By observation, I meant derived from our senses.

But P1 does not hold; some thoughts are inspired by our senses.

No, but the question remains 'is it possible to have a truly original thought?'

IE one not inspired by any other earlier thought/observation.

We adopted the base 10 positional system some time back and we used to leave a space where zero would appear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0#History

So zero may have been inspired by nothing (IE that space).

Actually might be better to write:

lim x->∞ 1/x ~> 0

That way, we preserve the information that the limit expression always evaluates to > 0.

There is no rule of logical inference that justifies the second and subsequent lines in either of those sequences — andrewk

1. PREMISE: Something has no temporal starting point (time=0) in time
2. DEDUCTION: Then time=1 is not defined

If an object does not exist at time=0, how can it exist at time=1? Thats a valid deduction.

Think about if your conception (time=0) was removed, would you exist at your birth (time=1)?

Time is a series of moments. Take away one moment and the following moments are undefined/cannot exist. Imagine Eternity, it has no starting moment, so none of it can exist. Think of the initial starting positions of all the particles in the universe. If that was removed, what is left? Something completely undefined. So eternity is rather like negative infinity; the start is undefined so the whole thing does not exist.

If a moment does not exist, the moment after it is undefined, so is the moment after that, etc... If all moments are missing then the object does not exist. So the fact that all moments are missing justifies the last deduction that the object does not exist.

Same logic for space.

I thought the last argument was bad, this one's even worse — Metaphysician Undercover

How exactly do our minds differ from computers?

What you wrote here are not deductions. The first is an analogy. The second is a non-sequiteur. — andrewk

Thats just plain not true:

- Something has no temporal starting point (time=0) in time
- then time=1 is not defined
- then time=2 is not defined
- etc..
- The object does not exist

- Something has no identifiable spacial start point (x=0)
- then x=1 does not exist
- or x=2
= etc...
= The object does not exist

Do we have agreement that social animals live in herds or troops for their mutual survival and that members of these groups will act to defend each other, protect and feed the young? — Athena

I agree with that. A group is made of indivuduals and in a well functioning group whats good for the individual is good for the group and vice versa.

Oh my, we are all so different, it might be a little insane to argue truth as though there is only one truth and not many — Athena

I think we are different in many small ways but the same in the major ways, so you can make a general argument for whats good/right Vs evil/wrong for individuals.

When it comes to the matter of personal taste I acknowledge what is right for one person is not right for the next. But even then things even seem to work out for the group: Why does one person prefer pink and another blue? What is the optimal colour for the group? It is the most popular colour, but that is not right/good for every individual. But it is right that the most popular colour is chosen and each individual in the group can agree with that sentiment, if you see what I mean.

However, some people are making good choices, why? — Athena

It's down to willpower I think: The general rule is that you have to make a short-term sacrifices for a long-term gain in order to do a good/right action. That takes willpower, eg with exercise or diet you have to make short-term sacrifices.

Obviously something similar applies to evil/wrong actions - attractive in the short-term but detrimental in the long-term. Willpower is again required to resist them.

And as you mentioned before; education is so important too.

If I were to give you a counterexample, such as "Joe added crimson red to his painting because Joe dislikes crimson red," then you'd interpret it so that Joe was at least unconsciously motivated by some other pleasure, making your theory unfalsifiable, because you'd do something similar for any counterexample (otherwise, you'd have easy counterexamples yourself without having to solicit them). I have no doubt that you could do this. I've seen it countless times. One could do this with any arbitrary theory. — Terrapin Station

I did not present the idea that we are driven by pleasure/pain as a theory, just a self evident truth or axiom.

It is a good axiom in my opinion.

Some of us hold ideas to be more important and we will make great sacrifices to for our family, our country, an ideal like democracy or fascism, or communism and for future generations we will never know. — Athena

I think you will find that such sacrifices are made to give you some form of emotional pleasure.

For example, a mother may sacrifice much for her child, but those sacrifice's make the mother emotionally happier.

