(Y) Thanks for the link

You've not defined a paradox. — noAxioms

In my OP I showed that neither person A nor person B have exclusive right over Prometheus' identity (because of the identical nature of their brains). It can't be both because the concept of identity is predicated on oneness. Isn't this a paradox?

Yes, for yourself. As for myself, it does not apply for a variety of reasons — Rich

What is your meaning of life then?

Maybe bats are more advanced because they don't need books? — Rich

You mean they're clairvoyant and cognizant of the universe in its entirety? I don't think so.

Oh, you mean like bats have this unique echo-location sense that we monkeys don't, so the universe must be all about them. — unenlightened

You're missing the point (I think deliberately). Bats can't study us but we can study them. Have you seen a book on humans written by bats? The human mind is unique in that respect. We're the only animals with a well developed mind that enables to examine everything in the universe. We hold the magic mirror and we reflect the universe and all its contents on it. No other animal can do what we do.

I'm not saying other animals aren't unique but I am saying that their uniqueness doesn't allow them to examine the world like we can.

Not everyone poses this question to themselves, but those who do find different answers which tend to change over time. — Rich

I agree the meaning of life can change over time but right now, the meaning I described seems to be the best fit.

How do you solve this paradox?

How a body is able to constantly replace and repair (in some animals regenerate) itself is a fascinating topic. Body intelligence send to be fully dispersed throughout the body and had a memory of how to create the replace and repair. — Rich

Yes it is. How do you solve the paradox?

There's an infinite number of propositions that have terrible consequences if they are true and we dont believe them, how absurd it would be to consider them all. — PeterPants

You seem to stand out from the rest. An essential element of planning requires factoring in the unforseen, the bolt from the blue that could burn the most meticulous of plans. In this case, God, we already know what it means not to believe in Him - eternal torment. So, your plan, anyone's, should include God.

Everyone is agnostic about God — PeterPants

Late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc.

[img]

Why should this be the case? — Noble Dust

Do you agree that love of wife is different from love of sister, which is different from love of a car, and so on? If yes, it's only rational to expect their contraries be distinct from each other.

An analogy:
1, 2, 3,...are numbers distinct from each other (the different forms of love). The contrary of 1, not 1, is distinct from the contrary of 2, not 2. If not 1 and not 2 were same then there wouldn't be a difference between 1 and 2. But, there's a difference between 1 and 2. So, not 1 and not 2 should be distinct. Hate should have forms, each specific to a form of love.

I think Love as Agape is not well-differentiated, — Noble Dust

The different forms of love mentioned in my posts are the different forms of Agape.

Some bags are pockets, no pocket is a pouch.
Conclusion: All bags are not pouches — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

Some pigs are predators, no predator is a pet.
Conclusion: Some pigs are not pets — Srap Tasmaner

Valid

Some maggots are flies, no fly is welcome.
Conclusion: no maggots are welcome — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, fallacy of illicit minor

Some doctors are fools, all fools are rich.
Conclusion: Some doctors are rich — Srap Tasmaner

Valid

All mangoes are golden, nothing golden is cheap.
Conclusion: All mangoes are cheap. — Srap Tasmaner

Invalid, the conclusion should be negative since one premise is negative.

What's your point though? Did you have a look at the premises in the OP. It seems we can't draw any conclusion from it. Can you help?

It's about aware awareness not truth — Rich

If it's not about truth why the question:
What is the meaning of life?

The question seems to invite only one proposition and propositions are about truth.

But the epic tale of all life on earth is hideously long and follows no compelling arc; the human vignette is far more satisfying... — VagabondSpectre

If you're satisfied with it, fine but many aren't. They decry the meaninglessness of life. It leads them down the path of depression, pushing them over the edge into death's embrace. Such men/women seek objective and grand meaning - the meaning of life. How do you deal with such people?

let other people see life differently. — Rich

The problem is many want the meaning of life.

It isnt rational — Beebert

It is.
All beings who're a self-aware are beings who want to know who they are.
Humans are beings who're self-aware
Therefore, we want to know who we are.
The conclusion is made stronger by the fact that we're the only living things (at least on Earth) who have a highly developed ability of rational inquiry. So, that virtually makes humans = the consciousness of the universe.

