No matter how you look at it, the second option is the most logical option.
Also, emotions are at play here because the reason people choose not to do anything is because they dont want to feel guilty. And guilt is an emotion. — Kinglord1090

Good point! I'm so glad you pointed that out.

However, it doesn't seem to add up. It's like this:

1. To kill an innocent person is wrong [true]

2. If you pull the lever you save 5 people and kill an (innocent) person [obvious]

3. You pull the lever [assume you do]

4. You save 5 people and kill an (innocent) person [2, 3 MP]

5. You kill an (innocent) person [4 Simp]

6. To kill an innocent person is wrong and you kill an (innocent) person [by pulling the lever]

What should follow from 6? You've done something wrong and that's why you'll be guilt-ridden. The guilt serves as an indicator of your wrongdoing. It's absolutely ok to not want to pull the lever because you don't want to be burdened by guilt because what you really want is not to be immoral.

Another issue with utilitarianism is the following:

Suppose you pull the lever and save the 5 people by killing one. You're a good person, right? Now, imagine yourself as the lone person who must be killed to save 5 other persons. By your reckoning, you should be killed which basically means someone killed you, a good person.

Taking this one step further, imagine a bad man (say he threatens to kill 5 people) is the single person who must be killed to save the 5. According to you, this bad person too must be dispatched without the slightest hesitation.

Here's the deal. In utilitarianism, once the so-called greater good comes into play, there's no difference between a good person and a bad person. What kinda moral theory is that?

Like should be treated alike but then good and bad must be like each other. Preposterous!

:up:

Well, I dont know how to respond to your message.
Even a simple Google search comes up with this result.
"delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

I have been giving rational arguments to all the questions, so if anyone's being delusional it would be Mr. Protagoras.
Hope you get well soon. : ) — Kinglord1090

I was referring to myself!

psychology — Paul Fishwick

As far as I can tell, psychology basically carries out experimental studies on how people think i.e. their raison ​d'être is to check for generalities/patterns in our thinking.

The psychologist's question: What would all/most people think given such and such?

I'm not sure of how much progress has been made in this regard though. Do most people concur i.e. are there tangible motifs we can then work on or is there too much variability to make even partial generalizations?

The next step as in any scientific endeavor seems a tough nut to crack - coming up with an explanation for observed patterns if any.

That's the math in psychology.

Coming to the psychology in math, I guess the first step is done with - we know we seek patterns. Next step - Why? Well, it helps to know how the world behaves, we can formulate plans - simple ones like going to the places where migrating bison herds can be found or elaborate ones like sending rovers to Mars.

Good luck in your delusions. — Protagoras

This strikes a chord!

:smile:

I don't think you're on the right track here. The conditional example you provided don't seem to have anything to do with language itself; it's more about the contingencies of what the individual atomic propositions describes. Language-related issues with logic have to be about the nuances and subtleties of logical words like "and", "or, "if...then..." Sorry, try again!

This title makes me feel so interested in the book right now. I don't know why but I guess I thought literally this for years. Fortunately, I am one of those weird "freaks" who loves think or speak about everything except/apart sex. — javi2541997

Like I think women say to each other, "Men have only two things on their mind, sex and no sex."

I don't believe emotions have anything to do with rationalism.
If anything, if often goes against logic.
It's best shown in experiments like the Trolley experiment, where a human would rather save 1 person with whom he/she/they have emotional connection with rather than save 4 strangers, which far disobeys logic by simply not giving a damn about 4 lives over 1 life. — Kinglord1090

Remember, the Trolley Problem is there to expose a dissonance between what utilitarianism demands that we do (kill 1 to save 4) and our intuition that there's something not quite right about that. It's possible that the moral intuition I referred to could be just our emotions in disguise, I'm not sure. Actually, it's not just some vague feeling that something's off as I initially thought. That 1 man utilitarianism requires us to slay is innocent and thus killing faer would be immoral. No, no emotions in the Trolley Problem, at least none that I can detect.

