What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

Surely contradictions are only possible within the realm of contradiction?

The realm of non-contradiction wouldn't allow for contradictions.

Or maybe that's just once again your inability to differentiate between abstract thinking and the concrete world.

A = 1
A = 2

I've written a contradiction here, an abstract A value can't be equal to 1 and 2 at the same time.

Sorry. I don't understand the problem. My Python interpreter doesn't understand the problem either.

Code: Select all

❯ ipython
Python 3.11.2 (main, Mar 25 2023, 22:52:57) [Clang 14.0.0 (clang-1400.0.29.202)]
Type 'copyright', 'credits' or 'license' for more information
IPython 8.13.2 -- An enhanced Interactive Python. Type '?' for help.

In [1]: A = 1

In [2]: A = 2

In [3]:

I didn't write it in python. I said 1 = 2

[Skepdick]

I didn't write it in python. I said 1 = 2

No you didn't.

You said A = 1.
Then you said A = 2.

That's not "at the same time" so no contradiction. First you set A to 1, then you set it to 2.

And now you said "1 = 2" which (to me) means "the free variable 1 is assigned the value 2"

[Atla]

I didn't write it in python. I said 1 = 2

No you didn't.

You said A = 1.
Then you said A = 2.

That's not "at the same time" so no contradiction. First you set A to 1, then you set it to 2.

And now you said "1 = 2" which (to me) means "the free variable 1 is assigned the value 2"

Maybe in python (I don't know), but not on an English philosophy forum.

Since you are overly fond of computers, I even asked ChatGPT for you

Yes, the statement "1 = 2" is a contradiction. A contradiction is a statement that is always false, regardless of the context in which it is considered. In mathematics, 1 and 2 are distinct and well-defined quantities, and it is not possible for them to be equal. Therefore, the statement "1 = 2" is always false and represents a contradiction.

[Peter Holmes]

PH seems to be simply ignoring all of psychology, phenomenology etc., and well, all of human subjectivity in general, in order to make a case for reality that is entirely made of abstraction and is de-realized. He seems to have effectively argued himself into non-existence, looks like some kind of escapism to me that, he is trying to subconsciouly [sic] justify on philosophy forums. It's all backwards, I told him these things and he seems to have no response.

Sorry - I must have missed - or misunderstood - your correction.

Can you remind me why 'all of psychology, phenomenology etc, {?}, and well, all of human subjectivity in general [?]' demonstrate the existence of so-called abstract or non-physical things? And why rationally denying their existence - for lack of evidence - is to argue yourself into non-existence?

Genuinely interested.

[Skepdick]

I didn't write it in python. I said 1 = 2

No you didn't.

You said A = 1.
Then you said A = 2.

That's not "at the same time" so no contradiction. First you set A to 1, then you set it to 2.

And now you said "1 = 2" which (to me) means "the free variable 1 is assigned the value 2"

Maybe in python (I don't know), but not on an English philosophy forum.

Since you are overly fond of computers, I even asked ChatGPT for you

Yes, the statement "1 = 2" is a contradiction. A contradiction is a statement that is always false, regardless of the context in which it is considered. In mathematics, 1 and 2 are distinct and well-defined quantities, and it is not possible for them to be equal. Therefore, the statement "1 = 2" is always false and represents a contradiction.

ChatGPT is one giant bandwagon fallacy. It really depends on what you mean by "="

You'll have to untangle the difference between "x = 2" and "1 = 2" for us.

[Atla]

PH seems to be simply ignoring all of psychology, phenomenology etc., and well, all of human subjectivity in general, in order to make a case for reality that is entirely made of abstraction and is de-realized. He seems to have effectively argued himself into non-existence, looks like some kind of escapism to me that, he is trying to subconsciouly [sic] justify on philosophy forums. It's all backwards, I told him these things and he seems to have no response.

Sorry - I must have missed - or misunderstood - your correction.

Can you remind me why 'all of psychology, phenomenology etc, {?}, and well, all of human subjectivity in general [?]' demonstrate the existence of so-called abstract or non-physical things? And why rationally denying their existence - for lack of evidence - is to argue yourself into non-existence?

Genuinely interested.

You know very well that the mind isn't abstract, nor is it non-physical, it has concrete existence.

[Atla]

No you didn't.

You said A = 1.
Then you said A = 2.

That's not "at the same time" so no contradiction. First you set A to 1, then you set it to 2.

And now you said "1 = 2" which (to me) means "the free variable 1 is assigned the value 2"

Maybe in python (I don't know), but not on an English philosophy forum.

Since you are overly fond of computers, I even asked ChatGPT for you

Yes, the statement "1 = 2" is a contradiction. A contradiction is a statement that is always false, regardless of the context in which it is considered. In mathematics, 1 and 2 are distinct and well-defined quantities, and it is not possible for them to be equal. Therefore, the statement "1 = 2" is always false and represents a contradiction.

It really depends on what you mean by "="

You'll have to untangle the difference between "x = 2" and "1 = 2" for us.