It depends on what you mean by one — Beebert

The true meaning of life can never be more than one. Like I said we can conceive of life's meaning as roles in a movie - we play our part and exit. However, all these roles, different though they are, must be cohere to tell a single story. If this were not so, the movie, play, novel wouldn't make sense - it'll be chaos.

What do you mean objective? — Beebert

Something is objective to the extent that it's rational and fact-based. My meaning of life - to discover the secrets of the universe - is based on the fact that humans are the only living things with the mental prowess to study the universe. So, doesn't that mean our goals, meaning, etc. should be predicated on this unique faculty?

Everything that is singular, grand and objective is also reducible, banal and subjective. — Nils Loc

What are your reasons for your claim? You've judged but not explicated your evidence. I have.

To better understand what or who we are? — Rich

(Y)

altruistic behavior from one person increases the chances of reproductive success for those close to the altruist who are carrying some of the same genetic material.

Either way, the altruist's own genes are at risk of not being​ passed on to somebody else. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You answered your own question. I think of ALL life, not just humans, and what we see is that reproduction is the prime motivator - flowers, nectar, colorful feathers, pheromones, aggression, etc. Without reproduction life is impossible. So, reproduction is an objective meaning of life. It's a truth. All that it lacks, in human terms, is what I call ''grandness''. That's why I had to look elsewhere.

The purposes of our lives that we set for ourselves are the most "meaningful" purposes that we have access to. Many of us differ in terms of what we think constitutes a worthwhile purpose, and generally we choose purposes which make us happy (in the short or long run, and with open or closed eyes). — VagabondSpectre

That's subjective meaning and so, in my terms, it falis as a meaning of life because each will disagree with the other since the meaning/purpose of each individual isn't based on rationality and facts, rather on personal preferences as when we choose an ice cream flavor.

Take the analogy of the movie. You seem to be saying that each person has his/her own role to play. However, if there's no overarching organization to these roles, the movie, play would be absolute nonsense. What then of subjective meaning? Surely, it too is nonsense.

To convince a fish, you need an argument that self-awareness is more valuable than swimming. — unenlightened

Value is, at least in part, attached to uniqueness and we are unique, being the only rational animal. Imagine a room full of blind people. Each person has his/her own talents but ALL are blind. Now, you walk in and presuming you're sighted, you're then given the responsibility of seeing for the blind people. It's something like that.

It must be very disappointed, then, to find it has such a mind — Ciceronianus the White

It's too soon to judge. Evolution hasn't stopped, has it?

I doubt that you will ever get anyone to agree on all of these, so it can never be objective.
Unless of course you are willing to accept that the only meaning of life is to live it. — Sir2u

I think people will agree to the conditions I set because they're the very reasons why no one has yet found a meaning to life.

The meaning of life is not to live it. It's to discover how to live it. Imagine you're given a gift. The gift by itself has no meaning. It's how you perceive the gift's value that gives meaning.

Seeking joy
Nature's lonely toy
Avoiding pain
Run from the rain
In this great game
Like a moth to a flame
So, have at least one goal
Play your pointless role
The clash of things
In it, truth rings

(Y) Thanks

Purely a logic exercise. Nothing more. :)

Suicide is much more complex than a disjunctive syllogism. — Question

I'm afraid it is not. The final stage of reasoning is exactly a disjunctive syllogism. It's rational, agreed, but only in a mechanical robotic sense. The reasoning prior to it is what's important (I think that's what you mean) and that I can say, all Buddhists say, is erroneous. There are exceptions to this view, but that's a vacuous truth because every rule has exceptions.

In others, I don't see the argument from the sanctity of life as a viable alternative. — Question

Sanctity has nothing to do with it. Suffering, the much touted reason to peddle suicide as an option, is irrational. It's simply foolishness and dangerous to ask for the impossible - life can't be a bed of roses. So, accept facts e.g. the Buddhist tenet of impermanence, if you accept it, drastically reduces suffering, or so I hear.

