There Is No Value Higher Than Your Own Life

[RCSaunders]

Do you mind explaining what you think it means to "value" something?

No, not at all. I've explained what I mean by values in my Philosophy Now article, "VALUES." I said there: "Values Are Relationships. Before there can be a value there must be an objective (purpose, end, or goal) relative to which a thing has some value; a positive value like, 'good,' or, 'right,' if it achieves or advances the objective, or negative value like, 'bad,' or, 'wrong,' if it prevents or hinders the objective." Since the premise of this thread is, "There is no value higher than your own life," to answer your question of what it means, "to value," something, for me it would mean identifying whether a thing is benevolent (and therefore good) or malevolent (and therefore bad) relative to some individual human being's life.

Also, do you understand that language is forever incomplete? As in - it's practically impossible for me to encompass everything that "humanity" means to me without leaving things out.

Of course. That is why I am very cautious about what another actually means by their language.

ALL of those things that you have mentioned - that is what humanity means to me. AND MORE.
I do mean ALL human beings. AND MORE.
I mean all future human beings. AND MORE.

And you value all of that more than your own individual life?

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean by, "value."

[Skepdick]

Human Clones ? Robots ? Androids ? Cyborgs ?
Transhumans ? Virtual Realities ? The Matrix ?

Absolutely. Anything and anybody that has been, is or will been in some way useful to advancing human moral progress.

[Skepdick]

No, not at all. I've explained what I mean by values in my Philosophy Now article, "VALUES." I said there: "Values Are Relationships. Before there can be a value there must be an objective (purpose, end, or goal) relative to which a thing has some value; a positive value like, 'good,' or, 'right,' if it achieves or advances the objective, or negative value like, 'bad,' or, 'wrong,' if it prevents or hinders the objective.

That explains why you can't make sense of what I am saying. I use the modern economics conception of "value" - your actions reveal your preferences. Behaviour/choice reveals value.

So if I were to make you choose between two opposing objectives/purposes/end-goals - which one you pick tells me which one you value more.

" Since the premise of this thread is, "There is no value higher than your own life," to answer your question of what it means, "to value," something, for me it would mean identifying whether a thing is benevolent (and therefore good) or malevolent (and therefore bad) relative to some individual human being's life.

So do you value benevolence or malevolence as end goals?

And you value all of that more than your own individual life?

Of course!

Perhaps you can tell me what you mean by, "value."

Your choice of purpose.

[RCSaunders]

No, not at all. I've explained what I mean by values in my Philosophy Now article, "VALUES." I said there: "Values Are Relationships. Before there can be a value there must be an objective (purpose, end, or goal) relative to which a thing has some value; a positive value like, 'good,' or, 'right,' if it achieves or advances the objective, or negative value like, 'bad,' or, 'wrong,' if it prevents or hinders the objective.

That explains why you can't make sense of what I am saying. I use the modern economics conception of "value" - your actions reveal your preferences. Behaviour/choice reveals value.

So if I were to make you choose between two opposing objectives/purposes/end-goals - which one you pick tells me which one you value more.

I do not see how we can get around this contradiction. A choice means not caused by something other than one's own decision. If you, "make," someone do anything, there is no choice. To, "make someone choose," is self-contradictory.

[Skepdick]

I do not see how we can get around this contradiction. A choice means not caused by something other than one's own decision. If you, "make," someone do anything, there is no choice. To, "make someone choose," is self-contradictory.

I don't see how we can get around your inability to navigate around paradoxes.

I just ignore them. What do you do?

But more than that your conception of "choice" cannot possibly exist in this universe. You are always made to choose. By the universe at the very least.

[RCSaunders]

... paradoxes.

I just ignore them.

Well that explains everything. Thank you! You learned your philosophy from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”

'I daresay you haven’t had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

[Skepdick]

Well that explains everything. Thank you! You learned your philosophy from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

It sure explains why you don't understand anything.

For starters, why do you believe I have learned philosophy from anybody? If anything - I reject philosophy.

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”

'I daresay you haven’t had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

Whatever it is that you insist is "impossible", I sure expect you to prove it.

[RCSaunders]

Well that explains everything. Thank you! You learned your philosophy from Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

It sure explains why you don't understand anything.

For starters, why do you believe I have learned philosophy from anybody? If anything - I reject philosophy.

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”

'I daresay you haven’t had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'

Whatever it is that you insist is "impossible", I sure expect you to prove it.

You'll be happy to know then, I have. Many times.

[Skepdick]

You'll be happy to know then, I have. Many times.

Very good! Prove to me that contradictions don't exist.

[RCSaunders]

You'll be happy to know then, I have. Many times.

Very good! Prove to me that contradictions don't exist.

