turned out to in fact be supernatural. Until this happens for the first time I for one will not believe in anything supernatural over naturalistic explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then what does it seem?
That we are social organisms in a system of survival of the fittest (to be social).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So if the meaning of life is unfalsifiable then why aren’t you a nihilist?
Mostly because like you I get to self identify. You don't get to decide if I am a nihilist or not. Also however it is because I'm not going to agree to any label you haven't defined and you have bot explained what morality/punishment/reward/meaning is or what its implications are and so by extension I literally cannot agree or disagree that it is reasonable to believe in it. I really don't know if I qualify even for your prescriptive definition of a nihilist and your definition does not seem to preclude people from practicing good citizenship all the same if I understand the "sort" of people you think of as nihilists. Before you ask about good citizenship don't worry about it. I'm more saying that it doesn't seem to be justification that compels us to cooperate and by extension care for one another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So how did you test the meaning of life?
I did not. As far as I know the idea that life has some greater meaning is unfalsifiable.
UNFALSIFIABLE=UNTESTABLE=UNBELIEVABLE
In the absence of any reason to believe in some "higher purpose" I am forced to do things for my own reasons. The alternative is to not do things at all. To stand myself in a corner all day long fuming in anger at the idea that standing in the corner could still be interpreted as "doing some thing".
Assuming there is no meaning it is equally reasonable engage with humanity as it is not to and far less lonely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Both things are true. It is reasonable to give equal credence to unfalsifiable claims as you give to those claims which are demonstrated false. You can always revise your beliefs if the claim is somehow proven true or false somehow.
The time to believe in anything is after you have done sufficient evidence of the claim being made and different kinds of claims might require more rigorous examination before belief is warranted but in no case am I able to believe in something which has insufficient evidence to convince me...
With one exception. My basic axiom.
IF my experience is real THEN I can learn about my environment through the application of the scientific method.
Or "Testing is believing."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do you remember saying that you can't prove a negative?
Well that is not entirely correct. What is actually supportable is that it is unreasonable to believe in something unfalsifiable. It is not a statement to the effect that you don't have to back up your claims but rather why the default is skepticism.
Not being able to prove (some) (unfalsifiable) negatives is just a good indicator that belief is not warranted.
Like for example if morality/punishment/reward/meaning cannot be demonstrated and also cannot be falsified then the default is to reject morality/punishment/reward/meaning.
You may not personally agree with the line of reasoning but that is actually what the nul hypothesis states.
IF testing is believing THEN the untestable is the unbelievable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
Forget Mary's room how do I know that I understand what I am doing rather than just doing a thing based on "if this" then "do this"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@The_Meliorist
they have free will,
I'm not sure people have free will so I'm not sure I agree with your definition. In any case what is the FUNCTIONAL and PRACTICAL difference between "strong AI" and apparently strong AI?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do we even have to choose to define it at all? If your correct in your lack of belief in a higher power
What are you asking here? Also I'm not putting forward a claim that might be assessed as "correct" I'm just unconvinced that there is any higher power especially not one that you can't even describe let alone demonstrate. I am justified in not believing in big foot until you can show me one. This doesn't become less true if you readily admit to not having a bigfoot on hand.
I'm missing the part of this line of reasoning that lends more credibility to believing in something you can't prove exists and believing something doesn't exist because you have no experience of or evidence for it particularly if it is unfalsifiable.
People who believe in bigfoot can't prove they exist but you can't prove they don't so are you on equal footing? Are bigfoot as likely to exist as not?
You seem to be missing why unfalsifiablility is a problem when constructing a logical necessary. It is specifically because a lack of evidence is not evidence of anything. Only evidence of something counts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Negative and positive are subjective. Without a reference point, like for example 0 they are largely meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It doesn't matter how I define it or how you define it but on how we agree to define it. I don't agree with most of your definitions that's why I keep making qualifiers. The thing is if I am very understanding and work with you I can try to puzzle through your prescriptive definitions although they are at times a little vague and although having a prescriptive definition does not mean the thing you are describing exists.
I suggested a possible definition that we could potentially agree upon for subjective morality and you did not agree. Not for descriptive reasons. Not because you are using the term to mean anything but just because it doesn't fit your prescriptive notions about morality. And that's fine. All that means is that subjective morality, moral opinions and moral intuition are not actually morality at all but instead only our possible flawed ideas about morality whether or not it actually even exists. We can use this definition of subjective morality and its permutations such as moral intuition, pending your agreement, whether objective morality exists prescriptively or not FOR the purposes AND ONLY for the purposes of this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That there’s a “but” in regards to subjective morality.