Also, I think you just contradicted yourself with this statement -
"there's no way someone would ever be rational if it hurt like hell.",
as if you meant it, you are just saying that its better for everyone in the world to die, if it means you can have peace and not be in pain.
I feel like thats an excuse for saying that you are weak and/or a coward. — Kinglord1090

I merely meant to point out what you already know - emotions motivate and also demotivate. We engage in rationality for mainly two reasons: 1) we enjoy it and 2) it's tool that helps us achieve happiness and avoid suffering. Both reasons are emotional in character.

Regarding the issue of letting the world end if it means peace for me, well, it's a non sequitur. Nothing that I said implies that and moreover, I don't think anyone will ever be so unlucky to face such a dilemma: either suffer or the world is kaput.

I am a curious about your idea of the 'thin line between adventure and misadventure'. I wonder if you can explain a little bit further. — Jack Cummins

Very good question in my humble opinion. Why? There seems to be an asymmetry therein. Our emotions give the thumbs-up to rationality (there's no way someone would ever be rational if it hurt like hell. In fact, we get a kick out of being rational). Rationality, on the other hand, has a dim view of emotions, treating them as stumbling blocks to be avoided like the plague. Unrequited love. A one-sided love story. Doomed from the very start! A very ancient account of the love-hate relationship between heart and mind! Take it or leave it!

Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent. — Corvus

Yes, I've been told that but I never got around to exploring those areas - I find them too unnerving not to mention complicated for the likes of me. I maintain a safe distance my policy being I'll cross the bridge when I get to it. Until then stay in familiar territory as far as possible.

By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"?

I can think of one. Take the word "but" which is equivalent to "and" in logic, both being translated as the logical connective AND (&). If I say, "John stayed but Jane left" what I wish to convey is there's some kind of tension, a logical one as in an inconsistency (Jane should've stayed) but this is lost in translation so to speak and the aforementioned statement is treated as identical to "John stayed and Jane left". That's about all I have on this issue with logic.

words of wisdom. The Old Road indeed can be repaved but once you realize that magic is not an advantage but merely a trade-off and that you seemingly always somehow trade something that was of more value than the outcome of the magic you quickly understand that it's not worth it in best to just leave on a shelf somewhere to collect dust — MAYAEL

Spot on! For those who disagree, there's a thin line between adventure and misadventure.

racism is a matter totally out of Logic. — dimosthenis9

I'm gonna stick my neck out and disagree with this statement. Logic is, as you said, a "searching truth engine" - it's designed to take truths as inputs and spit out another truth that simply can't be false (deductive logic) or is most likely true (inductive logic). It, however, can't tell the difference between a truth and a falsehood - that's our job so to speak. If the inputs into the searching truth engine" is dubious, the truth of the output is not guaranteed, nevertheless one is being logical. When it comes to racists, the inputs are questionable "truths" i.e. they could be false. After that all bets are off - what the "searching truth engine" presents as an output could be true, could be false - we can't tell for sure.

Let's take an example of a valid argument form in logic

Modus Ponens
1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo,
3. q

A truth table for the above argument form
p..........q..........if p then q
T..........T.......... T
T..........F..........F
F..........T..........T
F..........F..........T

As you can see, there's no line in the truth table where all the premises are true and the conclusion false. This is one particular type of "searching truth engine". There are many others.

More to the point, notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. This, my best hunch, is what's happening with racism. A racist uses a valid argument form but faer premises are of doubtful authenticity. In other words, racists are assuredly logical but they've screwed up premise-wise.

As for logic vs intelligence, think computer vs human. Logic is part of intelligence, possibly system-critical vis-à-vis intelligence but intelligence is so much more than just logic.

how it is not simply the brain which is involved in experience — Jack Cummins

I've thought about this very briefly. Too briefly. I dunno.

Standing still, I move,
Moving, I stand still.

