I was trying to put the playing cards into numeric order from number 1 to number 64. It was not a fast process at all, because when I picked up number 1 card, number 2 card didn't jump up by itself. The number 2 card was hiding behind no.35, and I had to go through all the cards to find the bloody number 2 card, and so on.

It was a clear evidence in real world, that numbers don't exist, and they don't cause anything at all. Our minds see and order them into numeric order.

I cannot find a flaw in his argument. Could you? I am not saying that I agree with his metaphysics though but that is a different topic. — MoK

I do find serious flaws in the claim, when it says, just because MoK has the same essence as John i.e. being human, MoK and John is one. I would point out, MoK is Mok, and John is John. They are two, not one.

You don't know what a locked-in syndrome is. Do you? — MoK

I thought it was a form of hikikomori, but maybe it is not.
It doesn't matter what it is. The whole point is about the principle of morality and how it works.

How are you going to assist him if killing is wrong to you? — MoK

If he needed my assistance, I would just say to him, "Man get a life. Get wild GFs, and enjoy life man."

He can decide about his life but he cannot execute the decision so he is very dependent on us to execute his decision. — MoK

Will have to persevere with advice and encouragement for leading positive life for him.

It may, but the fact that it may gives us the right to torture the terrorist. — MoK

It is a completely irrational statement based on the wrong assumption.

Didn't you say that a person with locked-in syndrome has the right to terminate his life? — MoK

I have never said that. I said it is wrong to kill any life. But he also has his right to decide on his own life. No one has right to decide his life for him.

Let's assume it does. — MoK

The truth is, it doesn't. There is no evidence torturing saves human lives.

So you disagree with your own statement? — MoK

Where did I say I disagreed with my own statement?

As I mentioned Aquinas distinguish between persons and essence. — MoK

Do you agree with him?

Let's assume so for the sake of argument. — MoK

I would presume Kant would say, well by rational thinking there is no evidence torturing would save anyone's lives. Therefore torturing is not justified and wrong. Don't do it.

Your conclusion that torturing is justified is based on your wrong premise that torturing will save lives. Your argument is invalid and unsound.

And I already mentioned that you cannot have a situation without considering these factors. According to Kant killing a human is not allowed in all circumstances. It is the person feelings in the case of locked-in syndrome that matters in this situation. As far as I recall, you agree that it is the right of a person with locked-in syndrome to decide about his life. This is against what pure reason suggests. — MoK

Well, if you asked me about the case personally, my answer to that would be, you are asking a wrong person. I don't have enough details about the case to apply my pure reason on the case. You need to bring a 1000 pages of the social report regarding the case with his situations i.e. medical history and psychological analysis, and his family circumstance etc etc.

I would say, if anyone made a moral decision on the case without all the factual details, then it would be a sheer nonsense, not moral judgements.

Kant is just giving you a guideline. You don't have to cling on him with the trivial contradictions. You need to face and deal with the reality at present world.

As I mentioned Aquinas makes a distinction between persons of the Trinity and essence. You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts of person and essence before you can attack it. — MoK

I was not attacking, but asking about it. Could we not discuss the points based on the natural logic and reasoning? Why Aquinas? We are not going to accept his doctrines if they are based on A <> A and A^~A, are we?

Torturing of the terrorist is allowed by all means if we can save lives of individuals. The torturing is morality right even if we assume that the terrorist may withhold the information. — MoK

There is possibility that you have mistaken the identity of the folks whom you thought were terrorists, but they were not.

Torturing the folks are crime itself, hence you would be committing moral wrong there.
Also there is a possibility that no one's life is in danger, and your motive for torturing could have been caused by propaganda and paranoia or just a desire to torture someone.

And there is no guarantee that torturing the folks will give you any information to save any life. So why try to justify on torturing?

See this is a result of moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interest. It is not only wrong in factuality, but also could be committing moral wrong itself.

Kant would say, that torturing is not right way in saving human lives. Because it won't work and it is morally wrong itself.

