The Law of Identity

[Logik]

Okay...to sum up the above:

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are falling apart man, take some time off and get yourself together and come back. We value your input, but you are losing the edge you once had.

OK, sophist

Keep re-defining truth till the cows come home.

I am sure that one day you will be able to tell the "right" from "wrong" definitions apart. Somehow.

[Eodnhoj7]

Okay...to sum up the above:

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are falling apart man, take some time off and get yourself together and come back. We value your input, but you are losing the edge you once had.

OK, sophist

Keep re-defining truth till the cows come home.

I am sure that one day you will be able to tell the "right" from "wrong" definitions apart. Somehow.

False, the prime triad observes the same truth existing through constant variations as an adaptation to chaos. For example the Golden Rule is the One moral truth grounded in cycles...the right and wrong nature of murder, as existing through this Golden rule, is an extension of this cycle; hence constant. However, due to the gradient nature of time (where there are infinite circumstances, with each right and wrong circumstance having a "moral nature"), this "cycle" is reflected in fractal cycles (ie relative situations in which certain moral choices are "relative" to that context alone) that still observe a recurssion of this same "Moral Cycle" (ie Golden Rule) as constant.

[Logik]

False, the prime triad observes the same truth existing through constant variations as an adaptation to chaos. For example the Golden Rule is the One moral truth grounded in cycles...the right and wrong nature of murder, as existing through this Golden rule, is an extension of this cycle; hence constant. However, due to the gradient nature of time (where there are infinite circumstances, with each right and wrong circumstance having a "moral nature"), this "cycle" is reflected in fractal cycles (ie relative situations in which certain moral choices are "relative" to that context alone) that still observe a recurssion of this same "Moral Cycle" (ie Golden Rule) as constant.

That's a cute story.

Me, I just use my intuition and it tells me that MURDER IS WRONG.

Without having to appeal to any other authority except my own, common sense.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, the prime triad observes the same truth existing through constant variations as an adaptation to chaos. For example the Golden Rule is the One moral truth grounded in cycles...the right and wrong nature of murder, as existing through this Golden rule, is an extension of this cycle; hence constant. However, due to the gradient nature of time (where there are infinite circumstances, with each right and wrong circumstance having a "moral nature"), this "cycle" is reflected in fractal cycles (ie relative situations in which certain moral choices are "relative" to that context alone) that still observe a recurssion of this same "Moral Cycle" (ie Golden Rule) as constant.

That's a cute story.

Me, I just use my intuition and it tells me that MURDER IS WRONG.

Without having to appeal to any other authority except my own, common sense.

So your intuition is "self-evident" then? Then intuition is also another axiom you ground your argument in...


ROFL!!!!!!!!!

Ahem...

ROFL!!!!!!!

Excuse me, I just can't help it..."I am going to kill philosophy"....

Oh please, people like you are why it exists in the first place. The only enemy is yourself.

[Logik]

So your intuition is "self-evident" then? Then intuition is also another axiom you ground your argument in...

The wrongness of murder is not self-evident to you? That's why you need philosophy?

Funny. I've heard that same argument being made by theists: If we didn't have religion - why would we be moral?!?

You must be a pretty fucked up human being.

[Eodnhoj7]

So your intuition is "self-evident" then? Then intuition is also another axiom you ground your argument in...

The wrongness of murder is not self-evident to you? That's why you need philosophy?

Funny. I've heard that same argument being made by theists: If we didn't have religion - why would we be moral?!?

You must be a pretty fucked up human being.

How can it not be self-evident when I can not just feel it but also explain why. Intuition alone is irrational. Intellect alone is irrational.

Oh please....decision theory argues we actually don't have to choose your interpretation.

[Logik]

How can it not be self-evident when I can not just feel it but also explain why. Intuition alone is irrational. Intellect alone is irrational.

Oh please....decision theory argues we actually don't have to choose your interpretation.

So you need an explanation as to WHY you shouldn't murder people? As in, you actually need to be CONVINCED of this before you accept it?
You need a valid, sound and rational argument otherwise you aren't buying it.

Is that what you are telling me?

[Eodnhoj7]

How can it not be self-evident when I can not just feel it but also explain why. Intuition alone is irrational. Intellect alone is irrational.

Oh please....decision theory argues we actually don't have to choose your interpretation.

So you need an explanation as to WHY you shouldn't murder people? As in, you actually need to be CONVINCED of this before you accept it?

Is that what you are telling me?

Actually I just "choose" to explain it because you need alot to explained to you. Considering you claim "intuition" alone, when according to you everything is assymetric, then you can't assume someone has the same intuition as you can they?