Christian take on morality:

Fall Of Man

The fall of man, the fall of Adam, or simply the Fall, is a term used in Christianity to describe the transition of the first man and woman from a state of INNOCENT obedience to God to a state of guilty DISOBEDIENCE. — Wikipedia

Innocence

A "loss of innocence" is a common theme in fiction, pop culture, and realism. It is often seen as an integral part of coming of age. It is usually thought of as an experience or period in a person's life that leads to a greater awareness of evil, pain and/or suffering in the world around them. — Wikipedia

People who lack the mental capacity to understand the nature of their acts may be regarded as innocent regardless of their behavior. — Wikipedia

Four possibilities in re knowledge of good and evil (morality) and free will (saying NO = DISOBEDIENCE) :point: What Is Moral? & :point: What Is Moral (disobedience)

1. Know morality, yes free will (Ate the apple; good & bad apply)
2. Know morality, no free will (good & bad don't apply)
3. Doesn't know morality, yes free will (Didn't eat the apple; innocence = good)
4. Doesn't know morality, no free will (good & bad don't apply)

The only way to be always good is to be innocent (3) but that means you should have zero knowledge of ethics/morality.

Hence, here are my recommendations for good books on ethics/morality (from a Christian point of view):

1. A record of the statesmanship and political achievements of Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock, regular Democratic nominee for president of the United States (1880).

2. Political Achievements of the Earl of Dalkeith (1880).

3. What Every Man Thinks About Apart from Sex.

4. Everything Obama Knows About The Economy.

5. Fifty Shades of Gray.

6. Why Dogs are Better than Cats.

7. The Wit and Wisdom of Nigel Farage.

8. Surprising Reasons to Believe Trump Will Be a Great President!

9. Why Trump Deserves Trust, Respect and Admiration. 

10. Reasons To Vote For Democrats.

Basically, the best book on ethics is An Empty Book

Although there are endpoints, and a continuum, I think that it is also interesting to think of Heraclitus's idea of enantiodromia. This was about how when opposites are reached they reverse completely. So, we may be in the realms of walking along points along the continuum and watching binaries change into their opposites. But, of course, we are talking on an abstract level, but I think that the ideas of Gilchrist do show how opposites within the brain and consciousness are very complex indeed — Jack Cummins

:up: Good news & Bad news.

[...]I don't know whether to laugh or cry — Banno

I suppose, from one angle, your question boils down to that of the difference between a generalist and a specialist. The usual way it pans out is the former knows something about everything while the latter knows everything about something. It's a tough call if you ask me.

If you're a generalist, the only future for you is, as they say, Jack of all trades and master of none. On the flip side, a specialist can master his trade so to speak.

I don't know how it was back a 100 or more years ago but the modern world seems obsessed with so-called experts - every problem reflexively calls for one. It makes a whole lot of sense because a specialist/expert, Masters/PhD, will have in-depth domain knowledge.

Generalists, on the other hand, would be an asset since fae is essentially a swiss-knife, multi-purpose and can, for that reason, wear many hats. Despite such range most generalists these days are to be found doing blue-collar unskilled work i.e. it's easier to be a generalist when the tasks at hand don't require thinking.

Plus, what are teams? Instead of investing resources in one generalist, we can hire multiple specialists - it'll be expensive but I'm sure you'll get the bang for your buck.

I haven't derailed the thread I hope but, as per my analysis, it's better for an artist to focus in one particular area. Fae can master it and dazzle us with faer works.

As for the creative arc, I thought everyone was familiar with how the world works - ups & downs, you're in a trough (artist's block) one moment and riding a crest (peak creativity) another. It appears the artist is at the mercy of the sinusoidal wave of his creative spark. Perhaps he can attempt to ride the cresting wave for as long as possible like a surfer or simply increase the frequency of faer creativity. Basically long creative spells or more creative spells. All this assuming that the artist has any degree of control.

But, we can say that consciousness definitely exists after being banned. — Jack Cummins

Avatar

I didn't enjoy maths as a child but I do remember finding the idea of Pythagoras' s hypothenuse triangle to be very exciting. I also do like the geometry of circles and lines too, but somehow got on so much better in exploring them in art, rather than in geometry lessons. — Jack Cummins

Art & Math go a long way back I believe: Proportio Divina.

Jack = 4 letters
Cummins = 7 letters

7/phi = 4.326 = 4

(7 + 4)/phi = 11/phi = 6.799 = 7

The gloves didn't fit O. J. Simpson!

final one was about speaking in tongues — Jack Cummins

:rofl: :rofl: Jack's eulogy for 3017amen



:rofl:

Yep. So construct a right triangle with sides equal to the tow squares; then the hypotenuse is the length of the desired square. — Banno

Pythagoras' theorem. :up:

Glossolalia is simply a set of symbols (here sounds and their combinations) begging, entreating, for a referent. When the two (symbol & referent) finally meet, we have language. I suspect no one has ever considered the other side to this story - grapholalia (writing that's, well, gibberish). A few examples come to mind: the Voynich Manuscript, the Rohonc Codex.

Communication, language one, consists of the following pairs,

1. Speak (transmission) - Listen (reception)
2. Write (transmission) - Read (reception)

An intriguing aspect of the issue is that glossolalia/grapholalia both can't be distinguished from cryptography (coded information) - in both cases, we have on our hands a set of symbols (spoken/written) the listener/reader can't understand. This could be one of the reasons why people have devoted quite a lot of time and energy trying to decipher the Voynich manuscript and the Rohonc codex. Unbeknownst to them, the large number of never-before-seen symbols may simply be in want of a referent. In some sense, glossolalia/grapholalia may simply be linguistic atavism (reenactment of the very first steps humans took in the language department).

What excites me, what I find intriguing, is are there referents that haven't been assigned a symbol [words (written/spoken)]? How much of the universe have we explored? The furthest a usable man-made object has ever been is the Voyager spacecraft (launched 1977) and after 44 years and counting it hasn't even left the solar system. Also let's not forget we haven't explored the oceans in any meaningful way. I'm sure there's a lot we don't know and if these unknowns are to be part of a productive discussion, the unkown would require their own preferrably unique symbols. Glossolalia/grapholalia seems like the first port of call.

I guess it all boils down to ignorance - the unknown, incomprehensible words of glossolalia & grapholalia reflect the state of our knowledge, a mere drop in the ocean of what is knowable. Ignorance, I hear, is religion's wingman - deadly duo!

Thus, as the OP (sadly, 3017amen has been banned) states, the cosmos has a big role to play in glossolalia/grpaholalia as there's nothing we know so little about than the domain of cosmology.

and...
repetative
no original material
pat old junk
same-old same old — Banno

Language
Tone
Off-topic
Trolling — Banno

I feel the noose tightening around my neck... :chin: :fear: :cry:

I'd like to download my threads & posts pleaassseee!

Side length of first square = x
Side length of second square = y
Side length of third square = z

x² + y² = z²

3² + 4² = 5²

Playing with this again — Banno

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All play and no work makes Jack a grasshopper.

If anyone's interested in just tinkering around with geometry try Geogebra. It's a free app and comes complete with lessons in geometry (on the website).

@frank We're in the same boat! I hope you're in first class. You'll find me smoking on the deck! :lol:

Yes – veto, not volo. Quite a Nietzschean/Spinozist (stoic) sentiment. Or as Camus says
Knowing whether or not man is free involves knowing whether he can have a master. 

What is a rebel? A man who says no. — 180 Proof

:up: Yes, negation/refusal/denial seems to be the key to freedom.

1. Preferences [forced down our throats]
2. Do X & Don't Do Y [from 1]
3. Yes to 2 [slave (to one's preferences)]
4. No to 2 [Freedom]

Mathematics.

Mathematicians seek and use PATTERNS to formulate new conjectures; they resolve the truth or falsity of such by mathematical proof. — Wikipedia

Relations (Philosophy).

Relations (Math).

Apropose my previous post, mathematics is ultimately about, as the quote says, PATTERNS. All intellectual activities humans engage in seem to be about either 1. detecting patterns and/or 2. explaining these patterns. This includes philosophy too (see below):

It's a tendency in philosophy to look for generalizations [patterns] that covers all the cases and we always lose but we can't resist trying. — Hillary Putnam

So yeah, going by what Hillary Putnam says, philosophy is math and vice versa since both seek patterns (generalizations) but mind the words "...we always lose..." which to my reckoning simply means that the patterns philosophy is interested usually don't cover all the bases i.e. there are exceptions that gum up the works. Does this matter? Well, in one way it doesn't - philosophy and math both seek the same thing (patterns) - and in one way it does - in philosophy, unlike math, patterns are not universal (there are special cases which break the pattern) which when examined closely sounds very much like saying there are no patterns. Hence, though both math and philosophy are pattern-seeking projects, the former finds them with ease I might add while the latter struggles to find even one. Math is everywhere as a goal but not everywhere as an achieved goal.

"A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills." ~Arthur Schopenhauer — 180 Proof

:up: That ultimately boils down to human nature in general and how it shapes a unique individual nature in particular. Human nature seems to be real - we can identify some traits a first-year student in psychology can rattle off without missing a beat - and though it's universal in that it applies to everyone, variations in type and degree give individuals their one-of-a-kind character.

It's not that simple though. What seems germane to the issue of free will is how human nature seems self-contradictory e.g. some are selfish, some are generous; some are kind, others mean; some good, some bad; etc. Am I to then say human nature = {(selfish & generous), (kind & mean), (good & bad),...}. That doesn't add up, right? or does it?

Human nature, in my humble opinion, implies some traits predominate over others. Thus, though we're capable of geneorsity, the majority of us are selfish, etc. This is true - psychologists will vouch for that. However, this is not what interests me. What really gets me stoked is the minority - those who can resist and even overcome human nature. My logic is simple: If X can resist/overcome human nature and X and I are both human then, I too can do the same and resist/overcome human nature.

Free will then isn't about determining/choosing our preferences (determining what he wills) - that seems an impossibility and there are metapaphysical implications that'll sidetrack us - but about resisting/overcoming them. It kinda squares with how the world works - freedom (free will) seems more meaningful in the presence of oppression (our preferences, preferences we had no hand in adopting, influencing our choices).

Epicurus, Spinoza, Nietzsche, et al say we don't. Read On The Nature of Things (Lucretius), The Ethics and On The Geneaology of Morals. — 180 Proof

How unfortunate for the good - they don't get credit - and how fortunate for the bad - they're blameless. Most people would be jumping with joy then and thereby hangs a very sad tale!

First port of call - find out if we have free will!

wut — 180 Proof

Nuthin' :rofl:

What is moral? — TiredThinker

What gives us superiority over animals and the behaviors they can't break the compulsions to do? — TiredThinker

Good questions. It appears you're broaching the issue of agency (free will) vis-à-vis morality. The answer then must be obvious - we're if not truly free, more free than animals and thus morality is, not necessarily a mark of superiority, rather a heavy cross to bear.

What's interesting is animals behave morally (the harm they do is always unintended and if intended it's always out of necessity - humans condone such) while not knowing what morality is ( :chin: ) and humans behave immorally (the harm they do is sometimes intended - humans don't condone such). The paradox: Animals know nothing about morality and yet behave morally while humans know something about morality and still behave immorally. That's what's being implied by the OP.

A little learning is a dangerous thing — Alexander Pope

How do we resolve this paradox?

