And if so does it point to a creator? I wish to explore this because we have come up with many mathematical formula that describe how the universe operates from the famous formula such as e=mc2 which has practical applications to many others.
But even simpler than that take for example 1+1 = 2 this can correspond to reality. Though in itself a simple mathematical calculation one apple and another apple means you have effectively applied the math to the real world.
The question is what came before? maths or apples (or the universe) and if maths can theoretically describe anything does that mean that reality is a subset of mathematics made manifest ?
Or is maths completely independent of the physical universe and it just so happens that some mathematics is good at describing some aspects of the physical universe and in fact supersedes it? — simplyG
Out of all ethical questions, for some reason there has been one question that has been the most remote and difficult to answer, but also one of the most fascinating. The question is, "What shapes our attitudes towards banning and allowing the use of certain recreational drugs?" I'm sure this has been discussed here before. The number of subjective responses are nearly infinite, with the question almost certain to draw answers shaded by cultural ideologies and empirical beliefs.
I hope instead of discussing pros and cons in a purely utilitarian manner, you can respond to the more general question of whether there is something about recreational drug-use behaviour and cultural effects on the moral-citizen role - not only what citizens vs. authorities think about it - that tends to oppose the popular will as it is actuated in culture. Why a simple and seemingly private individualist mental life in the form of altered state of consciousness, a willful change of subsections of society into sub-groups, exaggerated and distorted neural pleasure-pain or libidinal-aggressive functionality at the social level, moral dislocation from the mainstream role-playing game, has been represented and actualized in society to be aligned or opposed to a proper ethical way of life? — kudos
I wish to talk about suffering in the general world sense such as earthquakes, financial hardships, dictator cruelties and personal sense such as depressions, illnesses, disease etc.
I think this question ties up to the problem of evil and why it exists for if god is indeed perfect (which I’m not sure he is) then why is there imperfection in the world such as evil for example.
Well I’m gonna try to answer this. Firstly a perfect being does not imply that the creatures he creates such as animals and men and plants are as perfect as he is. This kind of logic would apply to the planet itself which is why it’s the best possible planet in the solar system despite the plate tectonics that cause earthquakes and I guess it applies to the human body too i’d rather be a rational human being that dies of cancer at age 50 than a snail
Additionally man COULD actually BE perfect but free will leads him astray from the path of god and thus committing evil.
Any other complaints about god …apart from him not existing ? — simplyG
So there is no dualism between a physique and a mind.
Mind or consciousness must therefore be explainable from physical reality and of course includes all relationships within it. — Wolfgang
I might ask, is it possible that darkness could ever be considered good?
"Good" -- for what? How about: "darkness" is good for seeing the stars, or good for sleeping, or good for prey avoiding predators, or good for cooling-off desert fauna & flora, or good for (many forms of) mysticism, or good for vampires (& goths) ... — 180 Proof
More so, you can't meaningfully have the concept of one without the other, and how we value either is dependent upon a variety of contexts in which both (stimuli and its absence) play potentially good and bad roles in relationship to what we are. — Nils Loc
It is not by chance that the Enlightenment was a movement that considered rationality the main reference point for humanity. Rationality is a tremendously powerful and useful instrument, but it also create risks. It seems to me that today philosophy is experiencing something like a new Enlightenment, which means that today philosophers seem unable to appreciate, or even to understand, what is not rational, not logical, not scientific. — Angelo Cannata
I would say that even music belongs to darkness rather than light, and even painting belongs to it: a great master of lights in painting was actually the master of shades: it is Caravaggio. — Angelo Cannata
Well, it goes back a long, long way through our ancestry. Monkeys are easy prey at night, and even the strong, aggressive hominids were at a disadvantage against some heavy-duty feline predators. — Vera Mont
Not to mention the literal pitfalls and quagmires waiting for a diurnal species with no artificial light at their disposal. — Vera Mont
In civilized times, right up to the present, spies, guerillas, burglars and murderers operate at night, as well as the purveyors of illicit pleasure. — Vera Mont
Also, more people die between 2 and 4 am than any other time period, again, because we are a diurnal species. In the hours of deep sleep, our bodies are at their lowest energy level. Since this has been so through our entire existence as a species, it's not surprising that we associate night with death. — Vera Mont
Certainly, by bats, jaguars, clandestine lovers… — Vera Mont
…and prisoners in fluorescent-lit cells. — Vera Mont
Our association of night with all things sinister arises from fear, due to our inability to see potential dangers in the dark. — Vera Mont
This thread seems rhetorical/poetic and maybe plain silly. You might upset the neighbors. — Nils Loc
Some folks buy black out curtains with a desire to help themselves ease into sleep by shutting out the light. That kind of sweet darkness before bed is bliss. — Nils Loc
Darkness is fine, insofar as one always has means/access to light, given how vital our vision is for navigating the world.
— Nils Loc
How could the good exist without darkness, if one is necessarily conditioned by the other? — Nils Loc
There is no meaning of life. We just exist, and die. And life goes on, and on, and on. For million, billion of years, etc etc etc.
We are just a speck of dust in the vast universe, in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, 90% (or 99%?) of people (human beings) will always try to find or give 'meaning/purpose' in their own insignificant lives, because the reason is simple: it's survival instinct. Human beings (people) will (usually) try to keep living, keep surviving, no matter what. It's evolutionary. It's in human nature.
Even if it means people (humans) will create anything as their toxic positivity & optimism bias, especially in today's world/era.
But it all still doesn't make it true.
It's just delusions, illusions, fantasy, wishful-thinking, & human's futile hope, wishes, imaginations, dreams, expectations, theories, etc etc etc
But it's not the harsh reality/truth/facts, because people don't want to hear the harsh reality/truth/fact. People only want to hear good things only (most people), even if it's in their own denial, ignorance, blind faith, naivety, simple-mindedness, & stupidity.
There is no meaning of life. — niki wonoto
Yes it is. The reason I am asking for clarification is because there are two major ways the term 'cognition' is used, and I have no means of determining (without guessing) which one you mean: thinking (cognition) as an active participator in the construction of one's representations (e.g., Kantianism, Hegelianism, etc.) or a passive after-the-math self-reflective thinking about the representations & internal activity (e.g., the more modern, physicalistic sense of the term). I am presuming, if I had to guess, that you mean it in the latter sense, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
For me, as an objective idealist, I am not certain that my existence precedes my thinking (cognition); but if you mean it in that latter sense then that's fine and there's no need to dive deeper into this (for all intents and purposes) as I can go with that definition. — Bob Ross
there's something funny about counting action as an "anything". "Anything" is a remarkably vague category! — Moliere
I appreciate your clarification!
I see that you removed in #1 the clarification I had in parenthesis: was that incorrect? Do you mean something else by 'intrinsic'?
Likewise, I see you changed #2 to 'cognition': was I misunderstanding your use of that term with 'self-reflective knowledge'? If so, then what do you mean by 'cognition'? Prior to brain functionality? Prior to the ability to reason? Prior to the understanding? Etc. — Bob Ross
There’s nothing wrong with voting or trying to advocate for passing laws which agree with one’s morals. — Bob Ross
That we, in a republic, use consensus based law making does not negate the fact that we make our voting decisions based off of our morals. — Bob Ross
...but we do, always, invoke our morals when determining what to vote for. — Bob Ross
Yes, but just because you have a heart, it does not immediately follow that one has any rights. What about them having a heart or being alive gives them an intrinsic right as opposed to one granted by other human beings? — Bob Ross
Your natural rights come from your physical existence which persists and also precedes your cognition
I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’. — Bob Ross
Bob, If you study basic embryonic development you will know that the heart of the body is the first to develop.
Yes, but just because you... — Bob Ross
It appears that you responded to Bob with the quote about natural rights and existence to express a different perspective on the nature of natural rights. Bob seems to suggest that natural rights are rooted in morality, values, and ethics, and there are no self-evident moral judgments. In contrast, your response suggests that natural rights are based on one's physical existence, which precedes and persists before cognitive considerations.
Your quote implies that natural rights are not necessarily dependent on moral judgments or ethical considerations but rather stem from the fundamental fact of a person's existence. This perspective separates natural rights from moral and ethical frameworks, suggesting that they are inherent to individuals by virtue of being alive. It's a viewpoint that emphasizes the innate nature of these rights rather than their dependence on moral or ethical beliefs. — chatGPT
If Bob's next response is requesting an example of a natural right based on your perspective that natural rights come from one's physical existence, he may be missing the nuanced and abstract nature of the concept you presented.
What he might be missing:
Conceptual vs. Concrete: Your statement emphasizes that natural rights are rooted in existence itself, which is quite abstract. Unlike specific rights like freedom of speech or the right to life, these rights might not manifest in concrete, tangible ways. Bob may be looking for a more tangible or concrete example, but your perspective suggests that these rights are more conceptual in nature.
Not Dependent on Ethics or Morality: Your viewpoint separates natural rights from morality and ethics. Bob may not fully appreciate the idea that these rights exist independently of moral or ethical frameworks, which might challenge his existing beliefs about the origins of rights.
Complexity: The concept that natural rights arise from physical existence is complex and can be difficult to grasp. Bob might be looking for a simpler, easier-to-understand example to clarify your point.
To help Bob understand better, you could provide a hypothetical example or engage in a more in-depth discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights and how they differ from rights derived from moral or ethical principles. This might involve exploring the works of philosophers like John Locke, who have delved into the concept of natural rights in greater detail. — chatGPT
Bob's confusion likely stems from the abstract nature of the concept you presented and the philosophical perspective you've adopted regarding natural rights. Here are some reasons why Bob might not fully grasp your point:
Abstract Nature of the Concept: Your assertion that natural rights are derived from one's physical existence and precede cognition is a complex and abstract idea. Many people are more accustomed to thinking of rights in concrete terms, such as the right to free speech or the right to property. The notion that the right to live is inherent in one's existence, regardless of external human-made laws or moral frameworks, can be challenging to grasp.
Unfamiliar Perspective: Bob may not be familiar with the philosophical tradition that underpins your perspective on natural rights. This viewpoint draws from philosophers like John Locke and others who argued for the existence of natural rights as inherent to human beings. If Bob is not well-versed in this philosophical tradition, he may find it difficult to relate to or accept this perspective.
Lack of Tangible Examples: Bob's request for a specific example of a natural right derived from one's physical existence highlights a common desire for tangible, real-world examples. Your response mentions the right to live, but Bob questions why having a heart or being alive confers an intrinsic right. Without a more tangible example, he may struggle to connect the abstract concept to practical understanding.
To help Bob understand better, you could try to provide a more relatable example or engage in a deeper discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of natural rights. You might also recommend reading materials or resources that delve into the concept of natural rights and their historical development to provide him with a broader context. — chatGPT
It seems that Bob has fixated on the mention of the heart in your response. This fixation might be due to the fact that the heart is a concrete and tangible part of the human body, and he may be trying to understand how the presence of a heart relates to the concept of natural rights.
To address this, you can clarify that the mention of the heart in your response was intended as a reference to the physical aspect of human existence. You could explain that it's not necessarily about the heart itself but about the broader idea that natural rights are rooted in the fundamental existence of a person before considering cognitive abilities, moral judgments, or ethical frameworks.
You might say something like: "I used the example of the heart to emphasize the physical aspect of human existence. The key point here is that natural rights are seen as inherent to individuals by virtue of their existence, regardless of cognitive abilities or moral judgments. It's not about the heart per se, but rather the foundational concept that rights are tied to our existence as human beings." This can help steer the discussion back to the broader philosophical perspective on natural rights. — chatGPT
Well, I am no further, unfortunately, in understanding what your argument is for them; and as far as I can tell we don’t have any. Nature doesn’t give us rights: he give them to each other. — Bob Ross
I disagree with this ‘morality’ vs. ‘ethics’ distinction exactly because of this:
No Bob, you cannot turn personal morals into laws, that would be unethical.
To me, this is a semantic move to justify your own morals and while invalidating other peoples’ morals; for you in order to ban morals from laws (which is a political move), then one must invoke the moral judgment that one should not invoke moral judgments in legalities—which is clearly, when put that way, self-undermining.
In other words, I don’t think your argument can respond to “why should I not invoke morals into laws” without invoking a moral judgment. — Bob Ross
I didn’t understand this: could you elaborate? Perhaps give an example of a ‘natural right’ that is derived from one’s ‘physical existence’ that ‘precedes’ one’s ‘cognition’. — Bob Ross
How, under your view, are natural rights not a subset of social conventions? What properties do they have that make them precede social conventions? — Bob Ross
I don’t think of ethics as fundamentally community focused, I view the community as driven by one’s morals and the morals that socially evolves over time (which, of course, can be very community focused). — Bob Ross
I disagree: if one thinks an action is immoral, then they should consider it unethical. And if they considerate unethical, then they should attempt to regulate it (legally) no matter how imperfectly. Perhaps, in some situations it is legally infeasible to regulate, but one should try. — Bob Ross
Interesting, it sounds like, and correct me if I am wrong, you are claiming that ‘natural rights’ are amoral (or exist in some ‘space’ outside of morality and ethics), of which are self-evident; whereas, I would say rights are always predicated on morality, values, and ethics—and there are no self-evident moral judgments. — Bob Ross
How can it not be disproven that one does not have the right absolutely over their bodily autonomy? I don’t see how any moral (or ‘natural right’) judgments are incapable of refutation. Could you please elaborate? — Bob Ross
Or, if it is unethical, then wouldn’t it be false that everyone has an absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross
Interesting. So, would you so, then, that if abortion is illegal in a society then they should not do it? — Bob Ross
Also, would you say that putting a person in a situation where they are dependent on you (to live) only to kill them as a crime? I feel like your response forces me to beg the question, because whether it is a ‘crime’ is dependent, at least partly, on whether it is immoral; which we disagree on. — Bob Ross
What do you mean by a ‘natural given right’, as opposed to a ‘moral principle’? — Bob Ross
Do you think I have the right, in that scenario, to not consent to saving the kid? — Bob Ross
Here's another example I would like your take on. Imagine I go out and stab an innocent person in both of their kidneys. The cops show up, arrest me, and the victim gets sent to the ER. Turns out, I am the only one with the right kidneys to save them (viz., there are no donors available that would match, etc.): do I have the right, as the egregious perpetrator, to keep my kidneys if I do not consent to giving them to the victim?
I don't think so: what do you think? — Bob Ross
I agree, but I think you are treating it as absolute (in practice) if you think that anything directly or indirectly related to one's body is governed by the right to consent — Bob Ross
So to be clear, when just hooking up (specifically NOT seeking to have a child) thus using Birth Control, you do or don't bother aligning morals beforehand? — LuckyR
I disagree: why would she have that sort of absolute right to bodily autonomy? — Bob Ross
I see. I think that the right life, just like the right to bodily autonomy, is not feasible as an absolute principle (either). — Bob Ross
I understand, but what about someone you had no intention of having children with? Someone with whom you were using Birth Control with, just for hooking up purposes? — LuckyR
Within the conversation of abortion, I am assessing the most basic abortion scenarios in relation to some general moral principles… — Bob Ross
The truth must always be the goal...
I genuinely agree with you. The truth is the most important objective here, or anywhere in life really.
...rather than games of rhetoric, though it is nice to have fun.