Again, if we're going to die either way, then one can choose when and how they want to die. — Question

Well, yes, it's true choice exists at every point along the way to almost anything. However, the circumstances surrounding these choices are very different for a suicidal person. It's coercion, subtle and almost imperceptible, and most don't see it. I think your sense of choice (in suicide) is so broad that in such a world the possibility of there being situations where we don't have choice is zero. That I think isn't good because, to say the least, it ignores the complexity of human nature and behavior.

however, I don't think we've evolved to the point of being concerned for the welfare and lives of others to such an extent that suicide would appear morally wrong. — Question

Suicide is not morally wrong. It's irrational (most of the time).

The answer's still not clear. Can you rephrase it in standard form.

Both give the same result; but, it's the one done in cold rationality that bears the mark of making a self-determined choice — Question

Cold rationality??. Give me some examples. Suicide is rationalonly to the extent that we choose through a disjunctive syllogism:

1) Either A or suicide
2) Not A (not acceptable option)
Therefore,
3) Suicide

And I think, premise 1 is false most of the time. In extremis, we may take desperate steps but that's the whole point, in extremis.

I don't understand your point. Let me give you another example:

1) All cats are mammals
2) No cats are dogs

What is the conclusion?

Draw a Venn diagram in the standard way and you'll see we can't draw any conclusion from it. Strange??!!

Fine, have it your way. You're robbing yourself of your future (be it a depressed and unhappy one) by committing suicide. — Question

:D

I'm not suicidal, unfortunately. I'm not saying we should opt suicide. What is important to to know is the average Joe doesn't commit suicide (choice) and at the other end of the spectrum we have suicide (choice). The difference is that the the former's choice is free while the latter's isn't. This must surely mean something, right?

We all want to avoid suffering — dukkha

That's the linchpin - want. It goes against fact and truth - that suffering is impossible to avoid - and therein lies its flaw. Is it wise/reasonable to want the impossible, in this case the total liberation from suffering? How do you respond to the child who thinks he can fly like superman? You don't preach suicide, rather you explain the foolishness of the want to fly.

The view above is also enunciated in Buddhism - that suffering is irrational and arises from a disconnect between reality (truth) and our expectations (wants).

So, anyone who advocates suicide as a solution to suffering is being totally irrational. Not that I'm saying suicide should be completely off the table - it's a rational choice when faced with extreme psychological or physical pain. However, your argument is not about these exceptional cases. Rather it's about all life and that is a falsehood.

Suicide is NOT rational (except in extreme situations) or if you prefer, suicide is rational in extremis but not in MOST situations.

It's still a decision, you can't take away the choice that one makes in their decision-making process. — Question

The point of coercion is to rob someone of choice. I've been forced to do things and I certainly didn't feel like I had a choice.

Either X or suicide
Not X (by force or threat)
Therefore, suicide

Does the above look like choice?

Out of curiosity, can you expand some on dat? — Wosret

The frames you speak of are dynamic and interact with the content you put into it. One may start off with the principle that ''love is good'' and then fit into this frame facts about the world. These contents will reinforce and consolidate the frame. However, any fact that's contrary (an exception) will force you to alter the frame...transforming it into something better (hopefully).

(Y) Thanks

While that might be true it still doesn't take away from the fact that suicide is a personal decision. — Question

Decisions under duress aren't free. Yes, suicide is a personal decision, but, it's forced upon you. In a sense, it's the perfect murderer's MO (modus operandi). Isn't that why, in law, we have to investigate suicides? We look for foul play, both direct (murder being made to look like suicide) and indirect (inciting someone to suicide).

(Y)

My logic is bad. I've read some up recently and I'm still quite shaky on the subject.

Nihil ex nihilo = nothing comes from nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing = everything comes from something = (Ax)(Ey)(x comes from y) = not the case that there exists an x such that it is false that there exists a y such that x comes from y
= ~(Ex)~(Ey)(x comes from y).

(1) ~(Ex)~(Ey)(x comes from y)

Creatio ex nihilo = something comes from nothing.
Something comes from nothing = there exists an x such that for all y, it's false that x comes from y = (Ex)(Ay)~(x comes from y).

(2) (Ex)(Ay)~(x comes from y)

Oh now I see it. Thanks. Had to write that down to understand it.

(1) is the negation of (2). Am I right?

(Y)

Doesn't (Ax)(Ey)(x came from y) mean ''everything came from something''?