[Logik]

Actually I just "choose" to explain it because you need alot to explained to you. Considering you claim "intuition" alone, when according to you everything is assymetric, then you can't assume someone has the same intuition as you can they?

That's very condescending of you and completely unnecessary. I already said that if we agree then there's nothing left to explain or say.

I know murder is wrong.

Am I to interpret your explanation as disagreement with the above?

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually I just "choose" to explain it because you need alot to explained to you. Considering you claim "intuition" alone, when according to you everything is assymetric, then you can't assume someone has the same intuition as you can they?

That's very condescending of you and completely unnecessary. I already said that if we agree then there's nothing left to explain or say.

I know murder is wrong.

Am I to interpret your explanation as disagreement with the above?

You asked why I explained it, as you disagreed on "why" it had to be explained.

I really don't care if it condescending. Coming in and saying "all philosopher's are sophists" can be equally interpretted as condescending. The difference is, any true philosopher will just reason through it and not cry about hurt feelings like you are.

Choice theory necessitates I do not have to choose your interpretation. Effectively, by your own standards, you are without value as choice theory...does not have to be chosen.

[Logik]

I really don't care if it condescending. Coming in and saying "all philosopher's are sophists" can be equally interpretted as condescending.

I am not being condescending - I am stating an obvious fact!

I am demonstrating why! I am telling you that I know murder is wrong and so far 3 philosophers (yourself included) have OPPOSED me!

Philosophers' contrarian tendencies are truly harmful to ethical discourse!

Choice theory necessitates I do not have to choose your interpretation. Effectively, by your own standards, you are without value as choice theory...does not have to be chosen.

Then don't! Exercise your choice and stand by it! Say it proudly and proclaim it for all of us to hear.

Say that you CHOOSE to reject the wrongness of murder! Say that you CHOOSE to reject the common notion of morality!

At what point do you actually take responsibility for the moral failures of society and recognize them as your own?

[Eodnhoj7]

I really don't care if it condescending. Coming in and saying "all philosopher's are sophists" can be equally interpretted as condescending.

I am not being condescending - I am stating an obvious fact!

I am demonstrating why! I am telling you that I know murder is wrong and so far 3 philosophers (yourself included) have OPPOSED me!

Philosophers' contrarian tendencies are truly harmful to ethical discourse!

Actually they oppose that fact you claim you "know it" without explain something other than "feeling". You do understand people "murder" because it "feels right" as well? Intuition alone is irrational.

Now go on...we are all "sophists".

Choice theory necessitates I do not have to choose your interpretation. Effectively, by your own standards, you are without value as choice theory...does not have to be chosen.

Then don't! Exercise your choice and stand by it! Say it proudly and proclaim it for all of us to hear.

Say that you CHOOSE to reject the wrongness of murder! Say that you CHOOSE to reject the common notion of morality!

At what point do you actually take responsibility for the moral failures of society and recognize them as your own?

Don't freak out because choice theory has a massive hole in it...I am not arguing for it...you are.

[Logik]

Don't freak out because choice theory has a massive hole in it...I am not arguing for it...you are.

Are you sure I am the one freaking out?

Because you sure are arguing for interpretation. And interpretation is grounded in choice.

You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is wrong".
You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is right".
You can CHOOSE to interpret "murder is undefined".

I know that murder is wrong!

That you can CHOOSE a know differently is not a hole in my theory. It's a hole in your morality.

If you want to plug the hole just make a different choice!

[Speakpigeon]

I guess some people think a good definition would be one that a computer could compute but dictionary definitions are made for people, not computers. And people understand dictionary definitions. So, I guess, what's the problem already?

The problem is decidability.

In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.

In logic?!
That confirms my suspicion that mathematicians, at least those pontificating over a few logical tea leaves, haven't a clue what they're talking about.
It ain't a logical question. And apparently, computer scientists and analytical philosophers are doing the stupid dance.
Sorry for stating the obvious, but formal logic is a theory, so it can only work within a limited scope of applicability. Seeing decision as a logical issue is like trying to apply the technical notice of your washing machine to the problem of sorting your dirty clothes. Well, sorry, it was never meant to do that.
I guess it's a sort of temptation to regress whereby people try to extend backward the scope of their little business. It's a sickness of the competitive age we're in. People have stopped pondering issues because they have no longer the time to do it. Instead, they're 100% into competing with their peers for prestige and budget. Unfortunately, this process can't repair the foundations because all are so very busy building up. This is a recurrent affliction since the 19th century I think.

