↪Gregory Some propositions would appear to be true and false at the same time. — Bartricks

Actually, a pretty good answer. Credit where it's due.

I left out a few words initially.

How do you establish possibility without deducing an alternative state of affairs? The only reason I can imagine is because it has a truth value. I'm not saying it is a good reason.

I am saying that something - the law of non-contradiction - is possible false. Metaphysically possibly false, not epistemically. — Bartricks

So, you are saying it is metaphysically possible false because it can hold a truth value. Not, because of known possibility.

Yes, I know. It's the same. But it doesn't get us anywhere. It's like giving me the Dutch for necessary. I want to know what the truth-maker is of the claim that something is necessarily true (or, if you prefer, impossible-to-be-otherwise). — Bartricks

Fair enough.

Yes, I know - he, not I, is 'arguing' that I am contradicting myself. So, he - not I - is 'arguing' that as I think the law of non-contradiction is contingent, then I am committed to thinking it is actually false. So it is he, not I, who does not understand the notion of metaphysical possibility. — Bartricks

It seems like your misrepresenting his argument.

Impossible to be otherwise is pretty close to necessary.

What? No, he thinks that if it is 'possible' for the law of non-contradiction to be false, then it 'is' false. — Bartricks

That is not what the word possible means and not the claim that's being made. "...then it by chance is false" is the issue. There is nothing to justify the assumption of a chance; as a result the assumption possibility fails; implying but not proving by your standard a necessity.

↪Cheshire I do not understand your question. I don't even think the word 'contingent' does any real work, if that helps. I think there are true propositions and false ones. I don't think adding the word 'contingent'or 'necessary' adds anything. But I say that all truths are contingent as a way of making clear that I don't believe in necessity.

So my question would be 'what is it?' If a proposition is 'necessarily' true, what in the universe corresponds to the word necessary that makes it true? — Bartricks

My reply was with the impression "contingently" was implying a contingency, but I find it is instead a place holder for without explicated necessity. What corresponds to the word necessary? All the other corresponding facts related to the truth of a proposition essentially make a truth necessary. Like, drawing two line segments of a triangle. The third one's length will be a necessary truth for a triangle to exist. Arguing the length of the third line could deviate from one outcome without basis, because it suites an unknown principle seems mildly dubious. Is there a good reason to suspect it is the case?

Which is as absurd as thinking that if it is possible for unicorns to exist, then they do. — Bartricks

He's claiming they couldn't. You haven't shown they could. You need a 'could happen' for "possible" to obtain or whatever.

I am fine as long as you agree that it is logical, as thinking about it logically is all i care about. — Kinglord1090

I agree it's logical. You've placed optimization as a reason for ending suffering in an world without human emotions. One could debate the matter.

But isn't that the point of hypotheticals? Imagining a situatuion and altering major variables with its macro structure and then trying to predict/imagine the effect using logic and moral explanations. — Kinglord1090

Actually not so much in this context; hypotheticals are used to illustrate a type of thing one might actually come across. By selecting one of such a massive scale there are plenty of directions that could be imagined, but ultimately it will be difficult to maintain a point of view with any justified confidence. It's the right idea just a very broad application in a semantically sensitive environment.

So, if religion isn't taking care of them, what is? Simple answer, logic. — Kinglord1090

In actuality theology employs the same logical process but starts with some major assumptions. I don't think it's entirely accurate to portray religion as an activity of pure emotion. Drug addiction, perhaps.

Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.
For example, if we had a hard disk which contained 50gb of emotions and 50gb of logic, and we deleted emotions, we will now have 50gb more space for more logic to be added. — Kinglord1090

Let me think about it.

Are you quoting me out of context to annoy me? Kind of lame. I was trying to help out, later.

It isn't a compelling idea if you don't think it means your super fantastic as a result. It just looks silly.

↪Cheshire He thinks that if it is possible for the law of non contradiction to be false, then it is actually false. Which is as absurd as thinking that if it is possible for unicorns to exist, then they do. And if it is possible for giraffes not to exist, then they don't. It's crazy, but he thinks the symbols show him this and he loves the symbols. — Bartricks

His position seems to preserve the meaning of the word possible. Your position at a glance implies an outcome can be possible and impossible.

I reject NECESSITY. Not logic. NECESSITY. — Bartricks

It is a misunderstanding. We're flipping a coin and you are saying that it may(contingently) come up heads, so Banno is claiming this implies tails. Which would mean the other side of the coin must have tails. He sees that demonstrating the impossibility of tails demonstrates the necessity of heads.

the statement contradicts itself. if he knew nothing he wouldnt know it, or say it — MikeListeral

Yeah, maybe it's not literal. Like it has a "higher meaning" you believe yourself so familiar with;

Probably an art exhibit or concert hall. There are plenty of ways to convey meaning. But, again this seems like a diversion from a diversion of an obvious error I pointed out regarding this silly campaign to demonstrate the "magical" nature of science. Which is the demonstration is misguided in that it doesn't show the third option of needless self-aggrandizement is a worth while endeavor. Been there and done that; it's a distraction.

The wisest man that ever lived claimed he knew nothing.