According to Kant, killing, torturing, etc. are objectively wrong by this he means that these actions are not allowed under any circumstances. There is no room for discussion here. — MoK

But you haven't asked Kant in person, what would be the case torturing the terrorists. If you did, he would have said to you "Have you tried all other means to get the information exhaustively?" and "Are you sure the terrorists you are wanting to torture are the real terrorists? What if they were not the terrorists? What if you are trying to torture innocent folks for mistaken identity?"

I asked you this before: Could you provide an example of a situation in which feelings, belief, opinions, and interests do not play a role? — MoK

I already have added the more explanation of how those factors do hamper coming to moral judgements with your example of the lock-in man. Hence you must use reasoning only on the judgement. If you are interested in my posts on the examples, you need to track back my posts. Obviously you missed what I wrote to you.

I think the point to bear in mind is that there is definitely not a consensus that reason operates independently of emotion in the human psyche. There is a holistic thinking process that includes the complete spectrum of human mental states, including logic, emotion, and imagination. — Pantagruel

You need to exclude all the irrational elements in the process of moral reasoning. If we mix them up, then you won't be able to arrive at the fair and just moral decisions.

So reasoning is a little black box then? Are you in some sense reducing reasoning to logic? — Pantagruel

It is not a black box.   It was to show a typical progress in moral judgement in order to help you understand where the emotions and reasoning are in the process.

Of course some folks would just make moral judgments from the Feelings and Belief stage, which are likely to be irrational  psychological states, which have little to do with the moral truths.

cannot be reasonably thought to be solely a function of reason. — Pantagruel

This is the process of how moral judgement takes place.

External perception on the moral case -> Feelings and Beliefs on the case -> Reasoning -> Moral Judgement.

So, there would be some elements of the emotional side of the moral case perception, but it would be reasoning which filters out the emotional side of the perception by interpretation and analysis on the content of the perception. The final moral judgements are always made by practical reasoning alone.

This claim is inaccurate because you are saying that reason ought to inform morality, and ought implies can. If people are only capable of acting psychologistically (which seems as though it might be true by definition) then saying that they ought to act rationally instead is either by definition impossible or else it is highly unlikely. In either of which cases it fails as a norm. — Pantagruel

You seem to have misunderstood my point there. I have not said much about reason, ought or can. I just said, moral judgements must be based on reason.

Most of what I said was about feelings, beliefs and emotions, and how they cannot be the foundation of moral judgements.

To impugn someone's rationality is, by definition, to impugn their beliefs, as my rational-defense claim illustrates. — Pantagruel

We are not denying the workings of beliefs and feelings and emotion in mental events. However, these mental states are largely caused by the other mental states within the self such as self imagery, self reflections and one's past experiences rather than the facts and evidence from the real world events.

Hence they are not in the domain of truth and falsity of knowledge values. When you believe in something, it could be either grounded or groundless and justified or unfounded. Likewise when you feel angry or feel someone is bad, there is no truth or falsity value in the feeling. You either have the feeling or not.

Moral judgements are objective knowledge that is either true or false. Yes, they can be true or false too. But because they can be true or false, they are knowledge and objective.

Beliefs and emotions are subjective, hence folks can have them or not have them. There is no ground for them being true or false. They are not moral truths. They are just feelings and beliefs.

Emotions are not "misleading" - they are a huge and significant characteristic of what it means to be human. — Pantagruel

If someone said to you, "I believe that you have insulted my intelligence. Therefore I feel you are evil and bad." How do you justify that claim?

According to Kant, torturing is not allowed. What would you do in such a situation? — MoK

Going back to MoK's point, Kant would ask you, if torturing was the last resort for the resolution. Have you tried all other means to get the information out?

The problem with torturing to get the information out, is that it may still fail to get the information even you have tried with utmost degree, if they firmly withhold the information. Then what is the point of torturing? It wouldn't have been the method fit for the purpose for saving any life. Hence it would have been an act of blind and pointless end, which would be an evident moral wrongness itself.

Reason can only guide you in making a choice. Committing to the choice will always be an act of belief. Reason absent committed belief is just rhetoric. Which is why belief - in whatever it may be - is always the foundation of every person's moral choices. — Pantagruel

Belief without reason can be groundless and unfounded. Beliefs must go through verification of reason to be fit for judgement and decision. They say justified beliefs via reasoning are knowledge. Beliefs based on feelings and opinions and interests are blind and misleading.

My point is that pure reason can resolve moral problems but adds problems. — MoK

This is why you need reasoning. You will know that torturing is not the only way to get the information. You could have good conversation with them, and persuade them to give you the information from their own accord. It is all about utilising your practical reasoning wisely and skillfully.

You see how feelings and beliefs could make rash judgements and decisions, and just resort to the barbaric ways to resolve the problem? Use your practical reasoning wisely, and the world problem could be resolved amicably for win win results.

My point is that we cannot put them aside when we want to decide since they are factors that build the situation. No factor, no situation, and nothing to decide. — MoK

You build the situation with your perception and reasoning, not with feelings and beliefs. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests blind you from the reality preventing you from making right decisions and judgements.

These three persons, however, share the same essence, which means each person is God yet different from the other persons. — MoK

"share the same essence" sounds unclear here. If MoK and John share the same essence which is human, has minds, 2 arms and 2 legs, does it mean MoK is John? Are they the same being? :chin:

They are clearly different beings, but saying they are one is a contradiction. Even if John and MoK are humans, they are different, and they are not one. MoK is Mok, and John is John.

Even if it is a theological doctrine, should it not abide by the Law of Identity and Law of Noncontradiction in the doctrine? If any doctrine is based on ignoring these laws, then it cannot be a doctrine. It would be a religious dogma.

From the OP,

He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK

it clearly seems to indicate and prove that He and God are not one. Therefore Trinity doctrine is false?

Going back to the OP, we seem to be in agreement on the point that believing in God does not resolve moral conflict. However, you seem to be claiming that feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests are the basis of morality. Whereas my point is that pure reason is the foundation of morality.

Looking at it more closely, the circles must have no connections where the paths are "Is Not".
Connecting them with the paths and making to appear as if they are connected seems to be the problem here.

"Is not" is not "Is".

"Three hypostases, one (unknowable) essence." God's essence is not known, only the divine energies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The figure seems to be saying now 4 is 1 and 4 is not 1.
God, Father, Son, The Holy Spirit

Isn't it still A^~A ? :chin: :smile:

These factors define a situation where a decision is required. Freedom is different from free will. By free will, I mean the ability of an agent to decide when he is uncertain about what to do. I discussed this topic in another thread. — MoK

Yeah, they could. But they feed with the irrational and illusional side of situations. They creep up even when you are trying to reason on the facts and analytic knowledge. They tend to cloud your judgements and reasoning, and force you to make wrong judgements for the situations.

You must be able to put them aside, and rely on reason only on the decisions.

(B) cannot 'escape' the lab (which will be far less likely when AGI is operational). Otherwise, to wit:
You'll know AGI is here when the exercise of creating tasks that are easy for regular humans but hard for AI becomes simply impossible.
— François Chollet, author of ARC-AGI and scientist in Google's artificial intelligence unit
https://www.zdnet.com/article/openais-o3-isnt-agi-yet-but-it-just-did-something-no-other-ai-has-done/ — 180 Proof

AGI lacks two critical factors for the existence as full fledged GI.
1) Will to Life and Pleasure in their intelligence
2) Human biological body born from the genuine humans

The will can only be generated from the agents with genuine human biological body. Without the will, why would any entity would try to keep existing and achieve their goals? Would AGI have goals? Nope, they would only have the instructions on what to perform.

I asked whether you could give an example of a situation in which feelings, interests, beliefs, and opinions do not play a role. — MoK

All my moral judgements have been based on practical reasoning. There is no single case that I have made moral judgements based on my feelings, beliefs, opinions or interests. Because these psychological states and events are not reliable basis for the judgements on moral right or wrong.