The purppose of proof is not to convince others or win arguments. The purpose of proof is to ensure one's own reasoning is correct.

If you need proof of something it is up to you to provide it.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. The question is not whether there are contradictions but whether contradictions can be true. Since you believe they can, I wish you and the White Queen well in your Wonderland.

[Skepdick]

The purppose of proof is not to convince others or win arguments. The purpose of proof is to ensure one's own reasoning is correct.

If you need proof of something it is up to you to provide it.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. The question is not whether there are contradictions but whether contradictions can be true. Since you believe they can, I wish you and the White Queen well in your Wonderland.

Horseshit. Truth corresponds to existence - everything that exists is true.

If contradictions exist, then contradictions are true. If contradictions don't exist then they are false.

I am not asking you to convince me of anything or to win any arguments. The purpose of impossibly proofs is right on the wikipedia page.

Proofs of impossibility often put decades or centuries of work attempting to find a solution to rest.

I am asking you to put centuries old debates to rest.

So when you prove that contradictions don't exist, you will have (at the same time) proven they are false.

[surreptitious57]

Contradictions cannot exist anywhere at all in Nature because Nature is real and what is real cannot be contradictory
Some aspect of Nature may appear contradictory but that is because of insufficient knowledge not because of Nature

Quantum Entanglement is an excellent example of this
As it appears contradictory because the laws of physics state that absolutely nothing can travel faster than light speed
But it cannot be contradictory because it is an aspect of Nature and therefore must be true regardless of anything else

What is happening here is merely an observable phenomena for which no definitive answer currently exists
But the absence of such an explanation does not invalidate the phenomena itself because it is entirely real
Yet despite no definitive answer there be some possible explanations for why quantum entanglement exists :

The law regarding light speed is not absolute and in special circumstances can therefore be violated
The law regarding light speed is a law of classical physics which does not apply at the quantum level
The law regarding light speed has not been violated as no information is exchanged between particles
[ The last of these is the one I think more likely to be true ]

But whatever the explanation for quantum entanglement actually is there is no contradiction because it is real
So being unable to understand it has zero bearing upon the thing itself which exists independent of explanation


When it comes to language its more subtle because words unlike phenomena are abstract concepts so are not objectively real
They are also descriptive not prescriptive so are therefore not absolute or rigid but capable of flexibility and even ambiguity

And so with regard to the word choice : is it possible to make an entirely free one ? The answer to this is a definitive no
That is because there is scientific evidence that the subconscious has already made a decision before the conscious has
And so the conscious is merely mirroring a decision already taken even though it is not actually aware of this
The fact that the time difference between the two is so small to be beyond human perception is superfluous
Because it has been measured scientifically and so is therefore empirically true

There is also no such thing as an entirely free choice as there are always limitations involved in each one
They can be physical or psychological or moral or a combination of these or any other possible limitations
And so absolute free choice with no conscious / subconscious limitations at all is just physically impossible

[RCSaunders]

There is also no such thing as an entirely free choice as there are always limitations involved in each one
They can be physical or psychological or moral or a combination of these or any other possible limitations
And so absolute free choice with no conscious / subconscious limitations at all is just physically impossible.

That is actually a good point. It is the reason I never use the absurd concept, "free will." Unfortunately the concept of volition is often confused with free will.

Volition is that aspect of human consciousness which makes it necessary for a human being to consciously choose what one does in both thought and action. It is not, "free will," it is only the necessity to choose what one does within the limits of the nature of reality and the limits of one's own ability.

[Skepdick]

Volition is that aspect of human consciousness which makes it necessary for a human being to consciously choose what one does in both thought and action. It is not, "free will," it is only the necessity to choose what one does within the limits of the nature of reality and the limits of one's own ability.

Humans are part of nature.

What's the difference between another human limiting your choices and nature doing it?

[RCSaunders]

The purppose of proof is not to convince others or win arguments. The purpose of proof is to ensure one's own reasoning is correct.

If you need proof of something it is up to you to provide it.

I have no interest in convincing you of anything. The question is not whether there are contradictions but whether contradictions can be true. Since you believe they can, I wish you and the White Queen well in your Wonderland.

Horseshit. Truth corresponds to existence - everything that exists is true.

If contradictions exist, then contradictions are true. If contradictions don't exist then they are false.

I am not asking you to convince me of anything or to win any arguments. The purpose of impossibly proofs is right on the wikipedia page.

Proofs of impossibility often put decades or centuries of work attempting to find a solution to rest.

I am asking you to put centuries old debates to rest.

So when you prove that contradictions don't exist, you will have (at the same time) proven they are false.

I never said contradictions do not exist. "The purpose of impossibly proofs is not right on the wikipedia page," contradicts your statement, "The purpose of impossibly proofs is right on the wikipedia page." Are both statements true?