In general, for any arbitrary theory someone has that they believe covers all phenomena and that's unfalsifiable for them, there's no suggested phenomenon that they'd not be able to interpret under the framework of their theory. — Terrapin Station

We can interpret phenomenon in terms of the short-term/long-term pain/pleasure they give use. So the theory is falsifiable, all we'd need is an example of someone motivated by other than pleasure/pain.

I think its a self-evident truth that the only human motivations are:

- The pursuit of physical/emotional pleasure
- The avoidance of physical/emotional pain

All our behaviour can be characterised by the above unless you have a counter example?

You must buy the idea of unconscious mental phenomena. I do not — Terrapin Station

Whatever motivates you must give you pleasure. If it gave you pain, it would not motivate you. If it gave you nothing it would not motivate you.

morality is purely an individual mental phenomenon. It's not something that one can be correct or incorrect abou — Terrapin Station

It's just about maximising pleasure for the individual and group whilst minimising pain. It mathematical. We are just computers after all that seek to optimise between two variables: pleasure and pain (I include emotional as well as physical).

Everything we do is due to the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain. There are no other motives.

Doesn't this describe the mind directly creating something, though you are saying that it isn't a direct creation? At one time, there was a problem which existed, and there was no such thing as "the right angle" at that time. Some minds resolved the problem by coming up with a new idea "the right angle". — Metaphysician Undercover

When I think of dividing a field, I start to think of shapes in my mind. Where did the shape ideas come from if not from my senses? We find approximate right angles in nature so the idea could have come from our senses too.

Haven't you ever noticed that artificial things look completely different from natural things? — Metaphysician Undercover

Artificial things tend to be inspired by things from nature.

Is a computer capable of truly original thought? I would say no. The outputs of the computer are determined by the inputs and logic. The logic can only deduce new ideas from existing. So the output is determined by the input. We are like computers. Our inputs determine our outputs. When we create 'new' information we use deduction/induction to turn old information into new. So there seems to be no purely new information that does not trace its heritage back to old information and eventually to our senses (our inputs using the computer analogy).

A computer has memory but that can only be filled via inputs.

Notice, that in your description observing with the senses came after the solution to the problem, not before i — Metaphysician Undercover

The idea of the right angle is not created directly by the mind; the mind first solves the problem of how to divide the fields, then observes that the result contains a new idea; the right angle.

So it seems in addition to synthesising new ideas from existing ideas, we can also observe new ideas that fall out of mental constructions. But a mental construction is really just picturing something from nature in our mind, so I'm still not convinced we are capable of a truly original thought.

Immoral behaviour is about being short-sided and prioritising short-term pleasure over long-term pleasure (which makes no sense as long>short). So its mathematically inferior to moral behaviour (which is prioritising long-term pleasure rather than short-term pleasure). Explained here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1

i think probably life isn't moral, but that's why morality exist, because we seem to lack it naturally, — Nicolás Navia

It's natural for us to get an education, and once we are educated properly we become moral beings as it is in our self interest to do so. It's the uneducated who are immoral.

One can make those assertions, but one can't know them to be true or false without either observing whether they are the case, or making a deductive argument. — andrewk

I am not making assertions, I am making deductions.

When I am finished, I will post the result here, and then we'll finally know for good and all. — andrewk

You can answer the question without induction:

- Temporal. Would an object exist if its temporal starting point was removed? That would be like a human having the moment of conception removed. Remove the temporal start and everything else is undefined.

- Spacial. If an object has no identifiable start, it has no middle and no end. So it can't exist.

We would naturally divide things up into squares of rectangles as those shapes fit together flushly without any wasted space. So we would probably arrive at the right angle as part of the solution to the question 'how do we divide these fields up efficiently?'. So we solved that problem and observed with our senses part of the solution to the problem was the right angle?

If the Op is not refuted by my earlier argument, and you really need an example for rebuttal, try the "right angle" then. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well the problem is that we see angles in nature, some larger than 90 degrees some smaller. Arriving at the right angle is just a matter of interpolation between two pre-existing concepts derived from our senses.

