Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 5:15 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 5:09 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 3:11 am

No. You are not bright. And I will explain why you are not bright while simultaneously explaining to you why the assertion is sensical.

Moral codes are the means by which people interact with experiential reality, they are the patterns by which perception filters experience by distinguishing 'this from that', 'right from wrong' and 'good and evil'.

These distinctions, made by perception, are filters by which we interact with reality thus forming experiences. Because morality shapes perception it shapes experience for by and with experience we make distinctions because of morality.

Now you seek understanding. This understanding is an experience and leads to further experiences as you interpret reality through understanding. In valuing understanding you have a corresponding means of maintaining and attaining it, a moral code premised upon the value of understanding. So you, in your process of understanding, make distinctions of what is sensical and what is non-sensical as a means of achieving understanding.

So, why you are not bright, is that you are unaware that in making distinctions of "sense" and "non-sense" you are following a moral code, premised on the value of understanding, that is inherently intertwined with your experience of understanding and forms said experience.

Your response of accusing me of non-sense just proves my point.

Have a good one and good luck.

I agree, we are getting nowhere in this dialogue, so I am stepping out. Have a good one!

You are getting nowhere because of a repeated loop of "biology leads to meaning" which has no evidence.