Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#511
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I do on the grounds that your opting to argue yours.
Well whatever else is happening I think you must be reading far more into my argument than there actually is.
How do you know that’s an example of well-being when there’s no consensus around a definition?
Alive person has more wellbeing than a deaf person. A well person has more wellbeing than a sick person. A happy person has more wellbeing than a sad person... if we agree on the definition of wellbeing. 

If we don't then we are not even discussing the same thing. You don't have to agree to my definition but when I propose wellbeing as a standard if there is some question as to exactly what that means you can ask me. We don't have to give up on communication altogether just because languages evolve and definitions are mutable.
Topic's author
#512
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Bringerofrain
Synchronicity
the simultaneous occurrence of events which appear significantly related but have no discernible causal connection.

If there is no discernable connection why suppose one?
#513
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Well whatever else is happening I think you must be reading far more into my argument than there actually is.
How so?

We don't have to give up on communication altogether just because languages evolve and definitions are mutable.
No we don’t, but at the very least we can use standards where there’s a consensus around a definition.
#514
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,932
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Faith/trust  based on historical experience and averages, is as good if not better than proof you are in a bed with a floor under you.

Proofs become 2ndary to experience of our reality.
#515
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You wouldn't unless the synchronicities were enough that it would be silly to assume chance. For example if you had a dream about lottery numbers and didn't play them because you aren't superstitious. Then the next day, you see those exact numbers show up on television. That is very very unlikely but can be chalked up to chance. Now if you fall asleep the next week and dream up the correct numbers and play them, that could be called a synchronicity. 

Maybe we are having a discussion about a rare bird and then the same rare bird dies in front of us by falling from the sky as we are having the discussion. 

These events of course would be far too frequent to chalk up to chance. If something is beyond chance (to a reasonable degree) than you can say hey this is not a coincidence, but a synchronicity.

Well Jung noticed that synchronicities were all too common and used it to develop his theory of a collective unconscious. 

I guess you would suppose a connection because these things are beyond chance and it would merely be an application of a Occam's Razor. The most likely solution to these synchronicities that lie beyond chance is to assume our minds influence reality. 
This has actually been determined in studies as well. I recently saw an article about how a group of researchers used participants who tried to mentally influence a random number generator. It worked. 

If our minds Influence reality, I think this is a good argument for the conclusion that all is mind.

Do the ladder experiment my friend. You haven't climbed a ladder in years I bet. In less than 2 weeks of doing the ladder experiment, my guess is you will climb a ladder, even if you try not to. 











Topic's author
#516
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
How so?
Because I am not arguing for some greater justification of human accountability. Humans can and do hold humans accountable. That is my whole argument.
No we don’t, but at the very least we can use standards 
I agree we can agree to a standard for the purposes of this conversation. Whether there is some "consensus" or not however that consensus cannot tell me what I think.

Topic's author
#517
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Proofs become 2ndary to experience of our reality.
For the purposes of our normal every day life? Sure. The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is when our experience is not accurate to reality because of some preexisting bias or optical illusion for example. It is important to carefully observe our epistemological limits. 
Topic's author
#518
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Bringerofrain
You wouldn't unless the synchronicities were enough that it would be silly to assume chance. 
At what point is this exactly? How does this avoid the gamblers fallacy?
#519
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Humans can and do hold humans accountable.
But you were referred to them as systems, I assume you meant along the lines of a justice system, do you support having such a thing yes or no?

Whether there is some "consensus" or not however that consensus cannot tell me what I think.
No, but you can’t label that thought as well-being because there’s no consensus on the meaning of that term.
Topic's author
#520
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
But you were referred to systems, I was thinking along the lines of justice system, do you support having such a thing yes or no?
Again this depends entirely on the goal you are suggesting for the organization. I don't think punishment is a worthwhile goal so I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".
No, but you can’t label that thought as well-being because there’s no consensus on the meaning of that term.
Is the problem here that you do not know what I mean by human wellbeing? If you understand what I mean then I have communicated an idea. Using the "right" word is of secondary importance to that so if I am being unclear that is my primary concern. If you know what I am trying to say but don't agree with my definition then please explain what alternative term you would like to use and why it has more utility beyond an argument from concensus?
#521
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".
So we should just legalize everything then?

If you understand what I mean then I have communicated an idea. Using the "right" word is of secondary importance
So define the term right now.

#522
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,932
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
For the purposes of our normal every day life? Sure.
And that is what most humans have to deal with for 95% of there daily lives.

Sure the technological advances require mathematical accuracy, yet, most have very little care o concern of any of that.  We are just given the technology and we come to understand how much we can or cannot trust it or other peoples, nations etc.

#523
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
The gamblers fallacy would be something like . Betting on black in roulette 5 times in a row and then thinking it is overdue for the ball to land on black and assume the odds are greater than 50%. 