Creatio ex nihilo (CEN) would be true IF there exists a thing that came from nothing. To me, CEN seems to be expressing the existence of at least ONE thing that came from nothing. That's why I used the particular quantifier Ex.

Wouldn't it be better translated as:

(Ex)(Ay)~(x came from y)?

(Y)
To add...these frames aren't static and lifeless. They evolve with the content you put into them. Fixing, flexing, metamorphosing...

Suicide is impossible. There's always something that does the killing - giving you the reason to swallow that cyanide capsule. Fear, pain, depression, and there are many more. Agreed there's no one pointing a gun to your face but there is something forcing you to take the deadly option.

It's like smoking. It's killing but sufficiently concealed under piles of profit money that we don't realize it. Even if we do realize it, there's little we can do about it.

1. Let p = "There exists at least one thing", so ~p = "There exists no thing at all".
2. Let creatio ex nihilo = ~p & ~p -> p.
3. By logic it follows that 2. is false (and therefore impossible). — Pippen

Strange, I can't seem to find an error in the argument. There's something wrong though.

P = something exists
~P = nothing exists
That's fine.

~P > P.......here something is wrong. This doesn't capture the full meaning of ''creatio ex nihilo'', which is, ''something comes from nothing''. The relationship between ~P and P isn't the logical implication (->) you're using. Let me explain:

~P > P means: IF nothing exists THEN something exists. Surely, this is NOT what you mean.

Creatio ex nihilo means: Something comes from nothing.
In predicate logic it would be:
If, Nx: x arose from nothing
(Ex)(Nx) = there exists something that arose from nothing.

"truth is primarily a property of judgement not of propositions" - Is this true? — Modern Conviviality

I can make sense of that. Any train of thought must have some axioms to start from and their truth is a matter of judgment. Without axioms thinking would be impossible: Munchhausen Trilemma

However, what follows from axioms are truths that are evidential and so not just a matter of judgment.

(Y)

The mind is more than just the brain. The separation between mind and brain is equivalent, if not more, to that between a rock and life - a giant leap. But just as life, despite its uniqueness and complexity, absolutely depends on matter, the mind too depends on the brain. Put off the brain and the mind closes shop. Doesn't the mind shut down during sleep (brain ceases higher functions)?

The mind is different from the brain but it's not completely independent of the brain. So, it's ok to think that we have a soul but that's where the story comes to an end. After life, free will, etc. don't follow from the existence of a soul.

I should've included morality under intrinsic value category but I couldn't see any clear-cut boundary between it and happiness. In short, I thought we're good because, bottomline, being moral makes us happy.

But, it seems there's a difference between morality and happiness. Just as with truth, there are moral situations that are not fun e.g. sacrificing yourself for another. These examples provide enough grounds to make morality something with intrinsic value.

To the extent that I know, the relationship mind-body or mind-brain, if you prefer, isn't an equal one. To say the least, the mind is lower than the brain on the power/influence heirarchy.

So, free will may not be that easy to entertain as a possibility unless, of course, you think power flows from the mind to the brain too. I think it does, for example, thoughts can have profound influence on the body e.g. the placebo effect, the power of suggestion, etc. But these can be more simply explained as the body affecting the body or the brain playing with itself, if you will.

Better-than is not equivalent to good. That's it — darthbarracuda

(Y)

An unethical thing to do would be to lie about a robot's capabilities, especially if it concerns human emotional needs (in this case the need for a person to talk to).

I don't think people are so stupid to believe that a robot is a person. We're completely aware that all things robotic have the artificial tag. So, I don't see anything unethical in using robots for any purpose, from cooking to psychotherapy, because we're not being lied to. Think of sex toys. The blow-up doll isn't a real person but it does provide therapeutic benefit.:P

The good have nothing to hide.

Privacy often provides the space where crimes are committed.

The difference between:

1. Instrumental value
And
2. Intrinsic value

I think happiness has intrinsic value. Everything else can be reduced to means for achieving happiness.

Also, truth has intrinsic value. Why does it deserve its own category? Because, truth and happiness are not identical. Some truths are sad e.g. the suffering extant in our world, yet, we feel it's necessary to know this truth. Paradoxical!

Another thing that has intrinsic value is life. It's different from happiness and truth because people continue to want to live despite suffering and ignorance. Suicidal people are exceptions.