When you reach it you'll understand the vastness of your ignorance and start appreciating others life long study of their interests.

you using logic to prove there isnt more to life then logic?

lol

stop thinking and open your eyes and look around — MikeListeral

No, I didn't do that actually. I agreed and then pointed out this tactic of yours of assuming there's level of awareness you have elevated yourself to for reasons I'll never know.

there's more to life then logic my friend — MikeListeral

Yeah, there's a trick of the mind called free association and confusing the two is ill advised. There's also the host of irrational things and suspension of disbelief. However, I think you may have just wanted to evade the point and believe yourself mysterious.

by showing science is based in magic we eliminate scientism and materialism — MikeListeral

In order to make that implication you have to follow a scientific principle of falsification. You are using science to disprove it. The moment your right, your wrong.

i go beyond science and religion — MikeListeral

It's more adjacent than beyond.

i go beyond everything and everyone — MikeListeral

Well you might want to reel it in a little, because your position is making a pretty magnificent error.

i deliver the higher answers down to the simple people. — MikeListeral

Whatever gets you through the day I suppose. But, the problem is assuming that by showing science and religion are flawed you some how prove something else isn't. Three people can be just as wrong as two.

that science and religion are both based in invisible things and magical thinking — MikeListeral

I understand that much, but why does this idea please you?

Are you trying to prove the point I was making? Science is only a threat if a belief in God rests on children's stories being true. Why the need for false equivalence? Do you just like irritating atheist? It seems childish if there's no greater point to be made. What is being demonstrated?

No, I am demanding an argument that doesn't presuppose the reality of necessity. I think the law of non contradiction is actually true. True, not false. So I am sensitive to actual contradictions. I don't think any are true. So, if my belief that the law of non contradiction is contingently true can be shown to generate an actual contradiction, then I will take that to be evidence my view is false. — Bartricks

I stand corrected, your issue is with the concept of necessity. Ok, that seems fair. Let me fire off a couple rounds towards contingently true.

Contingency implies there is a subject that our point of interest is contingent on. An offer to purchase something is contingent on the funds or credit to make the purchase. The maintenance of non-contradiction is contingent on what exactly?

Thanks for the clarification.

it does say that, it just tries to hide it — MikeListeral

I see this distrust in science. People that don't really know God by experience seem to need their storybook to be true; which means they have to attack science.

You won't be able to. — Bartricks

You are demanding an argument that doesn't presuppose logical contradiction. Which is clever as an impossible demand for evidence, but also incoherent, because there isn't criteria left to determine what is or isn't an argument. Ergo, an assertion is just as valid or not.

I agree that the idea of a contradiction being true is impossible to parse. So, yes, a contradiction could not be a coherent (and much less a self-consistent) thesis, which I guess means it could not be a thesis at all, and could be nothing more than nonsense. — Janus

I came to same the conclusion. To maintain possibility there is a minimum requirement of defining a subject. Without contradiction to hold the line; then contradiction itself becomes both true and false which isn't a coherent state. Is a world of nonsense possible, maybe, but there isn't going to be a rational argument that can confirm it. Except for maybe randomness? A random world could defy or 'side-step' contradiction because no two things could be reliant. A world of total superposition where all things are in all possible states. Which doesn't imply coherence anymore than the above.

"Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering,"
Yes, that makes sense. — Kinglord1090

You are assuming that empathy alone is/could be the reason for working together to reduce suffering.
I believe this to be incorrect.
Suffering leads to slowed development.
In a world void of emotions, development and research is everything.
So, in order to maximize development, suffering will have to be reduced. — Kinglord1090

So, your position is that even though emotional interest in suffering is greatly reduced; the drive to optimize will motivate people to relieve it. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a coherent idea. Predicting the effect of altering major variables in a macro structure is uncertain in principle. Consider that evolution itself is a process of optimization. If emotions were not in our interest, then shouldn't they simply fade on their own? It's arguable people might lose the capacity for dialectic thought if emotions are eliminated.

We are composed of basically two minds that argue. One handles the survival emotions and the other the connection to the world emotions. Eliminating emotions would nullify half of the nervous system and seemingly undermine the conflict that drives human intelligence.

In a world void of emotions, people will face it by not having such emotion-related things like corruption, and also, work together to find out how to reduce it, as the more people go homeless, the more bad it will be for existence of humanity as a whole. — Kinglord1090

Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering, so there isn't a reason why they would work together to reduce it.

Suppose you still like the idea of eliminating emotions, because you stated it relieves suffering. Your idea wouldn't exist in the world it would create.

Bad advice. — Noble Dust

Care to elaborate?

I think this is one piece of a larger picture of wealth transfer. — Xtrix

It's roughly 700 Billion a year literally by the government to the military suppliers. What larger one did you have in mind?

They maintain the economic dynamic of an economy that relies on wealth transfer to weapons manufacturing in order to sustain a manufacturing base. Since not everyone directly benefits they dust in American fascism and total party loyalty voting to maintain minority control. We have invisible aircraft carriers and all the bridges are collapsing on the highways. They didn't manage to start a new war this time which is going to hurt their bottom line.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? And when do we give the fetus moral consideration? Better question when do we give anything moral consideration? — Oppyfan

I think it is best to give moral consideration to respecting the medical profession's ability to parse the ethical questions they face. Generalizing decisions of life and death when a gray area is present seems immoral.

Here's the rub; the assumed link between god and what is we ought do. This is what must be broken. — Banno

Yes, the part that can't be updated falls under children's stories.

How do we explain ourselves now? — frank

Acknowledge three instances of God. The God in children's stories. The God of theistic experience. Perhaps an empty space for a speculative God that emerges as a collective conscious of matter until proven unreasonable. That's the direction I was thinking of going.

I am trying to discuss about how a world without emotions will exist and if that world would be better or worse than this current one. — Kinglord1090

Would this imply the non-existence of empathy?

It could be ill founded, misguided, naïve, inaccurate, poorly executed, even simply wrong, but gibberish it's not. Will you be conceding the matter or making more false claims?

In what circumstances would it be rational to accept one's depression or anxiety? — Shawn

When there is a legitimate exterior cause or known unmet need. Depression like everything serves to indicate our experiences. But, if it's just habit; then shake it or medicate it.

No long form response this time?