The danger with synchronicities is probably more likely to lead to the texas sharp shooter fallacy than the gamblers one.  

I think you need to trust yourself that you aren't allowing yourself to trick yourself. If you need absolute certainty to erase your skepticism of something it will never happen. If I believe with all my heart light does not exist, you could shine a flash light in my eyes, and I might chalk it up to an internal delusion or being in a dream. 

You seem to lead towards solipsism, so I can tell you likely take skepticism to an absurd degree as it is. 

However I think even with solipsism as your most basic axiom, you will still find God when you keep going back to it's logical conclusion. 


The only certainty you have for example is "I am" . I and am are two different things and you can ponder what each is. The first assumption of the solipsists is that you exist, but what is "you". Well it is onlu mind, even if you are a brain in the vat. So now you know mind exists, and know nothing that exists outside of mind. Anything outside of mind is unfalsifiable and unprovable as you stated in the op. 

Now ponder the "I" and the "Am' and think about what they mean.

You see, keep your axioms and the logical conclusion is still going to take you to God.


" I think, therefore I am"

Don't drop that fundamental axiom. Take it to it's logical conclusion.






Topic's author
#524
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I don't agree with a system which is primarily concerned with "making people pay for their crimes".
So we should just legalize everything then?
Where in my statement do I say that?
So define the term right now.
Human wellbeing. 

The sum total of the physical and mental health of any individual human or group of humans in so much as we can assess it.
Topic's author
#525
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Tell me more about trust. What is trust in this context? Like trusted to have correct verified facts or to be likely to tell the truth? If you cannot have both which do you go with?
#526
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Where in my statement do I say that?
I came to that conclusion on my own, simply because if everything was legal nobody would have to pay for anything they’ve done which is what you seem to be in favor of.

The sum total of the physical and mental health of any individual human or group of humans in so much as we can assess it.
So what about the physical/mental health of a psycho/socio I’m sure what stimulates their health is a lot different from you but you didn’t have them in mind when you made your syllogism did you?
Topic's author
#527
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Bringerofrain
Let me be Frank with you. I am not a solipsist. I accept reality despite being unable to falsify it. That is because it is the only reality of which I'm aware so there are still benefits to "learning the rules". Also regardless of whether this is an illusion I still love my family and my dog and enjoy life and am fulfilled by my work. 

That's as far as it goes and the problem of identity is as the problem of identity does.

"I" and "am" are a first person noun referencing the self and a verb meaning to exist in the present tense.

Well that certainly brings up a problem of the meaning of the words self and exist. If you can find a way of determining what they are rather than just feeling like they exist let me know otherwise it is just a brain state. The state of having an "aware brain" and now suddenly awareness is in here! I give up. Honestly I'm not sure that I would believe that neuroscience understands the brain. That of course doesn't obligate me to adopt some ad hoc explanation of conciousness especially not a vague one built on a special knowledge argument. 

You were right about the sharpshooter fallacy by the way. The SETI program discovering pulsars is another example of the sharpshooter fallacy that Ive been misclassifying. Thank you for the correction. That actually helps a great deal.
#528
Bringerofrain
Bringerofrain's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 516
3
4
7
Bringerofrain's avatar
Bringerofrain
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You're welcom
Topic's author
#529
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I came to that conclusion on my own, simply because if everything was legal nobody would have to pay for anything they’ve done which is what you seem to be in favor of.
Why does a legal system have to have the goal of publishing people? Why can't it be the wellfair of the humans under its jurisdiction (preferably voluntarily)
So what about the physical/mental health of a psycho/socio I’m sure what stimulates their health is a lot different from you but you didn’t have them in mind when you made your syllogism did you?
I had them specifically in mind. They are why I define wellbeing as being for an individual or GROUP of individuals. The needs of the many don't dismiss the needs of the one but people do tend to give the needs of the many more weight and there is something to be said for wellbeing of the species. Some humans are dangerous to wellbeing and unless we judge a mad dog guilty of something we don't need to judge them guilty of anything to take necessary steps to protect group wellbeing. 

#530
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,932
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Tell me more about trust. What is trust in this context? Like trusted to have correct verified facts or to be likely to tell the truth? If you cannot have both which do you go with?
See #514....Faith/trust  based on historical experience and averages, is as good if not better than proof you are in a bed with a floor under you.

Proofs become 2ndary to experience of our reality.....

And #505.....I dont believe the car approaching me is going to cross the center line and hit me, so a certain amount of driving involves believe, trust and faith on histroical experiences of self and others.....

1} Trust/faith > 1A-intutive gut feelings > 1B-past self experiences > 1C-experiences of others  communicated to us  ---ergo with our gut feelings of how much we trust/faith in their  trust worthiness of what others are communcating to us--- 

Trust/faith does not occur in a vacuum of space and time.It only occurs via those factors above and perhaps other factors Ive not considered.  We really have nothing else to go on except those four.  Either we expreiecned it, or heard this or that  or read this or that  in a book, magazine etc, and our our intuitive gut then steers us to have trust/faith in this direction or another direction.

