For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
OK, sophist
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.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm 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.
So your intuition is "self-evident" then? Then intuition is also another axiom you ground your argument in...Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:22 pmThat's a cute story.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:10 pm 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.
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.
The wrongness of murder is not self-evident to you? That's why you need philosophy?
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.
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?
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.
You asked why I explained it, as you disagreed on "why" it had to be explained.
I am not being condescending - I am stating an obvious fact!
Then don't! Exercise your choice and stand by it! Say it proudly and proclaim it for all of us to hear.
Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:49 pmI 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".
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.
Are you sure I am the one freaking out?
In logic?!Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:51 pmThe problem is decidability.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:37 pm 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?In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer.
Sure, we all know that and I would have thought we all understand why that is.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:51 pm 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!
Well, yes, I'm an oracle, but you don't listen!Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:51 pm 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.
No.
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.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm 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".
And now you are admitting that your logic has limitations. Great!
No. it goes as far back as Christianity and creationism. There is no foundationSpeakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm 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.
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.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm Sure, we all know that and I would have thought we all understand why that is.
Your understanding is less complete than mine.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm I also already explained this to you but I think you don't understand much of what I say.
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.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm 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 your oracle is confused. You reject decidability as being separate from logic. While at the same time you call logic "the laws of reason".Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm 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?
Well, that's precisely your problem. You haven't figured out what the constraints are. You are still using Aristotle's training wheels.Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:07 pm That's pretty idiotic.
All things have the same ability to freely choose given what they are and given the constraints of their environment