So, is the problem of evil solved?

God, however, is omnipotent and omniscient, so it is not for lack of ability that God could not explain things to us and the fact that we cannot comprehend God's ways should not be a problem because God did not need to make it that way. — Chany

Very good point. However just as adults conceal and defer some forms of knowledge from children, god must be doing the same - eventually for our own good and benefit.

Physical reaction is not equivalent to awareness — Hanover

I thought of that too but there's a problem in this. We can't distinguish between real consciousness and simulated consciousness (I suspect you want to make this distinction). Having access only to the external behavior of matter, I'm forced to conclude that plants have consciousness.

Some would call it a futile endeavor because the question is unanswerable. However I hesitate to dismiss human ingenuity - may be someone in the future may develop a clever way of detecting simulation indicators

If depression is an illness why isn't elation one?:-}

According to neuroscientist and quasi-philosopher, Antonio Damasio, consciousness is self-awareness + awareness of one's environment (i.e. immediate surroundings). — Maw

That sounds right. I wanted a distinction between ''awareness of environment'' and ''awareness of self''. I guess the two cannot be meaningfully separated. Consciousness does need both.

The obvious question here is ''how do we know we're a simulation or not?"

We can't.

To be honest, I feel life is an absolutely unnecessary abomination — Hamtatro

The irony is that one has to first live before you can say ''life is an absolutely unnecessary abomination''

My son is objectively taller than my daughter. Yellow is objectively lighter in color than indigo — aletheist

There are times when one isn't sure of who is taller e.g. when two people are very close in height. In such cases math lends the precision to validate the ''who is taller'' judgment.

"I like hockey more than football". — Chany

That's quantification if ever I saw one.

But why? You have not provided evidence for this. — Chany

The words I mentioned are the evidence. They make sense only in a quantified universe.

''I can't quantify blue''

How does this indicate to you that I have an innate desire to quantify things? I have no desire to quantify these things, I simply prefer watching hockey over football. — Metaphysician Undercover

I believe words of comparison like ''more'', ''most'', ''least'', ''greater'', ''braver'', etc. are indications of the need to quantify all aspects of experience.

But that is a different question than the merely qualitative comparison of which one is taller than the other, which requires no measurement - and therefore no math - as long as they are standing together. — aletheist

Qualitative comparisons are subjective. Quantitative comaprisons are objective.

I think there's a instinctive preference for the latter. With precise measurements come precise decisions.

The exactitude of math is only possible because it deals with purely hypothetical or ideal states of things. Exact analyses of mathematical models can only serve as approximate analyses of actual situations. — aletheist

Mathematical models are an approximation yes but they work - they grasp at the key players in any situation, sweeping aside the irrelevant, the redundant, the red herrings, etc.

What is then the difference between awareness and consciousness under this view? — mew

Awareness, as indicated by behavior, is sign of consciousness

But as I said before, better is not quantifiable — Metaphysician Undercover

I think the words of comparison we use (better, more beautiful, most ugly, etc) betray an innate desire to quantify things.

Quantification helps us make better decisions.

We make these kinds of qualitative comparisons all the time, and mathematics plays no role in them whatsoever. — aletheist

What I think is mathematics brings precision into the matter and through this a finely nuanced apprehension of the situation.

In your example of the height comparison of boy and girl math helps us to answer who is and by how much taller between the two.

Doesn't the exactitude of math help us fine-tune our knowledge of our universe?

What do you mean? — mew

I mean consciousness is simply being aware of the enivornment we're in. A plant growing towards the sun is ''aware'' of the direction of sunlight.

Robots in a maze are aware of their environment.

Awareness of the environment is a basic feature of consciousness.

How can I understand that the sun is there and move towards the sun but not understand that I'm moving toward the sun? — mew

The answer to the above question is below:

lso, why don't you think that the way plants grow is just programmed and automatic? — mew

It's an interesting thought - this simulation theory. We cannot rule out the possibility of reality being a simulation.

The key question is ''how can we know whether reality is "real" or just a simulation?

To answer this question we can examine dreams. When in a dream state one doesn't realize that one is dreaming - everything feels real until you wake up in the real world.

Can there be something analogous to that in reality? Has anyone ''awakened''?

Do you mean that plants are conscious the same way humans are? — mew

Plants are aware of their surroundings: the branches grow towards the sunlight.

Humans are also aware of their surroundings but one extra bit humans have is self-consciousness

Do we know how it works? If we don't know how it works, do we really know what it is? — mew

Consciousness is awareness of the outside world and that is immanent in all living things.

We have some idea as to how it works e.g. there's a great deal of progress in the analysis of logic, psychology, etc. The complete picture is missing though. Maybe there's something wondrous hidden in the darkness of human ignorance.

Thanks for the replies.

I'd just like to point out that math is central to everything there is.

The simple reason is the ''ER'' and ''EST' words.

BettER, HeaviEST, saddER, whitER, etc.
The above words are comparison words and as such all are an attempt to quantify or in other words all want to use math (the ultimate quantifying tool).
How can we compare two or more things without quantification (use of math) knowing that quantification is necessary in that arena?

Can you suggest a better 'tool'? — Wayfarer

Nope.

I just wanted to know if math had shortcomings of its own. Metaphysician Undercover said math cannot be used in morality.

I agree with you. Math is a useful tool. But we need to be careful where we apply it.

I'm sorry, I think I haven't been clear enough.

Math is now a universally applicable tool, finding its way into almost every subject worth studying. Implicit in this is the premise that math is the tool of preference. In other words it is perfect and we believe as true the results of mathematical calculations/manipulations; math, invariably, improves or underscores the credentials of any study worth its money.

