Philosophy Now Forum

All logical premises must originate within a biological perspective. All derivative beliefs of these premises, represent the genetic composition and evolutionary history of the given organism. The essence of a person, then, is evolutionary and genetic. Instinct and nature must provide the foundation for all logic, and therefore, all beliefs.
This necessitates social mores and ethics as continuations of biological premises.

A biological premise is an ethical imperative, for behavior within or outside human societies. Therefore, any conception of logic, representing ontology as the study of logic of separate and distinct species, must include specific human behaviors as genetically inherited, apart from those behaviors which are memetically inherited.
If a logic arises within genetic codes, representing the biology of an individual, then this must be separated from memetic behaviors, mimicry, inherited by proximity and interest of a similar intellect.

The conclusion,
Actions can become inherited genetically or memetically, and the particular inheritance of one behavior or psychological tendency over another, must specify the nature of its inheritance as causative nature of the particular behavior itself. Theoretically, some behaviors must be categorically different, and uninheritable, separating the inheritance of one behavior over another, and differentiating the category of gene and meme.
Gene and meme are separate, ontological categories.
Imitation is the key to understanding the separation between genetic or memetic behaviors in Earthly humans.

The method of imitation, as well as the necessity for any biological action or behavior to become imitated by another, must indicate a distinction of behavioral inheritability.
This is what the human specie calls its "ethics".

While I have no comment as to the content of your post, I must say you lack somewhat the ability to present it clearly.

Sentences like "A biological premise is an ethical imperative" consists of two such widely different terms that I have no capacity of understanding what is implied by operating, as in combining, them together.

"Theoretically, some behaviors must be categorically different, and uninheritable, separating the inheritance of one behavior over another, and differentiating the category of gene and meme." Here you seem to think that we share your mind and therefore you assume, at least for me, too much that I have any idea what "theory" describes "what" here, not that I assume you refer to a theory, but you seem to 'skip' thought and think that I know what you thought in-between. So basically I'm just asking you to be a little more 'fleshy' and better develop a context about what you here write.

The Voice of Time wrote:While I have no comment as to the content of your post, I must say you lack somewhat the ability to present it clearly.

My aim is no longer to communicate to the humans of this age, but to the humans who will live in the future. My message is for them. I no longer speak to the present day, or to you, directly. What's the point? I've discovered this is a waste of time. For true philosophers, writing their works of art and mastery, did they too write their genius and expose it to contemporaries? No, they were rejected at the time.
Philosophy is an act of artistry that exists between great lengths of time. I won't expect anyone of this age to really want to understand such things as logic or ethics.

The Voice of Time wrote:Sentences like "A biological premise is an ethical imperative" consists of two such widely different terms that I have no capacity of understanding what is implied by operating, as in combining, them together.

A biological premise is an opinion, a belief in anything, even math. The weak minded "ForgedinHell", the moron that he is, believes there is objective truth in mathematics. This he calls his logic. But, is it also not a belief of his, that is true, or that truth is possible? He entertains this belief, specifically, even though he cannot define the #1. So there is an ethical dilemma here.
How can people believe in the truth of prepositions, without understanding their definitions?

An ethical imperative is a course of action, a genetically or memetically influenced behavior, that is necessary or apparent. People act in certain manners, demonstrating an underlying subconsciousness, otherwise known as instinct, reflex, psychology, nature, past. The imperative corresponds to the logic, the rationalizing of a person, concerning all human actions, or interactions within societies.

The Voice of Time wrote:"Theoretically, some behaviors must be categorically different, and uninheritable, separating the inheritance of one behavior over another, and differentiating the category of gene and meme." Here you seem to think that we share your mind and therefore you assume, at least for me, too much that I have any idea what "theory" describes "what" here, not that I assume you refer to a theory, but you seem to 'skip' thought and think that I know what you thought in-between. So basically I'm just asking you to be a little more 'fleshy' and better develop a context about what you here write.

When you say, "you seem to think that we share your mind", you're wrong. I am writing to a specific audience, a philosophical audience, of times far ahead in the future. I am exclusive, I am not part of your "humanist" cult. We do not share the same mind. We are not of the same mind.
We are not even of the same nature or specie.

Atthet wrote: My aim is no longer to communicate to the humans of this age, but to the humans who will live in the future. My message is for them. I no longer speak to the present day, or to you, directly. What's the point? I've discovered this is a waste of time. For true philosophers, writing their works of art and mastery, did they too write their genius and expose it to contemporaries? No, they were rejected at the time.
Philosophy is an act of artistry that exists between great lengths of time. I won't expect anyone of this age to really want to understand such things as logic or ethics.

You speak with a grandeur and pitch of insanity inherent to one of my favourite characters: Sheldon Cooper. As for your "no... communicate... humans of this age" it seems counter-productive mostly, but I guess you have your (pitch of Sheldonian insane) reasons for it.

