Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:49 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:52 pm

In the world of known illusion, the opposite is also true. Morality is an explicable illusion.

In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

I never implied I was ever trying to solve a problem.

That's handy, then. You didn't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:58 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:49 pm
In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

I never implied I was ever trying to solve a problem.

That's handy, then. You didn't.

You were the one that was concerned about a problem unsolved, not me.

Why do you continue to put words in other peoples mouths.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:49 pm
In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

You are the one creating the unsolvable problem by saying nothing is trustworthy, nothing can be known, nothing can be explained, either.

Don't you understand, the illusion is all you. If there is the illusion of untrustworthy, then by definition, there is also the illusion of trust. For how would you be able to tell the difference between the two if not by recognition by means of definition.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:58 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:56 pm

I never implied I was ever trying to solve a problem.

That's handy, then. You didn't.

You were the one that was concerned about a problem unsolved, not me.

Yes, apparently so.

Why do you continue to put words in other peoples mouths.

I don't. I just agreed with you: as you say, you intended to solve nothing, and thus, you solved nothing.

innocence (as well as ignorance) is no excuse...

freewill? it was predetermined that you'd be held morally culpable for actions that you had no control of preventing...

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:45 am Whether we have free will or not, we ought to act as though we do. As long as there is any possibility of free will whatsoever, then we ought to embrace free will over determinism. Determinism seems amoral because it undermines the possibility of responsibility for our actions. And responsibility ought to be weighed according to how egregious or not an action is. Such responsibility cannot realistically be applied to a deterministic system. There ought to be no excuses for some acts.

I'm not convinced free will has anything to do with determinism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:37 pm

Why do you continue to put words in other peoples mouths.

I don't. I just agreed with you: as you say, you intended to solve nothing, and thus, you solved nothing.

I never said there was a problem unsolvable.

I said reality is an illusion. So you agree that reality is an illusion. I don't see the illusion as a problem, but you do it seems, and so that problem is for you to solve, not me.

You seems to invent problems where there are none for me. So be it, I'll leave you with you're problems.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:37 pm

Why do you continue to put words in other peoples mouths.

I don't. I just agreed with you: as you say, you intended to solve nothing, and thus, you solved nothing.

I never said there was a problem unsolvable.

I didn't say you did. You said you weren't even trying to, which is exactly what you said you were doing. But if we believed you, that everything is an illusion, then the problem would not only be unsolvable for you, but for everybody else, as well.

Fortunately, we don't believe you.

I said reality is an illusion. So you agree that reality is an illusion.

No, I only agree that somebody's deluded. Reality is just fine, and will inevitably win. It always does.

"freewill? it was predetermined that you'd be held morally culpable for actions that you had no control of preventing..."

It's utterly absurd, but it's true. Consciousness is the last thing that happens in a long line of determinations in the brizzain... and when actionable options are weighed and considered - you're getting ready to stand up or stay seated - you feel like you're going to be able to say you could have stayed seated if you do in fact choose to stand. But you didn't have a choice. All that shizzle going on in your head is the prefrontal cortex processing of internal dialogue that accompanies unconsciously directed reward seeking strategies largely established through the routine and habitual behavior of intentional systems. If you decide to stay seated, it's because your brizzle decided you needn't get up... but there's a whole cacophany of thinking that takes place as a side effect, and it just so happens that because of a neat little almost imperceptible lapse of time in the electrical looping of the neronal networks, that thinking is put in front of the body's movement and is experienced as if it is piloting it.

It's the craziest thing that has ever happened in hydrogen based life systems. We may indeed be in a glitching attofishpian matrix after all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:37 pm


I don't. I just agreed with you: as you say, you intended to solve nothing, and thus, you solved nothing.

I never said there was a problem unsolvable.

I didn't say you did. You said you weren't even trying to, which is exactly what you said you were doing. But if we believed you, that everything is an illusion, then the problem would not only be unsolvable for you, but for everybody else, as well.

Fortunately, we don't believe you.

I said reality is an illusion. So you agree that reality is an illusion.

No, I only agree that somebody's deluded. Reality is just fine, and will inevitably win. It always does.

You said, Determinism requires us to think of the world as a place in which morality is simply an illusion -- a inexplicable one, perhaps, but an illusion nonetheless.

To which I responded with: the opposite is also true.

To which you responded with: In a word of illusion, by definition, NOTHING is ever "explicable." Nothing is trustworthy. Nothing can be known. So nothing can be explained, either.

So no, you're not solving the problem: you've just made it unsolvable, in fact.

____

I said the opposite is also true, to which You responded by saying I am not solving the problem. So I ask you IC..what problem are you actually talking about?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:33 pm
I said reality is an illusion. So you agree that reality is an illusion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pmNo, I only agree that somebody's deluded.

So you already know that somebody saying reality is an illusion is a deluded somebody.

Well, what if deluded somebodies are all just an integral part of the illusion. Why is that a problem unsolvable, to you?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:48 pm I said the opposite is also true,

The "opposite" of what?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm Reality is just fine, and will inevitably win. It always does.

I agree, the illusion of reality is just fine, so not sure about the illusion being in competition with itself, as if there is a winning trophy to be handed to it, as it's already a winner, the illusion is actually happening, it's in effect, and that's just so utterly obvious. The illusion doesn't require itself to be a proven fact, it simply is self-evident.

And also, in the game of conceptual illusions, there is no winner without a loser. So a win reality would have nothing to lose anyway, a loser would be the winner pretending to lose, already knowing it's pretending. So why would an already win reality even care about winning, when it already knows it's a winner.

Now why don't you try and explain that dilemma away, if you dare.

You see, I can just be as deluded as you IC, if you are going to make ridiculous claims like somebody is deluded, then so can I .. it's called the echo chamber of the formless in formation interacting with itself.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 7:23 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:38 pm Reality is just fine, and will inevitably win. It always does.

I agree, the illusion of reality is just fine,

If you think reality is an illusion, then we've located the person who's deluded. But you'll find out. Reality always wins.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 7:12 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:48 pm I said the opposite is also true,

The "opposite" of what?

You said, Determinism requires us to think of the world as a place in which morality is simply an illusion -- a inexplicable one, perhaps, but an illusion nonetheless.

To which I responded with: The opposite is also true...meaning: Morality is simply an illusion -- an explicable one, perhaps, but an illusion nonetheless.