It's plain as the nose on your face that the acts committed by animals and humans are indistinguishable - killing, for instance, is done by both humans and animals. So, what's the difference that calls for separate judgments for a human killing (bad) and an animal killing (not bad)? The answer: knowledge of morality & free will (agency). Hence, the OP asks, "what is moral?" [knowledge of morality] and links it to animals [free will (agency)].

Are both knowledge of morality and free will equal in terms of moral significance? Does one carry more weight than the other?

Let's see how many different scenarios are possible and how each is viewed, morally speaking

1. Yes moral knowledge, Yes free will [good and bad apply]
2. Yes moral knowledge, No free will [good and bad don't apply]
3. No moral knowledge, Yes free will [ignorantia juris non excusat but then innocence] ???
4. No moral knowledge, No free will [good and bad don't apply]

As you can see there's some controversy regarding possibility 3 because the law doesn't excuse people who are ignorant of the law (bad) but, at the same time, innocence is considered a virtue (good). We need to give up one of the two, either ignorantia juris non excusat or innocence.

Which one will it be?

The difficulty arises when we assign value to moral knowledge. Instead of breaking our heads over the issue, the easiest, best (?), solution seems to be ignoring knowledge of morality completely - taking it out of the equation as it were.

Thus, the four possibilities above reduce to (moral knowledge removed because we seem to be confused, in two minds, about it)

1. Yes free will [good and bad apply]
2. No free will [good and bad don't apply]

Nothing seems out of place.

In other words, morality is, at the end of the day, an inquiry into free willl!

What is moral? (moral knowledge) is not important because whether you know right from wrong or not, if free will is missing, good and bad are N/A (not applicable).

Do we have free will?

As the booming voice in Bender And God says: Possible. Probable

If there is no God, everything is permitted
— Dostoevsky
Yeah, but flip the pillow over to the cool side ...
The absurd does not liberate; it binds. It does not authorize all actions. "Everything is permitted" does not mean that nothing is forbidden.
— Albert Camus
(Emphasis is mine.) — 180 Proof

Indeed, how right you are! IF everything is permitted THEN, IF contradictions are permitted THEN everything is permitted & some things are not permitted (some things are forbidden = "does not mean that nothing is forbidden"). This is precisely what Dostoevesky's talking about!

opposites and the nature of continuum — Jack Cummins

Opposites: Endpoints

Continuum: Flux (between endpoints)

T

If there is no God, everything is permitted — Dostoevsky

Everything is permitted must, in my humble opinion, include that contradictions are true. That, in classical logic (categorical, sentential, and predicate logics) is a big no-no! This implies the nonexistence of God entails a contradiction, an impossibility which is just another way of saying there is no world in which God doesn't exist. Ergo, God must exist in all possible worlds i.e. God is a necessary whatever.

It gets complicated though. Everything is permitted is just another name for chaos. Thus, Dostoevesky's statement can be rephrased as If God doesn't exist then chaos = G. Taking the contrapositive of G, we get if order then God exists. Thus any world in which there's order, God must necessarily exist. Our world "has" order. Using the Dostoevesky statement (If there is no God, everything is permitted = if there is no God then chaos = if order then God exists), we can conclude that God exists (in this universe which has order).

Nevertheless, temporary order can arise in chaos (periods of time in which there are laws (laws of nature &, most importantly, the law of noncontradiction) which can and may revert to lawlessness). It bears mentioning that the problem of induction makes this issue explicit (bless Hume's soul). Thus, the Dostoevesky statement can't get off the ground for the antecedent (order) can never be determined with certainty - is it true order or is it an ordered phase in chaos?

There's also this: a contradiction entail chaos (more contradictions) [ex falso quodlibet].; Ergo the nonexistence of God, for Dostoevesky, is a contradiction. In other words, If chaos then God doesn't exist.

Let's tie up all the loose ends.

1. IF order THEN God exists [the Dostoevsky statement]

2. IF chaos THEN God doesn't exist [contradiction = nonexistence of God]

3. True order can't be distinguished from an ordered section of true chaos [the problem of induction]

We're in a tight spot, no?