Either the internet provides something unique and therefore uniquely creates avenues to do both good and evil, or the internet provides nothing unique and just like the sickos will find different avenues to express themselves, so you would find different ways to educate and entertain yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it too. — Tzeentch

The internet provides far more good content than evil content.

Considering mankind is prone to both conflict and error, and the fact that in roughly fifty years we have gotten close to nuclear war on multiple occasions, that's a risk no one should be willing to take. — Tzeentch

I agree we should try to get rid of the nukes. I was making the point that nukes were an improvement over the early part of the 20th century, not a long term solution.

That's evil per what? — Terrapin Station

Long term > Short term, so focusing on the short term instead of the long term is sub-optimal. You get less net pleasure that way. I define that as wrong or evil.

If instead you choose to maximise pleasure in the long term (even though this maybe painful in the short term), you optimise net pleasure. I define that as right or good.

You can just refrain from creating more humans. — Andrew4Handel

Humans are good if properly educated because being good is in their own self interest. Just not everyone is educated is the problem.

I still think that this expresses a gross misunderstanding of inspiration. An individual living human being, as a composite 'whole", with a multitude of experiences, creates the idea of 'round' within one's mind. It is not the image of a round stone rolling which creates this idea. — Metaphysician Undercover

But where did the idea of shapes come from if it was not the study of form in nature?

This thread is long and no-one has yet come up with a single undeniably original idea which lends a lot of weight to the OP opinion.

You probably would've made different choices and if you had some desire to engage socially with people you wouldn't have chosen a home in the middle of nowhere. — Tzeentch

I did not choose where to live. The internet enhances my life. I would use it no matter where I lived. The world's information at my finger tips. It's brilliant. As for the sicko's they would probably express themselves some other way if it was not for the internet. We can police the internet so I don't see a problem.

Yes, I understand your sentiment, however your argument is based around the hope that the weapons which are keeping us safe right now will never be used in war. — Tzeentch

You cannot argue surely that nuclear weapons did not avert WW3? It's an improvement on prior centuries and as the human race evolves and becomes more mature, we can let go of these weapons.

Anyways, since you seem to be in favour of killing people off after they have lived sixty healthy years — Tzeentch

I merely mentioned that the book Brave New World contained that solution. But there is a genuine problem beneath the consideration. As you get older life quality reduces and what exactly do we do about it? We also need to make room for the next generation. We can't live for ever. What the book eludes to is genetically engineered humans that painlessly shut down after 60.0 years of perfect functioning.

Without the internet you may have been an entirely different person. Consider that without modern technology you'd have no way to entertain yourself but to engage with other people. People would be more social in general. You'd be completely fine. — Tzeentch

No I would not. I live in the back end of beyond. The internet is of great value. Without the internet I would need to hire a full time tutor to educate me; I cannot afford that and the internet is so superior to what a tutor could teach me.

Music and literature are hardly a product of the modern world. Additionally, experts have long since debated whether more choice makes us happier, and a lot of them conclude it doesn't — Tzeentch

The increased free time of the modern world does allow for more music and literature than in the past. More should mean higher quality in the end... maybe we need to spend longer on each piece.

Now this is veritably untrue, since there hasn't been a year in the 20th century without war. — Tzeentch

I know there have been many minor wars, but know more major wars like WW1 or WW2. The 21st century is less warlike than the 20th, which is less warlike than the 19th. Etc... We are very fortunate to live in the 21st century; hardly any of us have seen military service.

evil=act in a short term manner
— Devans99

Again, that is a subjective judgment. — Terrapin Station

Its mathematical. Short < Long, hence the phase 'he acted short-sightedly'. Focus on short term pleasure (instead of long term pleasure) is evil for self and those around you. You really should read the other thread.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil

How could ideas be "deduced from our senses'? Senses cannot deduce. Nor can senses produce ideas. ideas are required for deduction, so we cannot say that deduction is responsible for creating the primitive ideas. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry I mean ideas are inspired by our senses. Maybe the wheel is a good example. Presumably the idea came about from seeing how circular things roll in nature. Stones and such perhaps. So it's the image of a round stone rolling which creates the idea of 'round' and 'rolling' in the mind.