Every math class everywhere in the world teaches what the = sign means. It's python that uses it differently. By the way according to chatGPT, even python won't allow for 1 = 2.

[Peter Holmes]

PH seems to be simply ignoring all of psychology, phenomenology etc., and well, all of human subjectivity in general, in order to make a case for reality that is entirely made of abstraction and is de-realized. He seems to have effectively argued himself into non-existence, looks like some kind of escapism to me that, he is trying to subconsciouly [sic] justify on philosophy forums. It's all backwards, I told him these things and he seems to have no response.

Sorry - I must have missed - or misunderstood - your correction.

Can you remind me why 'all of psychology, phenomenology etc, {?}, and well, all of human subjectivity in general [?]' demonstrate the existence of so-called abstract or non-physical things? And why rationally denying their existence - for lack of evidence - is to argue yourself into non-existence?

Genuinely interested.

You know very well that the mind isn't abstract, nor is it non-physical, it has concrete existence.

Okay. You think the mind is a physical thing - presumably containing physical things and events. Is there any evidence for its physical existence? Is the mind something different from the brain?

You know very well the answers to these questions.

[Atla]

Sorry - I must have missed - or misunderstood - your correction.

Can you remind me why 'all of psychology, phenomenology etc, {?}, and well, all of human subjectivity in general [?]' demonstrate the existence of so-called abstract or non-physical things? And why rationally denying their existence - for lack of evidence - is to argue yourself into non-existence?

Genuinely interested.

You know very well that the mind isn't abstract, nor is it non-physical, it has concrete existence.

Okay. You think the mind is a physical thing - presumably containing physical things and events. Is there any evidence for its physical existence? Is the mind something different from the brain?

You know very well the answers to these questions.

Yes, all evidence supports the view that the individual human mind is a part of the brain, or in other words the physical world is the continuation of the human mind. They are continuous, one and the same kind of reality.

[Peter Holmes]

You know very well that the mind isn't abstract, nor is it non-physical, it has concrete existence.

Okay. You think the mind is a physical thing - presumably containing physical things and events. Is there any evidence for its physical existence? Is the mind something different from the brain?

You know very well the answers to these questions.

Yes, all evidence supports the view that the individual human mind is a part of the brain, or in other words the physical world is the continuation of the human mind. They are continuous, one and the same kind of reality.

Nonsense. There's no physical part of the brain that is 'the mind'. You're just paying lip-service to a mentalist myth. And the claim that the physical world is the continuation of the human mind is hippy woo worthy of VA. But thanks. What I expected.

[Atla]

Okay. You think the mind is a physical thing - presumably containing physical things and events. Is there any evidence for its physical existence? Is the mind something different from the brain?

You know very well the answers to these questions.

Yes, all evidence supports the view that the individual human mind is a part of the brain, or in other words the physical world is the continuation of the human mind. They are continuous, one and the same kind of reality.

Nonsense. There's no physical part of the brain that is 'the mind'. You're just paying lip-service to a mentalist myth. And the claim that the physical world is the continuation of the human mind is hippy woo worthy of VA. But thanks. What I expected.

Okay simple question: when you dream in images, to those images actually exist in any way, or don't they?

[Skepdick]

Every math class everywhere in the world teaches what the = sign means. It's python that uses it differently.

Doesn't look like you paid much attention in math class then.

The "=" in A=1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "=" in 1=2.

By the way according to chatGPT, even python won't allow for 1 = 2.

Of course! In Python 1=2 and 1=1 are both syntax errors.

[Atla]

Every math class everywhere in the world teaches what the = sign means. It's python that uses it differently.

Doesn't look like you paid much attention in math class then.

The "=" in A=1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "=" in 1=2.

By the way according to chatGPT, even python won't allow for 1 = 2.

Of course! In Python 1=2 and 1=1 are both syntax errors.

You didn't go to school?

[Peter Holmes]

Yes, all evidence supports the view that the individual human mind is a part of the brain, or in other words the physical world is the continuation of the human mind. They are continuous, one and the same kind of reality.

Nonsense. There's no physical part of the brain that is 'the mind'. You're just paying lip-service to a mentalist myth. And the claim that the physical world is the continuation of the human mind is hippy woo worthy of VA. But thanks. What I expected.

Okay simple question: when you dream in images, to those images actually exist in any way, or don't they?

Sorry, but this is a bop issue. Make the case - and provide evidence - for the existence of a non-physical image in the brain. And when you realise you can't, maybe the penny will drop.

[Skepdick]

Every math class everywhere in the world teaches what the = sign means. It's python that uses it differently.

Doesn't look like you paid much attention in math class then.

The "=" in A=1 doesn't mean the same thing as the "=" in 1=2.

By the way according to chatGPT, even python won't allow for 1 = 2.

Of course! In Python 1=2 and 1=1 are both syntax errors.

You didn't go to school?

I did.

And they explained the difference between A=1 and 1=1 to me

One is an assignment.
One is a comparison.