In order to make my moral judgements, I would need all the details about the case, decisions, causes, the people involved and possible relation to maxims, universal law and the society the agents were living in as well as the moral code within the society.

With all the factors involved available in hand, there will be hard thinking and reasoning for the moral judgement on the case. Without the full factual knowledge and evidence on the case, no moral judgement would be possible at all. It is like a scientific conclusion that without relevant data for the possible new theory, there would be no conclusion.

Depending on the nature of the case, there might be personal feelings and beliefs that could creep up into mind at times, however practical reasoning will resolutely kick them out as not necessary and irrelevant factors for the judgement. Practical reasoning is the faculty of mind, which rules moral judgements, be it right or wrong.

Imo, worst case, smart machines can't 'enslave exploit and slaughter' any more than we talking primates have done to ourselves (& the nature world) the last ten or so millennia ... — 180 Proof

With AI taking over the world in works and jobs front at present, what is to come in the future and what they are in nature are in the form of speculative assumptions, some positive and some negative, but mostly apocalyptic.

My point here is that, AI operational capabilities are not in the same nature or league as to the human intelligence i.e. they are not the same kind. You can tell the difference right away.

AI capacity can be more powerful and efficient (e.g. the chess playing AIs) in narrow and specified area of their operations than human intelligence, but it doesn't mean they are better, when the existence in real world requires intelligence and efficiency in all aspects of problem solving in reality.

AI will always need human intervention in their operations, development and continual existence in the real world.

Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations. — Relativist

Matter can be explanation. We say "What's the matter with you?" It is asking for an explanation on what you are up to, or what is wrong with you.

No problem with that. I can decide in any situation since I am a free agent. — MoK

Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests often trap you in illusions which blocks your freedom. By definition those concepts imply groundlessness, unfoundedness, falsity, prejudice, misunderstanding, and irrationality in their nature and origin.

Isn't it reason that you have to listen and follow in order to be a free agent?

It is not like that. Christians are aware of this and they distinguish between persons of the Trinity and God's essence. I invite you to read this article if you are interested in the topic. — MoK

It is saying, 3 is 1 and 3 is not 1.
A ^ ~A :chin:

Luke 23:46: "Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last." So according to Luke 23:46, these words are the last words that Jesus said. According to Matthew 27:46-50, Jesus's last words were the verse which is the subject of discussion of this thread. — MoK

:up: :pray:

Trinity is a doctrine in which there are three persons, each has their own consciousness and identity yet are not separate beings. I don't think that is possible. They may be united in a sense but that is not what Christians believe. Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity. — MoK

Going back to Trinity, it seems to have some logical problems. Saying that three entities are one is like saying 3 =1 or 1+1+1 = 1, which is not true.

In the bible God is also depicted as Father, and Jesus as son. According to Trinity, it implies The father is also the son, the son is the father and spirit.

A father cannot be his own son, and a son cannot be his own father.

Also two different bodies cannot share the same mind. Because all mind is absolutely private to its owner. If spirit in Trinity meant mental entity in nature, then it is a categorical error to say that two different people or bodies or entities share the same spirit (mind).

Another problem with moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests is that you will be facing moral conflicts and dilemmas within yourself.

You will still have your own practical reasoning telling you that your moral judgement is wrong, but your feelings and beliefs are saying that your judgement is right. That is a moral conflict within oneself, which can be tricky to resolve. Better to listen to your practical reasoning rather than relying on your feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions on moral judgements.

I can find it for you if you are interested. — MoK

By all means please. Thank you for your offer.

I have no problem with this but Christians do not agree with this. — MoK

Their point of view on the matter would be more faith based system, which will not go well with rational arguments, I would guess.

Here I am not discussing the Trinity doctrine but arguing that that Jesus cannot be abandoned if we accept the doctrine of the Trinity. — MoK

I am not familiar with the detail of the theological side of the arguments. But you, as a confessed agnostic, seem to be very much familiar with the theological theories and knowledge, which gives impression that sometime in the past, you might have been a faithful and loyal Christian who attended church studying the doctrine.