My question is is math deserving of this respect and trust? Could it not be flawed? What does a mathemstical analysis of a given subject deprive us of? Are there some areas of study where math is harmful instead of beneficial?

how do we choose between two equal choices when we have no reason to choose one over the other? — Chany

And I've explained that this is an illusion of choice. There's no way reason and logic can solve this conundrum. It has to be a random selection.

You are getting caught up on the details of thought experiment itself. You are like the person who hears the trolley problem and tries to find some reason to stop the trolley without killing anyone, when the real point is asking whether it is better to kill one person or let five people die. — Chany

Wouldn't saving everybody be the best solution?

But I hold to the principle that it is both immoral and ineffective to rely on being unpleasant to one person to deter another, or to persuade by bullying and threats. Respect and kindness better makes people more amenable. Lots of folk disagree with me though — unenlightened

How effective do you think is your philosophy in practical terms? Does it work?

I don't like what I'm saying but it looks like I have no choice: sometimes lethal force is necessary.

But that is because all punishment is senseless — unenlightened

This I find interesting. I feel that sometimes the only reason someone holds back on committing a crime is the threat of punishment. Is punishment really unreasonable?

killing an unpleasant person might be the best preventative course, — unenlightened

Here I see a problem. We're all going to die.

Either the death penalty doesn't make sense or we've all committed a grave crime.

That is to say, rather than solving the problem of how the donkey decides between two identical piles of grass, you've changed the problem into, how does the donkey take a course of action that keeps it alive. The original problem goes unsolved — Efram

I explained in my previous posts that there being 2 stacks of grass is equivalent to there being no stack of grass, as far as logic is concerned. The ass cannot decide - two identical choices is equivalent to there being no choice. Here, again as far as logic is concerned, choice is simply an illusion.

Then I explained that the real choice here is between satisfying hunger or going hungry. These choices are the real choices available to the ass. I'm sure this approach can be generalized as I think that's what you have in mind. Rationality is now applicable to the problem now. The ass has a logical reason to make a choice. However as explained above the act of choosing between the two stacks of grass cannot be rational. It has to be random - that is the only option available.

In summary I've shown how the ass can still be guided by rationality to make a decision, given the circumstances.

No animal likes to feel pain, therefore they inherently agree with our morality by their actions to avoid pain. Our morality is simply pain = bad therefore don't inflict pain on others — intrapersona

That's the bottomline. Indeed animals avoid pain. A very basic instinct - perhaps forming the foundations of morality as we know it.

So we can only say at the moment that it is subjectively true from a human perspective that "nature is immoral". — intrapersona

How about nature is ''amoral'' instead of ''immoral''?

Thanks. I understand now. I'm working on a particular instance of a more general problem.

However my particular solution (if you agree) can be generalized. The choice is not between two things of equal appeal. The choice is between loose and win. This is the real issue and it compells us to make the choice.

There are two ways to see this:

1. Morality is an exclusively human construct. I don't know what percent of all life humans represent but I surmise it's less than 1%. The rest (99%) haven't even thought of morality. If so are we justified in throwing the cloak of human morality over all of life?

2. As thinking animals we're gifted with self-awareness and rationality - very important and powerful tools with universal application. If these tools say that there's something wrong with carnivory (is this a real word?) we should do well to heed it.

Everything about the essence of the problem has just been left behind — Efram

Yes I could've entirely missed the point of the paradox. However I focussed on how a rational being can be stumped by such a scenario - as per the paradox. I showed that rationality can still be used to come to a decision.

I'm curious as to what you think is the main ossue here. I'd be grateful if you could clarify. Please dumb it down as I'm not so bright (perhaps you already got that from my posts). Thanks.

And the problem is that random choices might not actually be possible (e.g. hard determinism) or that random choices aren't actually choices but things that happen to us — Michael

That's another story isn't it. Also my response to this is to observe how we behave. In a lifetime we face many situations that are similar to this. Do we behave like the ass and well, starve ourselves? No we do not. We simply make a random choice and get on with it. Fact seems to contradict your hypothesis.

The main issue in the paradox is the ass unable to make a rational choice between the two bales of grass. Reason/rationality fails.

What I've shown is that rationality can still guide the ass - it is rational to choose. How it does that is immaterial. If you want to know well, either the actual choosing is rational or random. We already know it can't be rational (isn't that why we have the pardox). So the ass has to make a random choice.

The difficulty here is that you haven't explained how the ass can choose a) over b) or b) over a) — Michael

This is no longer a problem. In the paradox the ass has NO reason to make a choice.

As I've explained the ass HAS a reason to make a choice.

Either the decision is logical or it is random. It can't be logical as you've already explained and I agree. However it can be random but with the added qualification that there IS a reason to being random.

That it's rational to choose a) or b) over c) is not that the random decision to choose a) over b) or b) over a) is rational. And if it's impossible to randomly choose a) over b) or b) over a) then the ass cannot choose a) or b). That's the problem. — Michael

In the original paradox the ass was paralyzed because it didn't have a reason to make a random choice between two identical stacks

I have shown and you've agreed that the rational choice is to make a random selection.

The ass now makes a random choice and lives. What's the difficulty here?

.

Sorry for being dense, but what do you mean by solving? — zookeeper

I only want to say that the alleged random choice the ass has to make is based on rationality. There's no paradox.

– if every choice must be rational – then the ass cannot choose randomly, in which case the ass is incapable of making a choice at all. — Michael

Well, in my humble opinion, as I've shown above, choosing randomly IS the rational choice.