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.

There seem to be many versions of the propagandas on the AI, and possible world transformations with their sophistication. Some seem to be reasonable in their conjectures, but some seem to be just imaginative wild fabrication of claims with no ground.

What seems clear is that the world and the life of people have been changing drastically by using the IT device and connecting the whole world with the internet. It is true and real that people are controlled and monitored by the devices in daily life even when using the smart phones and computers even at this moment.

Your computer browsers are monitoring on which sites you are visiting every time you click the links on the internet browser, and when you visit the sites, they store cookies into your phones and computers in order to take out the information about you and your data.

Youtube showers and harasses you with the commercial adverts you don't want when you want to watch the videos.

All the high street shops have gone bust and shut down, and we must buy everything from online paying with the digital funds. These are just a tip of iceberg of the world and life changes we have been facing in last few years. What is happening out there now in true scale, and is to come, transform and go extinct or dominate and prevail in the future is uncertain.

Can you define a situation in which feelings, opinions, interests, and beliefs are not involved? Just give me an example. — MoK

When you make moral judgements, you need all the facts that you will need to consider, reason and make judgements. You don't just judge on the moral cases with your fleeting feelings, beliefs and opinions and interests. That would be a disaster in the judgements with no knowledge about even what is involved. No one will approve moral judgements based on feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions.

We are what we are because we have evolved as social animals. Human life is valuable to us because we could not have survived if we had another opinion on this. — MoK

Evolution is a theory or hypothesis that animals biological organs and bodies change to adapt for the environments they live in. It doesn't apply to human minds, morality or even biology.

Cool. I will be waiting for your response. :) — MoK

:ok: :cool:

Quotes are sometimes needed for the relevant points in discussions, which must be followed by interpretation. You just repeat what is in the quote, and says there is no room for interpretation.
That is not philosophy. That is religious ceremony. Where is logic in your argument? Resorting to verbal diarrhea with abusive profanity is not logic, is it?

I don't see anything worthwhile in your postings which has even half in philosophy or logic at all mate. Your postings are filled with just emotional attacks on the other party. As I said before, but will say again. What's the point? You just repeat what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago.

You are unable to synthesize the classic philosophical texts into the present coherent idea which gives more meaning to the living beings in earth.

If your idea of enjoyable in philosophy is just repeating the quotes, and keep making fierce attacks devoid of any degree of logic and reasoning on others with different ideas, then no one would be able to see any point in that act at all.

If you habitually use bad language in your supposed-to-be philosophical postings, then it drastically reduces the credibility and integrity on your points you are trying to make. Some might even feel that you are not a worthy debater lacking intelligence and decency.

I can do the same or even worse to you than yourself in using bad language for your irrationality and nonsense, but I do control myself. I am glad I can. :nerd:

I am OK with logic to get by most philosophical books. You seem to have no idea even what philosophical discussions are about. Your way of discussion sounds like the uneducated gangs in the street fights, or drunkards in the pubs utterly devoid of any level and degree of reasoning and logic.

No decent educated philosophers would use rough language like you have been using in a public forum.

It appears to be the case that your unstoppable use of bad language in every postings of yours just reveals that you are threatened by your own ignorance and nonsense. There is no philosophical content in your postings.

I tried to interpret the idea. You just repeated what Nietzsche had said 100+ year ago. Now who is a philosopher, and who is a parrot here? :rofl:

"To silly folks, the whole world looks silly." - anonymous

All of this aligns with Nietzsche's thought...
yours is indeed the massive lack of sensible interpretation. — DifferentiatingEgg

You need to crack the Egg, come out from the shell, and fertilize your ideas with the real world and life in it, before the Egg gets rotten, and become a total unintelligible entity.

DEgg, your interpretation on Nietzsche is not a philosophical interpretation. You have just repeated what Nietzsche had said. What is the point?

Philosophical interpretation on these classic writings mean that you need to read between the lines and synthesize with the present time reality. Some folks might be able to synchronize with the interpretation and some might not. But the interpretation has to make sense to the readers in accordance with the life they are leading in the real world.

If you just pick up the ideas, do some search on Google, and quote them parroting with the words in the similar or exact same fashion as the original writing, then what is the point of reasoning and philosophizing?

I am quite disappointed with your level of reasoning on these points and philosophical intelligence which seems to be nonexistence in your writings, especially when the alternative idea of the interpretation of Will to Power has been given out with the real life examples in the world. Philosophical reasoning and interpretations must take into the form of dialectical process in order to reach the meaningful resultant conclusions and points. Rise above just parroting what had been written down 100+ years ago when the world was different from now.

Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality. — MoK

The concept Evolution is purely for the biological sense for the developments and changes of the bodily organs and their capabilities of the animals. Evolution is not a concept to be used for the moral judgements.

Applying the concept Evolution to the other domain of knowledge than its original use and application would be classed as misusing the concept.

I will try to come back on the other points you asked in the post as time permits here. Later~ :wink:

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg

All life on earth is burning away into the ashes day by day. All the biological living bodies burns itself as they consume oxygen, food and liquid for daily living into the old age and eventual death. Life is a temporal state. The conscious intelligent beings are aware of the fact and the destiny of the life. Hence they desire to prolong their lives, which is the basic instinct manifests as Will to Life.

Even the lesser animals with no idea of what death means, have and displays fear when chased by their predators, or faced with the sign of danger, and then try to hide way from the immanent and imminent danger. Why? Because they have Will to Life from the animalistic instinct.

Your interpretation Will to Power as the electrical sensation which runs down your spine due to some exciting objects or events, sounds not quite true. Because the sensation would be too short and evanescent, therefore meaningless. If you were talking about the physical sensation from bodily pleasure, then it sounds still ambiguous because one doesn't have to Will the sensations. It happens naturally with the bodily functions and operations, why does one need to Will for it?

Will to Life and Pleasure makes more sense because life wants to keep living as long as possible, and life gets richer and more meaningful when it accompanies the strong rich pleasures which are both physical and mental in their origin.

Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that. — DifferentiatingEgg

The original philosophical writings and ideas by the historical philosophers need to be translated into the present reality to suit, be intelligible and understandable, hence we could make more sense of the world and life in it.

Sensible interpretation and clarification on the ideas will prevent the ideas being misused by the political power hungry folks or business folks who are driven by the wrong motives for their egotistic gains and trying to get the support of the public for their ill willed projects or campaigns under the slogan of misinterpreted and modified meaning of the great philosophical ideas.

Apologies for any confusion. — KantRemember

No worries my friend. Your point was very lucid and made sense. I appreciate your post. Thank you.