No only in the way we choose to define it. You are aware that people invented all the words right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I can make negative claims all I want, the burden of proof is on YOU since you’re the one making the positive claim so to use your words against you
What negative or positive claim am I making?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
A principle of folk logic is that one can't prove a negative.But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes-sional logicians, guess how many think that you can't provea negative? That's right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove anegative, and it's easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual lawof logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.This law states that that a proposition cannot be both trueand not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from theempty set using provably valid rules of inference.Any claim can be expressed as a negative,thanks to the rule of double negation. This rule states that anyproposition P is logically equivalent to not-not-P. So pick anythingyou think you can prove. Think you can prove your ownexistence? At least to your own satisfaction? Then, using theexact same reasoning, plus the little step of double negation,you can prove that you aren't nonexistent. Congratulations,you've just proven a negative. The beautiful part is that youcan do this trick with absolutely any proposition whatsoever.Prove P is true and you can prove that P is not false.
Well stated. I touched on this but not with this kind of depth of detail and it is appreciated as a fresh perspective in the conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
That and I still don't even know exactly what it is that we definitely are neither arguing exists.
I think it might really help if you finish the following syllogisms
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning do not exist THEN ???
Please do so without using the term nihilism and in a way that is not circular. And that really is the basis of my objection to the term nihilism now that I'm examining it. If there is no meaning then it is true we have no meaning is tantamount to saying nothing and establishing nothing so IF nihilism means no meaning THEN the circular statement [IF there is no meaning THEN nihilism is true] still only fills half a syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
Prove it.You can’t prove a negative (one of the many rules of logic)
Then don't claim
There is no “but” period.
You can't possibly prove there is no but.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
That and I still don't even know exactly what it is that we definitely are neither arguing exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why indeed. Why can't we use the term subjective morality to refer to human systems of accountability even if only to oneself?
"Because morality cannot be subjective" ok but why can't we use the words to communicate the idea?
I think a large part of the communication barrier here is prescriptive versus descriptive language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Telling me what questions to ask isn’t courteous at all.
Fine. I apologize for suggesting a specific wording and in fact only ask that you rephrase the question for yourself without using the term nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why do I have to rephrase?
As a courtesy since I have in this conversation given you the same dispensation repeatedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In fact nihilism is a completely unnecessary term if it is only the negative state of your personal concept of punishment and reward in accordance with an unspecified (at least in the as much as you have not been specific about them with me so I still don't know for sure what you are asking me to justify asking you to clarify when I don't even (presumably) believe in the nonspecific concept that I don't really understand. Let's just say is/isn't any morality/punishmen/reward/meaning?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Would you object to rephrasing the question as "why (if there is no reward for preserving human life or punishment for failure to preserve human life)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
we should try to preserve human life.That claim still requires proof (reward/punishment).
It doesn't require any rewards or punishment because preserving human life is the goal. See I think you really are trying to insist that I find purpose in the same things that give you purpose and so you are dogmatically refusing to accept any other possible purpose as "valid" purpose or "real" purpose. Purpose is incoherent without a goal. A knife has the purpose of cutting things... unless it is a bread knife or a putty knife or a painter's knife. Are these valid knives or is cutting and only cutting a valid purpose for a knife to have?
Part of the problem,at least from my end of the conversation, is your still unfinished syllogisms.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
What are we to take away from the presence or absence of this concept? What is the goal in each case?
Created:
Posted in:
Ok another possible position one could hold is humanism. That humans existing at all is meaningful enough even without any further universal meaning and that therefore we should try to preserve human life.
Created:
Posted in:
Faith is kind of subjective so it really makes more sense when paired with a concrete noun like spouse rather than with an ambiguous term like afterlife which means different things to different people. If you want to get down to brass tacks even saying you have faith in a spouse doesn't always mean the same thing. Context is everything. You can have faith in your spouse not to cheat sure but you could also have faith in their ability to help you through adversity or to remember to pick up the kids. If one were to say they have faith in an afterlife they would have to qualify exactly what they mean by faith and by afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
value/validation would seem to me to be subjective and I need to know what standard you are applying before it is a sensible question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sum1hugme
The dominoes can fall either way.....Though your expectation might be that they can only fall one way....In front and behind, are your predetermined assumption.
Well man, classical physics break down at the quantum level. None of it is intuitive.
Well since that is why I started this thread I can hardly be put out that you both pointed this out.
Created: