Only if you don't clusterfuck off! — Janus

Really, if a piece of writing is literally a clusterfuck, does this qualify as a fallacy?

At least you seem to have moved on from much of your illogic to focus on trivial semantics. That's progress of a sort, I suppose. Let's just agree to disagree, as I don't really care about your opinion on the semantics here, and it doesn't seem worth arguing over. If your semantics is anything like your illogic, then it will leave much to be desired. — S

What? You just now realized that my objection to your thought experiment is based in semantics? Right from the beginning, I objected to your use of "an hour", saying that it was meaningless nonsense in that context. How could it take you this long to see that?

You continue to conflate length with measurement. — Janus

Length is a type of measurement, just like width, height, temperature, etc.. In the case of this op, the measurement referred to is "an hour". I said such a measurement would be impossible with no people. S tried to justify the use of "an hour" by claiming that it was not a measurement, but a unit of measurement. I said that a unit of measurement is useless without someone to apply it. S claimed that the unit of measurement "would apply" regardless of whether there are people to apply it, (as if it would apply itself, and measure and hour by itself, or something like that).

Is an anaconda longer than a maggot? Of course it is, and you don't need to measure them to see that. — Janus

That one thing is longer than another is an act of comparison which doesn't tell you the length of either one. Therefore this example is not relevant. It is not the correct type of measurement required to give you the length, and because it is not such, it doesn't provide the length of anything.

Does the "length contraction" that accords with Relativity theory occur regardless of whether it is measured? If it didn't then how would it ever be discovered? — Janus

Your question doesn't make sense. Length contraction is a feature of measuring the same object from different frames of reference. It doesn't make sense to ask whether it occurs regardless of measurement, because it is a feature of measurement.

Is clusterfuck a fallacy?

If you want to learn about logical fallacies, take an introductory course in logic, or do some reading. It's a good idea.

So, the goal of this forum is to have interesting discussions, not truthful discussions? What is "interesting" is subjective, while what is "truthful" is objective, so what is "interesting" is a matter of opinion, while what is truthful isn't. — Harry Hindu

Get real Harry. Do you know the difference between "true" and "valid"? This thread is not about truth at all, it's about validity.

You'd have to explain to me what you mean by "our morality is innate". I find this statement to be very vague, ambiguous, and actually not representative of empirical evidence. Let's start with a definition of "morality" as the capacity to distinguish bad from good, and let's assume that this capacity is innate. How is it that we are sometimes wrong in distinguishing bad from good? And why are we taught, as children, to distinguish bad from good, if we already innately know this?

Furthermore, if morality was truly innate, wouldn't all this work by the artists, putting forth the material, and creating an audience, all be for nothing? Isn't the moral message, within the art, there for the purpose of teaching morality? This would be unnecessary if morality was innate.

If what you claim were true, then we could not be wrong in any of our measurements. The fact that multiple measurements can be taken completely independently and without any knowledge of prior measurements, and yet will unfailingly be found to agree with one another with a very small margin of error (given that all the measurements are correct, of course!) proves the point. — Janus

I don't see how that proves your point. It just indicates that the numerous people measuring the same object use the same standards, and therefore come up with the same measurement of that object. Are you familiar with length contraction in relativity theory. Length is dependent on the frame of reference. If relativity theory is true, it proves my point, length is a product of the measurement.

It is not S or me who is "fabricating fantasies"; in fact that's one of the most egregious examples of projection I have come across. Leaves me wondering if this is wilful intellectual dishonesty or rank stupidity. Be ashamed, be very ashamed! — Janus

This is what you said:

A thing has length if it is measurable, it is measurable if it has length. — Janus

That's clearly a fabrication. One cannot equate length with measurability. That's complete nonsense. You just made that up, and spouted it out, rudely interrupting our discussion, as if you were interjecting with a fact. Shame on you!

Nope, not by my logic, plain and simple. By your logic, plain and simple. Your logic is bad logic which I reject. — S

You've demonstrated your logic. You reject conventional definitions, fabricate definitions, and even change them, as required, to support your metaphysics. And, you reject my logic as "bad" because it produces conclusion which are inconsistent with your metaphysics.

This is one of your fundamental errors: confusing your logic for mine. — S

Producing your own type of logic is called "rationalizing", and this is actually a form of being unreasonable.

That's right: a premise! And whose premise is it? Is it yours? Is it mine? Is it a premise that we both agree on? Bearing this in mind, whose logic leads to contradiction? Does my logic internally lead to contradiction? Yes or no? — S

Right, you do not agree with my premises because they are based in conventional definitions. You reject conventional definitions, (such as the one quoted, that for something to be certain it must be ascertained), and fabricate your own definitions, as you go, because this is the only way you can support your incorrect metaphysics. Conventional definitions do not support your incorrect metaphysics, and that's why your metaphysics is incorrect.

Let me know if you've figured it out. — S

I've got it figured out now. You have a particular metaphysical perspective. Normal, conventional usage of words does not support your metaphysical perspective. Conventional definitions produce premises which prove your metaphysics to be incorrect. So you've created your own way of using words, what you call your own "context", which is not the normal, conventional way of using words, it's your newly fabricated way, which supports your incorrect metaphysics. And someone like me, who adheres to conventional definitions to prove your metaphysics wrong, you say is a "sophist".

Very funny. I'm guessing that you don't see why that's a funny question to ask me, and you'll expect me to explain it to you, like you expect me to explain everything, no matter how simple or obvious it is to anyone with half a brain. Nah. I don't think so. Try to figure it out for yourself. It is not good that you need to be spoon fed everything, like a little baby. — S

When someone uses a word, in a new, unconventional way, I ask for an explanation, because I want to understand what is "meant" by that word, the purpose for using that word in the context that it was used. In a situation like this discussion, where you are trying to support a metaphysical position, if you fail to explain to me why you are using that word, in that unconventional way, I will simply conclude that you've changed the definition of that word for the purpose of supporting your metaphysical position. If you must deviate from accepted definitions, and fabricate new definitions as we proceed in discussion, to support your metaphysics, then I conclude your metaphysics is an untenable fabrication of your own imagination, and therefore incorrect.

Ooh, that's a toughie. You. Your fake conversation between us misrepresents what I'd say. Straight away, I wouldn't even say, "That rock has a measurement". I would say something along the lines of what I have been saying throughout the discussion, not what you've been so desperately trying to get me to say, or what you've simply been imagining me to say. I would say that the rock is of a certain length, and that that length could be 10cm, but that without measuring it, we won't know whether it's 10cm, even if it is. — S

The rock is not "of a certain length" until the length has been ascertained. To say that it is, is contradiction plain and simple. If you really believe that it is "of a certain length", then tell me who is certain of the length? If there is no one who is certain of the length, then clearly the rock cannot be a certain length. What are you supposing here, that the rock is certain of its own length? If not, how is the length of the rock certain?

This is not correct. A thing has length if it is measurable, it is measurable if it has length. It need not be measured to have length, In fact it must have length (i.e. be measurable) in order to be measured. — Janus

No, the length is the measurement. The object is measured, and the measurement is the length, 10cm, or whatever. Whether or not an object is measurable is irrelevant to its actual length. What is relevant to its length is actual measurement. You are simply making stuff up. Welcome to the S group, fabricators of fictitious fantasies.

This is insane. It serves only as an example of very bad logic: a test for someone to analyse, identify the errors, and write up an explanation. Besides that, it is of no value.

Thanks for all of these tests, I suppose. I remain as sharp as ever. — S

It's interesting, and very telling how you can go on and on about how such and such is bad logic, but you can never point out what is wrong with the logic. I'll tell you what's wrong with the logic. You do not like the conclusion therefore it must be bad logic. Things which you do not like are "bad".

OK, try this thought experiment. You and I are walking in the woods, and we come across a rock.
You say "that rock has a measurement".
I say, "no it doesn't have a measurement because it hasn't been measured.
You insist, "yes it must have a measurement, regardless of whether or not it has been measured".
So I cite for you the conventional definitions of "measurement", all of which require an act of measuring. And I explain to you that what you are insisting on is nonsense.
Then you say "I am not using 'measurement' in the 'usual context', and in my context, it does make sense".
But your context is the purpose of supporting a metaphysical position.

So you give "measurement" a very special meaning, within a special context, which is the purpose of supporting your metaphysical position, which turns out to be untenable without that special meaning of "measurement". The only thing which supports your metaphysical position is assuming that very special meaning of "measurement", and the only reason to assume that special meaning is to support your metaphysical position. Who is the one being unreasonable?

If the length of the wall is two metres, then the length of the wall is two metres. — S

Correct, but "length" is a measurement, and a thing only has a measurement if it's been measured. To say that it has a measurement without having been measured is contradictory.

Whether anyone has measured the wall to find out that it's two metres in length is completely irrelevant. — S

Oh no, here you go again. The wall's "length" of "two metres" is what we say about it, what we've determined it to be through measurement, two metres. Don't you see that it would be nonsensical to say that the wall is two metres if it hasn't been measured to be two metres? The wall is two metres if the wall is two metres, correct and tautological. But the wall is only two metres if it's been measured to be two metres, because "two metres" is a measurement.

We've been through this already, a thing only has a measurement if it's been measured. The wall is two metres if it's been measured to be two metres. To say "the wall is two metres" when it hasn't been measured to be two metres is meaningless nonsense. In what instance would you ever state that a thing has measurement X, when it has not been measured to actually be X? Your statements clearly are nonsensical. After everyone is dead, there is no one to measure "an hour". That a standard of measurement "would apply", if there were someone to apply it, does not mean that a standard of measurement has been applied, and an hour has been measured.

The hour doesn't need to be measured for it to pass. — S

We've been through this too. Time passes. An hour is a measured period of time. It's nonsense to say that an hour has passed without somehow measuring an hour to have passed. When I explained this to you, you started claiming that you used "an hour" in a different way, to refer to a standard, a "unit of measurement" rather than a measured period of time. Now you appear to be attempting to create ambiguity, saying that the "hour" is the thing passed, not the standard of measurement by which the period of time is measured. Equivocation is a fallacy.

The reason I consider the point that rules are human conventions to be irrelevant is because it is of no logical relevance to my argument. I have accepted that humans set language rules. This misses the point, because I argue that there's no justified reason for believing that the rules would cease to apply. They are a human convention only in some sense along the lines that humans come up with them. — S

That's where you go into nonsense. People apply standards of measurement in their acts of measurement. The rules do not apply themselves. So "an hour", as a standard of measurement cannot apply itself, and measure an hour, after all the people are dead.

If you think that this is a matter of "begging", then I can show you endless numbers of cases where human beings apply standards of measurement in the act of measuring. Can you show me one case where a standard of measurement applies itself in an act of measurement? If not, then I suggest you drop the charge of "begging the question", and accept as reality that "an hour after all the people died" is meaningless nonsense.

What do you want to know about my position regarding how an hour could pass that I haven't already said? Why should I repeat myself over and over again at your request? Why didn't you pay sufficient attention the first, second, and third time that I've explained it? — S

I want you to explain how a standard of measurement applies without someone applying it. To me, that's quite obviously nonsensical.

So would it be used? No. Would it apply? Yes. — S

This is contradictory. To apply a rule is to use a rule. But if you mean by "it would apply", that the particular rule is applicable, or relevant, then we need someone to actually apply the rule, after all the people are dead, to measure the hour period, or else we simply have an applicable rule with no one to apply it.

Would there be linguistic meaning? Yes. Would the meaning be understood? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to understand the meaning. Would the meaning be meaningful to anyone? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to find the meaning meaningful. Why would it be otherwise? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing. — S

Now you appear to be catching on. After all the people are dead, there is still a standard of measurement, "an hour". "An hour" has meaning as a standard of measurement, and even after all people are dead, it has meaning. But with all the people dead there is no one to understand that meaning, or to apply the standard of measurement. Now, let's ask the question, "would there be a specific rock 'an hour' after all people are dead?"

Do you agree that this specific rock would exist at some times after all the people are dead, and at other times after all the people are dead, it would not exist? So, after all the people are dead, if it is to be either true or false that the specific rock exists "an hour" after all the people are dead, then some one must interpret, "an hour", and measure "an hour" after all the people are dead. Therefore it is a nonsensical question, because the rock exists at sometimes and other times it does not exist, and there is no one to interpret "an hour", and to measure "an hour", to see how this relates to the existence of the rock. The rock may or may not exist "an hour" after all the people are dead, and it is meaningless nonsense to ask such a question. To presuppose that the question may be answered is to presuppose something impossible, something contradictory, that "an hour" can be interpreted and measured when there is no one to interpret and measure.

Then I would have explained why I consider that to be an irrelevant point. Can you think of why I might consider that point to be irrelevant? Or do I have to explain it? — S

You keep insisting that it's irrelevant, but your thought experiment references "an hour" after all human beings have died. So it's very relevant. We need to know how "an hour" fits into this scenario of no living human beings.

Why on earth would you assume that I interpret stuff like that in a manner implying subjective dependency? This is the very problem.

I don't do that. I call an hour a unit of measurement, because that's what it is, and I don't interpret stuff like that in your manner which would obviously lead me to contradiction. That's obvious, surely. I mean, come on. Really?

If it's a standard, I claim that it's an objective standard. And that's perfectly consistent with my position, and with my usage of language.

And don't even think about misinterpreting "standard" as a judgement or anything of that sort. Ask if you're not sure of something, don't just assume, or at least try to apply the very minimum requirements of being charitable in your assumptions. Don't assume that I'm a bloody idiot whose saying something which is an obvious contradiction, like that something which requires a subject doesn't require a subject.

With all due respect, I think you have a lot to learn about logic, and you should be grateful for the effort I'm putting in and my patience. — S

How does "a standard" which is used in the practise of measurement figure into your scenario of no living human beings? Your thought experiment scenario describes the existence of a standard, "an hour" after all humans are dead. How is that standard meaningful if there are no humans to use it in the act of measuring.

The church has no need of ambiguity to reach a wider audience (except as missionaries, maybe, so I see what you mean about creating a wider audience, and that’s another interesting subject; converting) or to create an audience. Each member is raised to be a member of the audience, they’re believers. As are members of the tribe.

The values and morals are instilled in them on a regular basis by, priests, elders or shamans. These values hold the community together. — Brett

This is the difficult part to understand, what constitutes being "raised to be a member of the audience"? This is the act of creating the audience, and holding the attention of the audience. The artist must create within each individual the perception that the art is important. Within the individual member is a sense of value. Do you agree with this? Let's start with the very basic assumption that this is all that is innate, just a sense of value. Let's suppose that the person is born like the blank slate with respect to what that person will value. The person will learn to value particular things, but at birth there is just a general capacity to value, and this capacity will be directed in various ways, depending on what grabs one's attention, as one grows. Therefore the artist must grab one's attention, and cultivate within each individual an apprehension of the art as something important, and the individual's sense of value will be directed in this way.

Now, let's widen the assumption of what is innate. Let's say that some people naturally look this way, and some people naturally look that way, according to some sort of natural interest, depending on the sharpness of the various senses. Each person has a slightly different physical constitution, forming a different composition, and therefore a different natural disposition. Of the senses, one person might see better than another, who might hear better than another, and so on; and then there are tastes, which influence what we eat, and this affects our internal organs which have a great influence on how we apprehend things. So I think that each person's innate disposition toward "value" is very different, depending on these physical factors.

This is why it is not a simple task to raise an audience. Yes, each person must be raised to be a member of the audience, but each person is different in one's disposition toward value. The artist cannot produce a different message for each different person because this would create contradiction in the artist's overall "message", so the artist's recourse is ambiguity. This is why you should not underestimate the importance of ambiguity. Raising children to be a member of an audience is an act of creating an audience. So in the case of the Church, you cannot take the audience for granted, just assuming that the children are naturally raised to be the audience. The act of raising the children to be the audience is a continuous act of creating an audience, which requires working with ambiguities.

The values and morals are instilled in them on a regular basis by, priests, elders or shamans. These values hold the community together.

They hold the community together because it was those values that formed the tribe. The values came before the tribe because it was the values that, in evolutionary terms, “cultivated and regulated complex interactions within social groups (Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce), enabled their successful development, growth and survival. — Brett

You appear to be claiming that there are communal values, which hold the community together. But the innate disposition to value, is not necessarily directed toward any particular common value. So I do not think that the claim that the values came before the tribe is justified. This all depends on the role of ambiguity. Imagine a group of people together, as group. Each has one's own intentions, and therefore one's own values, yet they are together, as a group, a tribe. Suppose these people are working together on a project, like members of a group in an employment setting. That common project they are working on justifies the claim of "communal value". Now suppose the people are just living in proximity to each other, but need to interact on a day to day basis, like a small community. Each person has one's own values, and they manage to live side by side without any overall project that they're working on. They're just living in some sort harmony without interfering with each other, and there is no "communal values". Well, we could say that there is "communal values" if we allow a significant amount of ambiguity. The people are not fighting with each other, they are not stealing from each other, raping and killing each other, I've described the situation as "harmony", so there must be some sort of communal value. But if we were to define, or describe those particular values, we'd be lost in ambiguity. Perhaps what is valued is the sense of communion itself.

The ‘artists’ of these communities created work that contained and expressed these values. The so called art or ‘artefacts’ they created served the purpose of expressing through myths, legends or tales the importance of living those values, and never forgetting them. — Brett

So I don't think these artists of the ancient and prehistoric tribes are expressing any particular values at all. They are just expressing some kind of ambiguity. The potential audience sees the expression, and its repetition (and repetition is probably very important here), and perceives importance. The very existence of the "audience" creates a togetherness of the people, and this is a sense of communion. You'll notice that in ancient tribes, ceremonies and celebrations were very important. This is carried on and increased in Christianity and all religions. The sense of communion is not created by common values, it is created by ceremonies and celebrations which bring people together. When it is experienced, it is valued. The being together is apprehended as important, and therefore valued, because it is enjoyable and fulfilling in many ways. And from the being together there develops the ability to communicate, resolve ambiguities and produce joint projects, common values.

But then we get the enlightenment as my bifurcation. The tribe remains untouched, lost in the jungle. But in the Western world the church is challenged; God is dead. Now the audience of the church, the priests, the bible, no longer have the same audience sharing the same sense of importance. The church can never work with ambiguity; you believe in God or you don’t.

However, the values and morals are still there among the potential audience because it’s those values that successfully formed the society. The church didn’t create them, it only institutionalised them. As did the Shamans and elders of the tribe. — Brett

You'll see that I have a different perspective on this now. From my perspective, the artists did create the common values, or at least created the conditions from which the common values followed. The artists created the audience, and creating the audience was a bringing together of people. This was not done through any common values, but with an ambiguity of values. The being together in ceremony and celebration is enjoyed, therefore apprehended as important, and becomes a common value. Other common values follow from this.

So, who are to be the new priests, the new Shamans, the new storytellers that the audience seek?
My position, which I hope I’ve been able to make clear, is that our morality is innate. And we once were part of an audience that responded to the artist/Shaman/priest and their artefacts. The relationship was unambiguous.

The artist/priest/Shaman would create an audience by creating a sense of importance about those morals that the audience already held. But the potential audience is lost, they can’t find the artist who connects. Where is he today? The connection is gone, the inspiration, the tales are gone. There’s a vacuum. The vacuum must be filled. Now there’s room for real ambiguity, and only ambiguity can appeal to a wide audience. — Brett

As you can see, I disagree with this. I don't know how you would support or justify "our morality is innate". It seems quite evident that morality is learned. It is what we are taught when we are young. What I think is innate, is some sense of value, but our values naturally vary widely, and this is not naturally conducive to morality. I think morality comes about, is created by communion, not vise versa. The "vacuum" you talk about here is the self. The self is a void, and overindulgence of communal activity creates a need to retreat into the void. The need for privacy becomes more important than the need to be part of a group when overindulge in communal activity continues unabated. At this point, the feeling of togetherness, as more important than privacy, needs to be rekindled, and that's the work of the artist.

Do you remember ages ago when I mentioned units of measurement? An hour is a unit of measurement. — S

Yes I remember this. Then you went on to talk about rules, and Terrapin explained that rules are human conventions. So I thought you dismissed this line of thought. These are two different ways of using "hour". I interpreted "an hour" in your thought experiment as something measured, that's what you were insisting, "an hour" in relation to passing time, is something objective.' Now you claim to have used "an hour" as a unit of measurement. This means it is a standard, a convention for the act of measuring. After all the people die, how does "an hour", as a standard for measuring, relate to physical existence? It's just as nonsensical this way, as it is the other way.

Are you familiar with relativity theory. The meaning of "an hour" relative to physical existence is dependent on one's frame of reference. As a unit of measurement, "an hour" must be within the context of a frame of reference to have any meaning.

Of course it's not nonsense on its own terms. It's only so as a consequence of you begging the question once again. — S

I'm just trying to understand which of my premises you disagree with, and why you think it's a matter of begging the question. Then we might be able to discuss our differences on that particular issue. Is it my premise that the human temporal perspective is very specific, and unique to the human being, or is it my premise that "an hour" is a measurement of time dependent on the human temporal perspective, or both? And, please give me some indication of the fault or faults you see in the premise or premises which you disagree with.

You haven't yet told me exactly what it is that you disagree with, and what it is that I am claiming which you think is "begging the question".

In this conversation I have being trying to refer back to earlier times where most stories were passed on verbaly or visually. But what I’m exploring is the idea that, being the creatures we are, we regard the written work, and the visual work that we see today, as a continuation of that telling, we respond instinctively to it, maybe not so consciously as our forebears, but it’s still there. Language and the telling of stories, from the Indians of the Amazon, to Sophocles ‘Antigone’, to Shakespeare’s ‘ King Lear’, carry this message that I’m calling our morality.
This morality presented in the form of tales, myths, or plays and then the written form, would have reached a wide audience, which was its purpose, done in such a way so as not to be elitist, performed in special institutions, separated from the people, as Shakespeare is today for instance, compared to its origins. — Brett

I think that the main issue here is "importance" and it seems like you and I may somewhat disagree on the method of importance, how importance is important. What an individual values will be important to that person, and the person will act to bring into one's own life, and to the lives of others around them, those valued things. So I think it is important to recognize that a wide audience is a product of many individuals holding value in the artistic expression (seeing it as important). This means that we cannot approach the art, or the artists directly, to see what it is about their material which attracts a wide audience, without first understanding the audience itself. For instance, if we looked at the explosion of rock and roll music in the sixties, and the creation of a wide audience (notice that I say a wide audience is created) by bands like The Beatles, we'd be acting in an "appellative" way, seeking a common feature in that audience, a common principle of value within every member of the audience, which was appealed to by the band, and could be named. The problem is the ambiguity factor that artists use, which I described earlier. The important thing which is valued by a member of the audience, may vary from one individual to another, so there can be no such appellation. Then we see that the perception of "importance" within the audience is actually created by the artists through the use of mechanisms like ambiguity, which we might not even understand.

I tend to think the control over expression was taken from them rather than relinquishing it. — Brett

For the sake of argument, let's assume that they lost the capacity to create the perception of importance. Let's say that they could no longer keep a captive audience. With methods like "The Inquisition", the Church actually suppressed its own capacity to create importance by denying ambiguous or alternative interpretations of scripture. So if the Church was the purveyor of art, and it lost the capacity to create a wide audience, then the hole created, the need for something important, would have to be filled by other sources.

My feeling is that it’s the opposite. The tales of the past were not privileged by their importance but by their ability to reach out directly to the people. The ‘artefacts’ of today are homogenised and lacking in the sense of morality that was inherent in the tales and plays of the past, and virtually owned by institutions, who then ultimately own the message. — Brett

Right, but we need to understand exactly what this "ability to reach out directly to the people is". The "audience" cannot be taken for granted. It must be created, because you might put on a show and have no one come. So the individuals who will form 'the audience" need to perceive importance. Therefore importance is key, because without the sense of importance, there is no audience. When we approach "morality" from this perspective, art, I think it is necessary to understand these concepts of "importance", and "value" before we can even introduce "morality" into the discussion.

As you say here, modern artists may create an audience without any appeal to morality. The money-making machines produce the perception of importance, creating massive audiences, through much simpler, and very efficient means, because the end goal, making money, is much more easily obtained than the end goal of making morality. So we've come full circle now. The artist creates the audience through an appeal to the individual members' of the potential audience sense of value, by creating the appearance of importance. Now the issue is the individual's sense of value. Where does "morality" stand in the individual's sense of value, and how does this relate to the artist's capacity to create an audience?

Here's why the op is nonsensical S. The human being has a very particular temporal perspective. We don't see events which are a picosecond in length, and we don't see events which are a billion years long. We live at this particular time and we only see things within a very limited temporal perspective. If human beings are removed, then the human temporal perspective is removed. But your op talks as if you could remove human beings, yet maintain the human temporal perspective. Don't you think that's nonsense? What would maintain the human temporal perspective when there is no human beings?

Oh dear. We fundamentally disagree on so much. — S

I'm way ahead of you. I knew this from your nonsensical op. But it sure took a lot of insistence on my part, repeating over and over again that your op is nonsensical, before you came to respect this fact. What were you thinking, that you could convert me to seeing things your way? I never thought I'd convert you. It's obvious that people like you are just so wrapped up in your nonsense, that you completely reject reason.

This part is not really about morals or subjectivity. I’m trying to establish the way these original ‘artefacts’, as I call them, are the precursors to what we now regard as art. Modern art did not spring fully formed to life. For a long time these artefacts played an important art in culture: telling stories, interpreting, instructing, nurturing, as it did in Western culture with Christianity, possibly up until the Enlightenment. — Brett

If you're talking about telling stories, then I think that you have to take into account the historical limitations on written language. Prior to the enlightenment, writing was pretty much confined to those educated within the structure of the Church. And if you go back three thousand years, written language was almost non-existent. At this time, "story telling", verbally, would have been the only means for passing knowledge, information, from one generation to the next. So I think it's important to distinguish between modern times, when there is so much written material, information, everywhere, and ancient times when written material was very limited.

When things moved on from the Enlightenment art took on a different purpose. It moved away from God, the Christian message, the bible, the established view of man and his place in the universe, caught up in the idea of reason and science. It began to exist in itself. Eventually we had the idea of the ‘artist’, who produced art expressing his subjective world of feelings, perception, interpretation and so on. It no longer played the same part in society as the ‘artefacts’ did. — Brett

So I think that this movement of art away from God and the Christian message, is a reflection of the Church's release of control over written expression. Changes in artful expression coincide with the Church's relinquished control over publication.

And yet it seems possible that instinctively we still turn to these things for some inspiration, just as they did with the ‘artefacts’: the masks, chants and dances. But art is no longer like that. Commercial interests now drive art: film, television, novels, plays. The content is inspirational but in a form that does not contribute to our lives or society as a whole, it targets our narcissism and encourages the worst aspects of our nature. — Brett

When there are severe limitations in relation to what can be put on hard copy, then only what is deemed as the most important will get that privilege. But when there is much freedom and the restrictions are far less significant, we'll get a much wider variety of "artefacts".

The rest of your post completely misses the point yet again, because you fail to realise that you're begging the question by assuming premises I don't accept, and then drawing conclusions from these premises. — S

My action of "assuming premises" which you do not accept, is simply a matter of adhering to conventional definitions for interpretation of the terms used in your own premises. And, by the way, adhering to accepted definitions when interpreting premises, when no alternative definitions are proposed, is not a case of "begging the question".

If God exists and revealed Himself to all humanity, because he is our creator, we would recognized him instantly. He has not done so, so, there is no proof that God exists.

My answer to your question is, MAN can not prove God exists, only God Himself can do that. — StaggeringBlow

I think that this perspective is flawed. In order that a human being could recognize God if He revealed Himself, one would have to already have an idea of what God is. Without that idea of what God is, it would be impossible to recognize God, no matter what He did to reveal Himself.

So prior to recognizing God, in His actual existence, we need to understand what God is. This is necessary in order that we could recognize God's actual existence when He reveals Himself to us. And, in order to understand what God is, someone must demonstrate, prove to you, what God is, because you cannot recognize Him based on what He has revealed,.as He cannot reveal Himself to you until you are capable of recognizing Him. So it is necessary that God be proven to you prior to God revealing Himself to you.

What is the problem at the Southern Border? — tim wood

It's a "problem" which has no solution. It has no solution because the exact nature of "the problem" cannot even be formulated in a universally acceptable way. So "the problem" itself is a phantom problem. People like us sit around discussing "the problem", and it makes the problem seem very real, something dreadful which needs to be addressed. But all there really is, is difference of opinion as to what "the problem" is, and this is a problem, but it's not "the problem", and that is a problem because instead of talking about the real problem we talk about "the problem"..

Ironically, all of that is irrelevant, and this is going exactly as I predicted. Okay, then by your definition, they don't have a measurement. So what? I don't care if you want to speak dumb. You'd have to make an additional argument that I should speak dumb. Importantly, this still doesn't mean that the car wouldn't be travelling at 30mph in an easterly direction, that the windshield wouldn't have an area of 1.5m2, and that an hour hadn't passed. And your point about a faulty speedometer obviously violates the thought experiment. You think I meant a faulty speedometer? No. Don't assume a faulty speedometer. Assume a working speedometer. — S

That the car is moving at 30mph is a judgement. Do you understand this? And a judgement requires a decision. Without any human beings, who makes that judgement?

Here, you have made that judgement, you have stipulated the speedometer reads 30mph. When I explained to you that the reading on the speedometer doesn't necessitate that the car is moving at 30mph, then you simply stipulated that the speedometer is working. Do you not see how this is begging the question? Your thought experiment asks whether such things as rocks, cars, and speedometers exist after there are no humans, yet to defend your position, you simply stipulate that they are there. How can we properly carry out your thought experiment with such manipulative interference?

That's why the whole thought experiment is nonsense. Unless you quit begging the question, the thought experiment is meaningless. If you quit begging the question, you get the result you do not want, that it's senseless to talk about the existence of things without any perceivers.

Okay, but you still have the gigantic problem of explaining innumerable things in nature of various sizes, for example in terms of height in metres, which have yet to be measured. It's like you don't even understand the purpose of measurement. The purpose of measurement is to find out what specifications something is. The problem here is your frequent misuse of a term such as "determine". No, not determine, find out. The specifications are predetermined, otherwise there would be nothing to find out, and that obviously wouldn't make any sense. They're objective. It's already of a particular size, say, a specific height in metres. We only measure it to find out the specifics. — S

The "specifics", what we "find out" about things, is the properties which we attribute to things. This is what we assign to the thing in measurement. it has such and such size, speed, etc.. Since the properties, or attributes, are what we assign to the thing, give to the thing in our descriptions, it makes no sense at all to say that the thing has those properties without being given to them by us.

I already stated the accepted definitions of "measurement", which clearly indicate that a thing must have been measured in order to have a measurement, but you simply ignore this, going off in your own fantasy land, where size is somehow something which exists in the object, and when we measure the object, its size magically jumps from the object to exist as something in our minds.

The rest of your post completely misses the point yet again, because you fail to realise that you're begging the question by assuming premises I don't accept, and then drawing conclusions from these premises. . — S

My premises are accepted definitions. Your mode of argument has been to dismiss my definition of :"measurement", which states that a thing must be measured to have a measurement, and instead of offering an alternative definition, you just go off talking nonsense, as if a thing does have a measurement without being measured. The fact that you can say "a thing has a measurement without having been measured", in no way means that this is true.

It has zero effect on my argument. If you want to validly argue against me, then you cannot beg the question. If you want to be unreasonable, then please continue doing what you're doing. — S

I agree, my practise of adhering to accepted definitions has zero effect on your argument. Your argument is all nonsense, and you continue to talk nonsense, refusing to acknowledge that you are.

This is genuinely very funny. But what's interesting is that you don't mean it to be. Do you know that there actually exist driverless cars now? Imagine if a driverless car was set on a course to travel from Manchester to Exeter, and then we all died before it reached its destination. It wouldn't continue to travel in miles per hour? It wouldn't be going, say, 30 miles per hour in an easterly direction? Even if the speedometer displayed "30mph", and even if the needle on the compass was pointing towards "E"? . — S

I don't see how this is relevant. A number printed by a machine is not a measurement. A number needs to be interpreted according to standards before it's a measurement. That's why speedometers need to be properly calibrated. The speedometer reading might be frozen at 30 mph for all eternity, it's really irrelevant to the question of whether an hour is actually being measured.

What about the windshield? Would it not be 1.5m2, even though it was made to that specification? What about the clock? When enough time has passed that the time displayed changes from "18:00" to "19:00", would an hour not have passed? — S

The windshield was measured, and therefore has a measurement. But what I am asserting is nonsense is the supposed hour of time which passes with no one to measure that hour. The clock doesn't measure the hour, for the same reason I explained with the speedometer above. The clock will show some numbers, but those numbers are meaningless without interpretation.

For your "thought experiment' to make sense, someone needs to be able to determine the point of time which marks an hour, and see if there's a rock at that point in time. Otherwise there is nothing to distinguish one point in time from another, or one period of time from all the rest of time.. And with no one to make such distinctions there is no sense in talking about the existence of rocks. There is simply no temporal perspective.

The problem with your scenario is that you are projecting to a future time. This is like saying "noon tomorrow". But any point in time only exists in so far as a human being indicates that point. So if all human beings die tonight, there will be no "noon" tomorrow because there will be no one around to apprehend a particular point in the passing time, as "noon". If you represent "noon tomorrow" as a particular relationship between the earth and sun, and assume that the relationship between these rocks will occur without human existence, then you are just begging the question, and this leaves your scenario as pointless.

So your scenario is meaningless nonsense any way you look at it. Either you are completely wrong by way of contradiction, as I argue, or else you are making some unjustified assumptions which amount to nothing more than begging the question.

Ah, just as I suspected. You don't understand why what you're doing is fallacious. Maybe one day you'll learn why, but I'm done trying. — S

Actually, you don't seem to have tried very hard, just asserting over and over, that the burden is on me to prove that what you are saying is nonsense. But in reality the burden is on you to demonstrate how your so called thought experiment makes any sense at all. and that you are not just asking us to imagine an impossible scenario. I've shown you why it is an impossible scenario and you seem to have no rebuttal for that, only more nonsense, claiming that something could have a measurement without being measured.

My failure to understand why what I am doing is fallacious is a product of your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious. And your inability to explain why what I am doing is fallacious is due to the fact that it is not fallacious. Oh well, so be it.

An hour is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 [x 3,600] periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K). — Michael

S's question asks whether there would be a rock an hour after all the people died. My objection was that "an hour" is a measurement which can only be carried out by a human being. So the assumption of "an hour after all the people died", is nonsensical, or even contradictory because "an hour" only exists as a product of measurement.

Assuming your definition of "an hour", then unless there is someone to count those periods of radiation, and determine whether there is that designated rock at this precise moment, the question is completely nonsensical. The question assumes that a comparison can be made between those periods of radiation, and the existence of a rock, without anyone to do the comparison. S does not recognize that question as meaningless nonsense.

This is hilarious, because you probably don't realise that, when analysed, that will be found to say either nothing of any relevance, like a tautology which completely misses the point, or something obviously mistaken. And of course, you don't provide any argument at all in support of this, as expected. Well, except the above "argument", of course, which is clearly just a bare assertion. — S

Sorry to disappoint you, but a tautology provides the most reliable premise. That's why it's as you've admitted, a "knock down argument".

Knock down argument! You win. — S

The burden is on you here, not me. You need to demonstrate a contradiction if that's what you're suggesting - and no, not by begging the question or making a number of bare assertions, as obviously that's fallacious. Given that it's you, however, this is probably asking the impossible. — S

Measurement is "1. the act or an instance measuring. 2, an amount determined by measuring."

I've demonstrated the contradiction. You claim that a thing could have a measurement without an act of measuring. This is what you said: "If a stick happens to be a metre in length, then it happens to be a metre in length, and that's that." To say that the stick has a measurement without being measured, clearly contradicts accepted definitions of "measurement". Now the burden is obviously on you, to provide a new, and acceptable definition of "measurement" which supports your position. You can't just assume that there is such a definition, and base your argument on that, using words in this nonsensical way. To say that a stick has a measurement without being measured is just a meaningless, nonsensical use of words. That's all.

Metaphysician Undercover, do you ever wonder whether you're hopelessly out of your depth here on this forum? — S

I don't wonder about that, I recognize it as a fact every day. This stuff is so incredibly shallow.

But what I’m alluding to in bringing up New Guinea or Australia or the Pacific is that when we use the word art to address objects that have been made, artefacts, we’re referring to objects that carry a particular weight or meaning or even power. By wearing a mask a New Guinea elder becomes a spirit teacher, the Australian Corroboree interacts with the Dreamtime. We lump these things together as art because they have form, colour, repitition, pattern, etc. (The history of modern art could be said to be that of appropriation). These are the originators of art, like the drawings in the caves of Lascaux in France.

These art forms have a real purpose and might be regarded as an integral part of that community or culture. They certainly reinforce cultural ideas and history, as well as ideas on moralism. It’s true that in terms of the community or culture they are subjective. But my suggestion is that the moral aspects are universal, appearing again in far off places. — Brett

I don't see how this example is substantially different. Exactly what the wearing of the mask means is subjective, even within that particular culture. On one occasion it might mean something different than another occasion. And, it might mean something different to one person than it does to another, even on the same occasion of use. In this way its use, and meaning, is similar to that of a word. You have assigned to it a particular meaning, the "elder becomes a spirit teacher", which though it is particular is very general in nature, and this interpretation is conditioned by your culture. Being very general, and therefore vague, it would be hard to say that your interpretation is wrong, it's just not very informative.

You declare that the artifact carried a particular weight, or special power, but there were probably many such objects, each with its own special power. Today, the electrical engineer, or physicist, will use the word "electron" , and just knowing the significance of that word, and the proper way to use that word, gives this class of people magnificent powers over a part of the natural world which to the rest of us is essentially unknown. I don't see this as fundamentally different from the person who puts on the mask. The mask, like the word, is a symbol, and it is not the symbol itself which holds the power, it is the knowledge of the natural world, which comes along with knowing how to use that symbol, that holds the power. So you look at the mask as if it carries special power, but really the mask just signifies a special knowledge which the person using the mask has. And the rest of the population has great respect for that person because of this knowledge, and also for the symbol itself, because of the power which the knowledge represented by that symbol, brings to the person.

These art forms have a real purpose and might be regarded as an integral part of that community or culture. They certainly reinforce cultural ideas and history, as well as ideas on moralism. It’s true that in terms of the community or culture they are subjective. But my suggestion is that the moral aspects are universal, appearing again in far off places. — Brett

I think, that to the extent that the knowledge symbolized by the artifact is real knowledge, i.e. it tells the knower something real and useful in relation to the world, then that particular type of artifact, or aspect of the artifact, will be found in many different cultures, as the knowledge spreads. Different cultures did interact even thousands of years ago. So certain very useful developments, such as the wheel, the circle, and consequently angles and geometry, and also what you suggest moral principles, being very useful, would spread quickly. The moral principles, being the most abstract, would be more difficult to find physical evidence of.

Then would it be true to say that ‘every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some ‘good’, is itself good,’ suggests that only those acts that are beneficial to the community would be added to the lexicon of ‘moral’? And that these acts are carried out by a moral being who already carried the idea of a moral act within him. — Brett

In some moral theory, (and I think this stems from Aristotle), there is a distinction made between the apparent good and the real good. The individual moral subject always apprehends and acts on, an apparent good. Whether the apparent good is consistent with the real good is another question. I've seen this mostly in religious material, like Aquinas, where 'real good" is backed up by God. But "real good" could also be backed up by what you propose, "beneficial to the community".

The point is that the apparent good, is not always consistent with the real good. So the intent involved in making this distinction, is not to remove acts which are inconsistent with the real good, from lexicon of "moral", but to remove terms like "bad" and "evil" from the lexicon of "moral', just like we would remove "ugly" from the lexicon of "art". Art, being a creative act always has elements of beauty. Now the person who acts on an apparent good which is inconsistent with the real good is not to be called "bad" or "evil", because that person is still acting for a "good". The person is just misguided, uneducated, untrained, or some such thing, with respect to the real good. And, the person who is mentally ill, who is not even capable of apprehending an apparent good, and is acting in a bad or evil way because of this illness, has one's acts thereby removed from the class of "moral acts" due to this illness. Likewise, something which is ugly, like destruction and corruption, we would not be classed as art, being contrary to creativity.

But was he exposed to cultures like those of South America, the Pacific, Australia or New Guinea, and if he was would he have perceived the hidden content of sculpture, song or dance, and if he perceived it would he understand? — Brett

I don't quite see the point to this line of questioning. I think that the "content" of art is very subjective, such that one interpretation might apprehend a completely different content from another. We can take a piece of art, analyze the form, and be quite in agreement concerning the formal aspects. But when we get to the content, and this is the meaning which we assume that the artist has given to the piece, there is bound to be much disagreement. That is because a person will often be inclined to assign meaning to the piece based on what it means to oneself. It is very difficult to put oneself into the position of the artist, to determine the true content, the meaning which the artist has put into the piece. And, there is a type of inversion which artists are prone to practise, and this is to leave the meaning as ambiguous. This allows that the true meaning, and therefore the content of the art, is not what the artist puts into the art, but what the people who appreciate the art take from it. And being what is intended by the artist, this act of giving such that one can take what one wills from it, then this is the true meaning or content, that various observers may take various different meanings from it.

So with respect to Plato, I'm sure he was exposed to various different cultures, especially around the Mediterranean, Persia and Asia. He clearly understood how the content of art was important, and also how the content was open to interpretation. Whether or not he could have correctly "perceived the hidden content", I don't think is even a question we can consider, due to the issues stated above. Interpretation of content is fundamentally subjective.

Well, the rust gets real bad after a while. I hate it when my seat goes through the floor and hits the pavement at 60 mph.

So would you say that anything can be derived from God's existence alone? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't thing anything can be derived from God's existence alone. What can be derived from one premise? "God exists", alone, without any defining statements, is just a statement of ambiguity.

Something doesn't have to be measured to be such that it conforms within a specific range within a standard of measurement. — S

Right, tell me another one. It's that attitude which makes quantum mechanics such a mystery to some. The fact is that an act of measurement is required in order that something has a measurement. To simply assume that your sticks have a measurement, as you do, does not actually give your sticks a measurement, so you have just made a false assumption, that's all. Nothing has actually measured your sticks so obviously they do not have a measurement. Clearly nothing has a measurement without having been measured

Like language, systems of measurement are based on rules. The rule is that an hour has passed if a certain period of time has passed. If that certain period of time has passed, then an hour has passed. From that, it does not follow that anyone needs to be standing around measuring the time. It doesn't even follow that anyone needs to exist! — S

Sure, carry on with your vicious circle. An hour is a certain period of time, and that certain period of time is an hour. Okee dokee bro.

Just on beauty in art, which I’m not talking about at all; Greek philosophy and as a consequence art was when beauty became a subject, I imagine Plato would not have considered anything other than Greek art actually art, nor would he have known very little about other far flung cultures and their ‘art’. So the distinction between ‘beauty’ and ‘good’ is really a Greek dilemma. For those far flung cultures art is not about beauty, but purpose and inspiration. — Brett

I think you're somewhat wrong about Plato here. He was quite exposed to foreign cultures, and that he noticed the differences between them is evident in his moral philosophy. For him, "beauty" was attributable to all things artificial. The fact that they are created is what makes them beautiful. So art, no matter what culture it comes from is beautiful.

However, the issue has not been removed from us today. When we look at "good", or "virtue", there is an opposite to it, "bad", or "vice". In morality therefore, we distinguish human acts by the opposing principles of good and bad. But it's not proper to hand such negativity to art.; to say that art, which is not your favourite art, is ugly or some such negative thing. By the very fact that it is art, it has beauty.

So in the case of "art" we have totally removed the negative things from the category. Art is creativity, and generation, while the negative of this, destruction and corruption, do not even get into the class of "art". But in "morality" we haven't progressed to that point of removing the negative, "immoral" from the category of "moral". We think that judging human acts according to the opposing principles of good and bad somehow gives that judgement objectivity. But this is false, it's an illusion. That's the illusion of sophistry which Plato tried to expose.

In reality, "good" and "bad", being used as opposing principles, only obtain objectivity in relation to some further principles. As Plato demonstrated, this may be the opposing principles of pleasure and pain. But he demonstrated that we cannot get to satisfactory moral principles through this method of opposition, as "good" by its very nature, cannot have such an opposition. So we need to look to art and creativity as the exemplar of "good" human activity. Then we see that every human act, to the extent that it is intentional and therefore aims at some "good", is itself good. The very nature of being an active human, is good. And in this way we can remove "bad", and "evil", right out of the category of "moral being", as all acts of the moral being are carried out for some good, and we can produce a more truly objective judgement of morality.

If I understand you correctly, you do not accept my claim that "an hour" is a measurement, just like one degree Celsius is a measurement, and a metre is a measurement. OK, then that explains our difference on this issue.

No it's not though! No one would, obviously. No one exists in the scenario. But that doesn't matter, because the question is beside the point to begin with. — S

That's not true, because your premise state distinctly "we all died an hour previously". So you imply that someone has measured an hour after everyone has died, and you posit this point in time. Clearly, there is no such point in time unless someone measures it and designates "this is the point in time one hour after everyone died". But everyone is dead and there is no one to measure that time, so there is no such point in time, and your question is nonsensical.

In short, you believe that time is subjective. — S

No I don't believe that time is subjective, I told you that already, time would continue to pass after all the people died. But the measurement of time is carried out by human beings, and therefore requires human existence. So it doesn't make any sense to talk about what may or may not exist an hour after all humans died, because "an hour" is a measurement, and there would be no such measurement without any human beings. Therefore there would be no such thing as "an hour" after all human beings died. An hour is a measurement. You seem to have difficulty comprehending this fact. But it's like talking about what temperature it will be when there are no human beings. That's nonsense, because "temperature" is a measurement, just like "an hour" is a measurement, and without human beings, there would be no measurements.

The only rule here is that whatever you wish to attribute to God must be derived from his existence only. — tim wood

The importance is not in what you derive from God, it is in what you understand when you recognize the need to assume God.

Historian's dispute whether the walls were truly defensive, to keep the barbarian's out, or whether their purpose was symbolic--to show Roman might and achievement. — Ciceronianus the White

The Great Trump Wall is completely symbolic, a monument to the most excellent Donald who Made America Great Again.

Ming vases are among the most exquisite work of arts. On average they fetch over $20,000 in auctions. Now, suppose that one such vase develops a small crack of say few mm. How would that affect its value? Well, it would not drop by merely 10% or 20% or even 50%. Its value is likely to be reduced by 90%. Why that so? — Jacob-B

The crack increases the chances of the vase breaking probably by at least 90%.

When you buy a new car, you should hit the hood with a hammer and put a noticeable dent in it, before you even drive it off the lot. This will relieve the new-car-driver of the horror of getting the perfect new car scratched or scuffed in a parking lot. Just dent the damned thing and get it over with. — Bitter Crank

That's right, every time I get a body job done on a vehicle, I'm so afraid and nervous about driving it, that I go and hit something right away (not intentionally but because my driving is affected by the anxiety) and this removes the anxiety which makes me drive badly. So I might just as well do it intentionally to get it over with.

You seem to be assuming something along the lines that time is how time is measured. I do not agree with that. And I think that it's true to say that hours would pass, even if no one measured the passing of time, and even if no one existed to measure the passing of time. Time is objective in that sense. — S

It's not a question of whether time would pass, it's a question of who would determine that an hour had past. So in your example, all people would die, and time would continue to pass. Who would say "now it's been an hour since the last person died, is there a rock"? You are assuming that there would be such a point in time, and that it makes sense to ask if there'd be a rock at that point in time. But there would be no such point in time, because a point in time is what human beings determine, so the question makes no sense.

Soon, the USA will be overrun with Canadians.

Your "argument" begins with a false premise that I have already rejected. I am asking you to support that premise, not to beg the question. Why is a human activity, such as designation presumably is, supposedly required at the time, in the scenario, by humans, in order for there to be a rock? Please don't go around in circles. I don't want a repeat of your reasoning following the assumption of your key premise, I want you to try to justify your key premise. — S

Consider a situation in which there are no human beings to distinguish one period of time, from another period of time. All time would exist together in an endless time period. Since a "rock", as we understand it, has a particular duration of time, there could be no rock existing for this endless time period, hence your question is meaningless. In order that there is a rock, it is necessary that someone individuates a time period in which there is a rock. Otherwise there is just an endless time period during which no particular things could have individual existence.

For example, you say that "an hour" is meaningless because there is no one there to interpret what that means. This is precisely the link that I'm questioning. Your argument is therefore fallacious. — S

OK, then explain to me how one time period, "an hour" for example is distinguished from the rest of time, without a human mind doing that distinguishing.

Oh the irony. Let me clarify: that was a thought experiment. You and I are both capable of thinking about the scenario of there being a rock, but no people, in spite of the false idealist premise which you adhere to. — S

I thought about it, and as I explained, it's contradictory, impossible nonsense. you just seem to have difficulty understanding this fact.