Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#691
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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).
#692
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
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. 
Pardon me, I meant to ask in regards to the concept not the label.

Looks like we both qualified our statement with maybe.
That wasn’t the statement I was referring to, I was referring to

Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?

Topic's author
#693
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.

Topic's author
#694
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.


#695
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Because that is how I personally interpret nihilism, it's definition and it's application.

There are many such words, where despite their specific definition, when it comes to their attribution, the decision making process is clearly, arbitrary and subjective.
#696
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
A lot of religious people define consciousness as the soul. Consciousness is purely a function of the brain. Did you know frogs have consciousness because they have eyes and can see? When focused light is projected onto the retina, it stimulates the rods and cones. The retina then sends nerve signals are sent through the back of the eye to the optic nerve. The optic nerve carries these signals to the brain, which interprets them as visual images. This interpretation is consciousness.
#697
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
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?

An answer being sufficient doesn't make it true.
Then what makes it sufficient?

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.

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.

You are more focused on the labels than we are.
But in this case I’m not, I was solely asking about the concept.
#698
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Because that is how I personally interpret nihilism, it's definition and it's application.
...Obviously but I’m asking you WHY?

There are many such words, where despite their specific definition, when it comes to their attribution, the decision making process is clearly, arbitrary and subjective.
Then how are you able to understand the meanings of words if it’s all arbitrary?
Topic's author
#699
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.
Topic's author
#700
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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. 
#701
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.

Nonetheless:

"Why?" ....Because  I'm not Tarik.

"How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.


#702
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@FLRW
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.
#703
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That humans are a social organism.
...So what about antisocial humans?

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.

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.

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.

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? 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. Lastly I’ve said this before your concept is too vague with many holes in it for there to be any terminology for it.

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.

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?
#704
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You asking dumb questions for the sake of it.
Not saying I agree or disagree with this but I was always told growing up that there was no such thing as stupid questions, nonetheless your
inability to answer doesn’t make it dumb the contrary is some could argue your inability to answer and your lack of comprehension is what makes YOU dumb in this specific sense.

"Why?" ....Because I'm not Tarik.

"How?"....Because I possess the necessary cognitive ability.
There may or may not be dumb questions but that was definitely a dumb answer because it wasn’t in the slightest responsive to what I said or asked, so quit clutching at straws now zed.
Topic's author
#705
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
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. 
Topic's author
#706
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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
???

#707
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
SOUL
Soul = biologic ergo complex consciousness i.e. consciousness is at minimum twoness aka otherness  OO or as * * i.e. two events, is least complex set of consciousness. They share a line-of- relationship but that gets into more complicated set of physics.

Woman { Xx--2ndary symbolisastion  as /**\---} the most complex set of souls we know of in Universe, with man { Xy --*Y*--} coming in a close 2nd to woman.

Spirit-2 is the finite set of fermions { matter particles } and bosons { force particles } that, aggregate collectively as elements, molecules, rocks { substance }, biologics, planets, stars, galaxies etc.

Spirit-1 = Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

---conceptual line-of-demarcation-----

Spirit-3 = Metaphysical-3 conractive/mass-attractive Gravity (  ),

Spirit=4 = Metaphysical-4 repulsive Dark Energy )(.

Gravity and Dark Energy being geometrically, 180 degree, geodesic opposites of a torus geometric set of  inner outer surface curvature seen here as expressed as a vertical { side view } equaltorial  bisection  (  )(  ).

A birds-eye-view { top view } is more like this (  (  )  )




Topic's author
#708
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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).
#709
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
...I'm relatively certain that this is not Tarik's definition especially since he specified that he does not mean conciousness......
I saw two openings to express my thoughts and clarity on definitions, so I chose yours to reply to. Your welcome and good luck with others definitions and clarity.

#710
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
What about them? They are the exception not the rule.
They’re not social and they’re humans so to make a statement claiming that they are is inherently false, and what makes your statement a rule?

So like the burglar it is sufficient but undemonstrated. I still think the child ate the cookies.
The only way you can know that is if the child eating the cookies is demonstrated otherwise the burglar theory is nothing less than a lie and there’s nothing sufficient about that.

You keep equating not knowing with not thinking. These are separate issues.
Pardon me, if you don’t know you shouldn’t act, that’s like going driving unsupervised without your license, if forbid you get into an accident you have no one to blame but yourself because you shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place.

In order for there to be consensus there must be agreement.
...Yes but that’s not what you said before, you equated no consensus to agreement.

Morality, moral standard, punishment, reward, meaning, soul and higher power off the top of my head.
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?

IF we are the ones having the discussion THEN the only concencus that matters is the one between us.
Well there is NONE here.

If I am using a term that is ill defined please request clarification of it.
...Really? Do I need to start quoting instances when I requested exactly just that?

I did say I disagree with how you use the term.
Then that’s another conversation we can have, why do you believe nihilism is subjective?

I cannot adequately explain things to those who are unable to understand or unwilling to listen that is true.
Well if that’s how you feel then I don’t know why you even bother.

That the definition and value of a word can change is no impediment to language or understanding however.
I think the more important thing to note is whether or not it should change and when did I say there was an impediment to understanding?

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.
Unlike you I believe one of the purposes of semantics is so we don’t define things any way we want to, so I’ll go out on a limb here and say I agree with Google’s definition (which is free BTW so feel free to look it up if it interests you).

Topic's author
#711
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.

Topic's author
#712
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Google’s definition of soul = soul 
  1. the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.(Undemonstrated)
  2. 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)


#713
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I can’t help but notice you dodged a lot of my arguments, I’ve ignored it in previous posts but considering it can lead to a circle I’m wondering why and would like an answer.
Topic's author
#714
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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. 
#715
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Typical Tarik.
#716
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I never said I was, I was just making a suggestion (you’ve made plenty of those) but fine by me I guess I’ll return the favor by picking and choosing what to respond to as well, with the expectation of my points being brought up again anyway.

because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
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?

#717
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Another pointless comment, goodbye zed.
Topic's author
#718
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.
#719
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
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.
Topic's author
#720
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@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.