The problem is that certain decisions a human can make trivially, while a computer cannot ( subject to the halting problem ).
The problem is that you can trivially determine the truth-value and correctness of "I know murder is wrong." whereas we still have no idea how to explain it to some bonehead philosophers, let alone to a machine!

Sure, we all know that and I would have thought we all understand why that is.
I also already explained this to you but I think you don't understand much of what I say.
Maybe it's possible to conceive how to make a computer do the same thing but it ain't gonna happen any time soon. It's a very, very difficult problem. Today's mathematicians don't even understand logic. Apparently, they don't even understand what logic is. The guy who will do it isn't born yet.

Because CONCEPTUALLY you are an oracle machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine and you can make some decisions even though you can't explain HOW you did it.

Well, yes, I'm an oracle, but you don't listen!

The problem AND solution is free will. Your ability to choose.

No.
That's pretty idiotic.
All things have the same ability to freely choose given what they are and given the constraints of their environment. Same for a washing machine in free fall from space as it is for us. The difference is entirely in the complexity of our cognitive system.
So, the problem and the solution has something to do with our brain.
Free will is a red herring. Of course we have free will. Our brain has. So, who is going to replicate a human brain?! Well, maybe one day, sure, why not. Meanwhile, listen to the Oracle?
No, you won't.
EB

[Logik]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but formal logic is a theory, so it can only work within a limited scope of applicability. Seeing decision as a logical issue".

Well, thank you for making my point. If logic is a theory within a scope of applicability then you are taking an instrumentalist view on logic.
It serves a particular purpose within a particular domain of applicability.

So all I need to rebutt your point is to point this out: given a set of different tools/instruments (THEORIES!) you could use within the particular domain you are USING logic.
How and why did you CHOOSE logic and not some other tool?

Well, sorry, it was never meant to do that.

And now you are admitting that your logic has limitations. Great!
I am glad you are finally coming to see the light that your logic is INCOMPLETE.

Which is precisely WHY I have CHOSEN a logic that is COMPLETE. Turing-complete to be precise.

Because there is more to thought and reason than classical logic.
I said it before and I said it again: any logic system which does not factor in decidability (CHOICE!) is not representative of the way I think.

Decisions/choices are conceptually PRIOR to logic! Therefore any description of "thought" that ignores decision-making is utterly wrong.

People have stopped pondering issues because they have no longer the time to do it. Instead, they're 100% into competing with their peers for prestige and budget. Unfortunately, this process can't repair the foundations because all are busy building up. This is a recurrent since the 19th century I think.

No. it goes as far back as Christianity and creationism. There is no foundation

But do observe. That is a decision-problem again. Of the possible epistemic positions (foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism) HOW and WHY have you CHOSEN foundationalism?

Why didn't you CHOOSE the other ones?

Sure, we all know that and I would have thought we all understand why that is.

If you reject decidability as being part of logic/reason then it is pertinently obvious that you do not understand WHY that is. The simple answer is complexity.

I also already explained this to you but I think you don't understand much of what I say.

Your understanding is less complete than mine.

Today's mathematicians don't even understand logic. Apparently, they don't even understand what logic is. The guy who will do it isn't born yet.

No. I am right here. Born in the early 80s. Although, to be fair I can't take credit for any of Turing, Chomsky, Kleene, Kolmogorov, Godel or Shannon's work.

Logic is the formal languages we invent to describe our experience of reality. As we learn/discover new things. We invent language to describe/model them. Mathematics/Physics/Computer science are conjoined at the hip.

Free will is a red herring. Of course we have free will. Our brain has. So, who is going to replicate a brain?! Well, maybe one day, sure, why not. Meanwhile, listen to the Oracle?

Because your oracle is confused. You reject decidability as being separate from logic. While at the same time you call logic "the laws of reason".
You are rejecting decision-making as being an instrumental and inseparable part of thought and reason.

When you reconcile that ingongruency in your "logic" then maybe we'll start listening to you.

We are busy replicating brains right now. Not 100% of a brain, but small portions of them.
Self-driving cars. Software automation. Auto-pilots on airplanes.
Machine vision/learning. Robotics.

It's happening before your eyes.

That's pretty idiotic.
All things have the same ability to freely choose given what they are and given the constraints of their environment

Well, that's precisely your problem. You haven't figured out what the constraints are. You are still using Aristotle's training wheels.
You are busy rejecting your own free will

That's why I don't listen to YOUR oracle, but I listen to mine. When you figure out that decidability is vital to reason - then we can speak as peers.
Till then I will be a condescending p**** to you

You haven't figured it out yet - your episteme is still infantile. You do not know thyself. You take reason for granted.