Japenese Naval Fleet commandor Yamato had been to USA  universities and knew of USA's power so internally he believed going to war was insane.  To say no to his divine prime minister would mean he might as well kill himself in shame.

That led him to make 50/50 gamble in sailing 3000 miles of Pacific ocean in hopes of being undetected, before attacking Pearl Harbour.

USA admiral Nimitz had more going for him in before knowing the Japaness fleet were going to attack Midway. He had to first trust his american, eccentric, Japenes speaking  cryptographer, and then verify that cryographers beliefs, by  sending false message to Midway about water shortages, that, the then heard the Japanese repeat the false message between their the aircraft carrier commander Nagumi and Adimaral Yamamoto.

 

#531
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Why does a legal system have to have the goal of publishing people? Why can't it be the wellfair of the humans under its jurisdiction (preferably voluntarily)
Because people have their own disagreements regarding the welfare of humans and due to that disagreement they take the law into their own hands, how do you suggest we deal with those people?

They are why I define wellbeing as being for an individual or GROUP of individuals.
That still doesn’t mean much, especially if you interpret it as individual psycho/socio or GROUP of psychos/socios.
Topic's author
#532
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Because people have their own disagreements regarding the welfare of humans and due to that disagreement they take the law into their own hands, how do you suggest we deal with those people?
How does focusing on punishment rather than on prevention of harm help the problem?
That still doesn’t mean much, especially if you interpret it as individual psycho/socio or GROUP of psychos/socios.
I'm not inclined to do that so unless you are that is sort of irrelevant.
#533
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
How does focusing on punishment rather than on prevention of harm help the problem?
To some punishment is how you prevent the harm, unless you have another suggestion?

I'm not inclined to do that so unless you are that is sort of irrelevant.
Then how are you inclined? Because judging by my example your syllogism has a lot of vague holes.
#534
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
It's all words Tarik.

So nihilism would widely be regarded as being negative.

Though...Nihilism if actually a correct deduction, would be positive.

And anyone assuming a nihilistic identity could be regarded as being positively negative, or negatively positive.


And as I regard "objective morality" as nothing more than a subjectively concluded supposition.... Then I would have to agree with a previous opinion, that your conflated assertions are a false dichotomy.

Nonetheless we both might or might not be expressing, either  a positively negative or negatively positive opinion.

Words words words.


Topic's author
#535
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
To some punishment is how you prevent the harm, unless you have another suggestion?
Are you asking me to make a full legal system right now with consideration of all the variable factors involved or is it enough to say that my goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals and whenever possible to rehabilitate those individuals. 

Some consequences may be involved and you might define those consequences as punishment but to focus on punishment is in my opinion counterproductive. I am disinterested in revenge and also disinterested in making people "pay" for their crimes.

Then how are you inclined? Because judging by my example your syllogism has a lot of vague holes.
You mean it starts out IF? That is by design. The conclusion is only true if the premises are true. Not all humans care about human wellbeing (though most care about at least their own allowing for the selfish argument for secular morality) and not all humans  recognize all other humans as human but I personally would find it preferable if they did and I shall continue to advocate for it. My goal does not change because some people disagree and also does not change if some god(s) disagree.

Wow we have really strayed from the topic. Hey you do understand the there is an IF in the syllogisms I provided you with too right? You can complete them without arguing for the position you so obviously believe in and just as obviously know you cannot ever prove. Like you don't have to prove anything to complete these syllogisms. 


IF morality/punishmen/reward/meaning exist THEN ???

IF  morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???
#536
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Some consequences may be involved and you might define those consequences as punishment but to focus on punishment is in my opinion counterproductive.
Great point.
#537
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???
You must be willing to accept any and all consequences of your actions (be willing to suffer for what you believe is right).

IF  morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???
You must discover for yourself what actions are appropriate.
Topic's author
#538
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
IF morality/punishment/reward/meaning exist THEN ???
You must be willing to accept any and all consequences of your actions (be willing to suffer for what you believe is right).

IF  morality/punishment/reward/meaning don't exist THEN ???
You must discover for yourself what actions are appropriate.
Are these completed syllogisms acceptable to you Tarik?
#539
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
It's all words Tarik.
Words that have meanings significant to this discussion.

Though...Nihilism if actually a correct deduction, would be positive.
Prove it.

And anyone assuming a nihilistic identity could be regarded as being positively negative, or negatively positive.
I guess I’m not the only one with labels, you gotta few of your own Mr. Positively Negative.

"objective morality" as nothing more than a subjectively concluded supposition
Prove it.

your conflated assertions are a false dichotomy.
Maybe if I’m missing a valid option, which is?
#540
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not advocating for anything I can not prove exists I am just being told that I am using the wrong words.
This seems accurate.