So our senses map to neutrons in the mind somehow. The visual ideas of 'round' and 'rolling' appear in the mind. These ideas are then cross domain mapped to domain of tools/handycraft where the anonymous inventor of the wheel has his idea.

We can be certain of our own abstract thoughts but thoughts based on the environment around us inherently rely on our senses so we can never be completely certain about them.

In talking with others we can be certain we are speaking to separate logical entities but still cannot deduce anything about the environment and our location in relation to them.

That's a subjective judgment. Someone could easily make the opposite judgment — Terrapin Station

And they'd be mathematically wrong to do so. Long term > Short term so it's always mathematically wrong to do evil (evil=act in a short term manner).

There is nothing subjective about it at all. Good>Evil. It's just math.

If every new idea requires an old one prior to it in time, then since we have ideas now, existing, there could be no prior time without any ideas — Metaphysician Undercover

But I think we pick up ideas from our senses. The first ideas would have been about things around us. The idea that a certain berry tastes good would come from our senses. We would then have maybe observed a peanut plant with our senses and cross domain mapped the idea 'tastes good' into the domain of peanuts. So all ideas have an eventual heritage to ideas deduced from our senses?

When male fig wasps, Idarnes spp., hatch inside the fig they attempt to decapitate their brothers that hatch in the same fig, attacking them with large and powerful mandibles (Hamilton 1967). Similarly, male elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) may kill rivals during fights over access to females (Hayley 1994) and male fallow deer (Dama dama) employ violent head-on "jump clashes" during the rut at the start of the breeding season (Jennings et al. 2005). In these three examples, aggressive behavior is being used by each rival in order to maximize its chances of success in a conflict over who gets to mate with the available females. — Andrew4Handel

Nature is just a starting point from which we start the main thrust of intelligence guided evolution of the planet. In the long term, wasps could be chemically neutered along with other dangerous / unsociable animals. Animal food supplies could be genetically altered so that they include drugs to reduce aggressive behaviour. We could eventually genetically engineer excess aggression out of animals.

Returning to the OP question, Is life immoral? I guess I'd answer it like this: Unenvolved life can be immoral but fully evolved life is completely moral.

That is the direction the human race is heading (slowly); we are far from fully evolved yet. We need to include the animals on this journey.

If that discussion got to the point of anyone concluding that good is mathematically better, it really went off the rails--comically so. — Terrapin Station

Tis simple:

Long term > short term so
Good is what's right in the long term
Evil is what's right in the short term
Hence Good > Evil

I can't repeat the whole thread here.

And a better question; when is it enough? — Tzeentch

I agree, longevity is nothing without quality of life. Humans should maybe be engineered as in Brave New World. 60 healthy years was the cut off in that novel. People were conditioned from birth to deal with death so it was not a problem. How that worked I'm not sure I remember from the book. Maybe they had a half decent religion to belief in that would help.

Secondly, I think you're grossly overstating the role of technology in improving the quality of life — Tzeentch

How about anaesthetics? It was a bundle of laughs before that I'm sure. In fact modern medicine in general makes our lives much better. The Internet is improving my life quality as I type this; I'm rather isolated so it great to have people to discuss this stuff with. For entertainment, modernity spoils us with a choice of books, TV, Film, play, music, computer games. For safety, the atom bomb has keep the lid on war for the last 75 years. I think you underestimate the role of technology in human progress.

I think there are genuine new ideas, just not very many of them? — Pattern-chaser

I've been trying to think of an example of a genuine new idea and have failed so far.

What about Einstein's idea about the relativity of simultaneity? Wasn't this a new idea? — Metaphysician Undercover

Simultaneity of events being dependent on the observer fell out of the maths I think rather than it being a genuine new idea?

Zero came from consideration of emptiness. Infinity from consideration of the very large.

Can anyone refute this with an example of a genuine new idea?