Atthet wrote:A biological premise is an opinion, a belief in anything, even math. The weak minded "ForgedinHell", the moron that he is, believes there is objective truth in mathematics. This he calls his logic. But, is it also not a belief of his, that is true, or that truth is possible? He entertains this belief, specifically, even though he cannot define the #1. So there is an ethical dilemma here.
How can people believe in the truth of prepositions, without understanding their definitions?

This sounds more familiar to me. First of all I find a certain tendency towards physical determinism in that paragraph, as the conditionality inherent to the physical world is treated as replacement for metaphysics. I dare say that unless you tell me this was not your intended meaning or similar meaning, you are just following the recent zeitgeist of western academics, that is, discarding of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy in exchange of a more naturalistic philosophical movement. (A movement incentived by the scientification of philosophical authority)

Atthet wrote:An ethical imperative is a course of action, a genetically or memetically influenced behavior, that is necessary or apparent. People act in certain manners, demonstrating an underlying subconsciousness, otherwise known as instinct, reflex, psychology, nature, past. The imperative corresponds to the logic, the rationalizing of a person, concerning all human actions, or interactions within societies.

When you say, "you seem to think that we share your mind", you're wrong. I am writing to a specific audience, a philosophical audience, of times far ahead in the future. I am exclusive, I am not part of your "humanist" cult. We do not share the same mind. We are not of the same mind.
We are not even of the same nature or specie.[/quote]

Sheldon Cooper welcomes you to his family of Übermensch

The Voice of Time wrote:You speak with a grandeur and pitch of insanity inherent to one of my favourite characters: Sheldon Cooper. As for your "no... communicate... humans of this age" it seems counter-productive mostly, but I guess you have your (pitch of Sheldonian insane) reasons for it.

Absolutely, I have many reasons for it. I have been through the philosophy circles. I have challenged the best offered to me, during my time. You would think this is easy, since philosophy is anonymous and online, people ought to voice their truest and most fervent beliefs. This is not the case. People are cowardly, even under the lure and prospect of unabashed honesty.
Why?
It's too simple, after you realize what the common mind, the common human is all about. It's easy after you dig deep into the core of human nature. Oh, I have my reasons for rejecting humanity, countless reasons.

The Voice of Time wrote:This sounds more familiar to me. First of all I find a certain tendency towards physical determinism in that paragraph, as the conditionality inherent to the physical world is treated as replacement for metaphysics. I dare say that unless you tell me this was not your intended meaning or similar meaning, you are just following the recent zeitgeist of western academics, that is, discarding of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy in exchange of a more naturalistic philosophical movement. (A movement incentived by the scientification of philosophical authority)

That's exactly what I'm doing. However, I am rejecting all of this for a different reason than other natural philosophers.
My philosophy revolves around risk taking, and taking the highest possible risk. That is included in my goals and ideals.

The Voice of Time wrote:Sheldon Cooper welcomes you to his family of Übermensch

You ought to tell me more about this Sheldon Cooper then

http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/inte ... ng_theory/

One of the world's most famous and most watched TV-shows, the man who plays the central character "Sheldon Cooper" not long ago received an Oscar for his performance. Follows a group of physicist and engineering nerds, their acquaintance with a normal down-to-Earth failed and "hot" actress called "Penny", and everything surrounding their geeky lives at the university, home and the places they go. The Engineer among them is a Jew who lives with his hairy hoarse and always shouting mom (which we never see), an Indian insecure feminine guy who works as a theoretical physicist (can't speak to girls and has questionable relationship with the engineer), the room-mate of Sheldon Cooper a guy who works as an experimental physicist being somewhat sensitive (his mother was an authoritarian and successful psychologist) but yet the most normal out of them all, and Sheldon Cooper who is a supergenius with near nil social skillz and an infinite list of oddities and the belief that he himself is going to revolutionize astrophysics and the world at large. He is the stereotypical megalomaniac, no interest in girls nor anything else with a sex (at least in the two first seasons, before he finds a matchingly odd neuroscientist, but this is by large an intellectual-only relationship, at least from his side of the coin).

Sheldon Cooper knows extremely much science, has extreme memory, is pictured as having tried to build a nuclear plant in his early teens and followingly hunted down by FBI, and believes himself to be of an evolved species as everybody else is inferior to him, and he often remarks this point, though people usually ignores him, or makes fun of his lack of social skills. A "Good guy" in many ways, often acting like a kid about his wants and desires, but also extremely demanding, and not worthy of any halo, also extremely dependable and scheduled down to the minute, except when people discovers another one of his oddities.

Interesting..I appreciate your correlation to this character. The concept of no personality, anti-personality, or autism, interests me. I enjoy to see young and older males who have rejected society, and these social identities. It marks them as apparent outsiders, immediately causing fear in the normal, average human. I have another thread about this, about lack of personality and autism.

Personability is about socializing. Socializing is society's way of enslaving its population. Humans are in fact, merely unevolved animals.