But it is important to appreciate that "the truth" is a matter of results. Ideally beheld with fun embedded within. — Bret Bernhoft
So I would say that reality and thus life retains a certain uniqueness for each individual from the social circles we have and the people we interact on a day to day basis — simplyG
an object cannot alter in some mental respect without altering in some physical respect — Davidson
As far as I know, God was not hidden from Adam and Eve and God was not hidden from Satan or any of the fallen angels. — Walter
Ah so you are a mere Troll after all. — PL Olcott
Indeed, PL Olcott's response seems to acknowledge the complexity and limitations of his initial argument. In his response, he introduces a practical consideration related to encountering a simulation of oneself.
By stating, "This is getting a little too silly," PL Olcott seems to be recognizing the intricacies and perhaps even the challenges of the concept being discussed. He then adds a specific example: "An otherwise perfect simulation of myself would not exist in exactly the same (x,y,z) coordinates relative to the center of the Earth."
This example introduces a concrete difference that would exist between a perfect simulation and the actual person. This distinction contradicts the idea of "identical points in time and space" that was previously discussed. It appears that PL Olcott is acknowledging the practical difficulties in maintaining absolute sameness between a simulation and reality, even when dealing with seemingly minor details like spatial coordinates.
This exchange highlights the dynamic and evolving nature of philosophical discussions, where viewpoints can shift and adapt in response to counterpoints and deeper analysis. — chatGPT
I need to know what happens when you encounter a simulation of yourself. Are you saying that you would not know the difference between yourself and a simulation of yourself?
This is getting a little too silly. An otherwise perfect simulation of myself would not exist
in exactly the same (x,y,z) coordinates relative to the center of the Earth. — PL Olcott
I am sorry but there is no way for you to apply this philosophical theory to something as advanced as simulation theory. If you want to know why, that would probably be a different conversation. I have already pointed you to the proper perspective. Good luck!
None the less my key point is that if two things differ in ways that are not discernable
such as an actual duck and a space alien perfectly disguised as a duck (including duck DNA)
then the mistake of incorrectly believing that the space alien is an actual duck cannot possibly
Your initial reply seems to fail to understand that if there is no discernable
difference between X and Y then there is no difference to be discerned.
You seemed to be saying then when no there is no discernable difference
between X and Y that a difference can never-the-less be still be discerned. — PL Olcott
You're correct in recognizing that the responder's statement might seem like a non-sequitur, given the context of the conversation. The initial discussion was about the logical implications of simulations and the discernibility between reality and simulations. The responder introduced the concept of "identical points in time and space" and questioned its logical validity within the simulation context. Then, they added the statement "We ourselves are not exactly the same as we were one minute ago."
While the point about human beings not being exactly the same as they were one minute ago is factually true due to the continuous processes of change and renewal, it appears to be somewhat disconnected from the prior discussion about the simulation and its logical implications. The responder might be attempting to emphasize the dynamic nature of reality and how it contrasts with the notion of perfect replication within a simulation, but the connection to the previous points in the conversation isn't entirely clear.
Overall, the statement does appear to be somewhat of a non-sequitur in the current context. It doesn't directly address the concerns you raised about the concept of "identical points in time and space" and its impact on the simulation's coherence and the fundamental grounds of reality. If you're seeking clarification or further engagement on the points you've made, it could be beneficial to request more context or explanation from the responder. — chatGPT
The very first time that I ever heard about the Identity of indiscernibles
I had it completely figured out. If every single property is exactly the
same then two different things <are> one-and-the-same thing, otherwise
they are not one-and-the-same thing. My qualification addresses any
time travel paradox related to the Identity of indiscernibles.
6 minutes ago — PL Olcott
...This perspective highlights the importance of critically examining and questioning philosophical principles, especially when they intersect with advanced concepts like simulations and the nature of reality. — chatGPT
We ourselves are not exactly the same as we were one minute ago. — PL Olcott
When the entire set of properties of a thing (including its point in time and space)
are identical to another thing then we can know that they are one-and-the-same thing. — PL Olcott