A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. — universeness

Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality.

. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent. — universeness

It is a prophet indeed. You're quite right. Because for actual god to exist as a person it would require the entire universe to condense into a singular person, what external reality then would such a person exist in? The universe as a system cannot be the whole unit and also be within itself.

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe).

Through that deep understanding, they would inherit the highest degree of empathy and patience for others who don't understand their own relationship to the universe as it actually is, and would naturally go about illuminating that knowledge in them so they can appreciate in full their true relationship to reality, as he/she does.

As I said they would be the fourth condition of a god worth pursuing - the benevolent aspect of the entire system. The part that can't imbue a sense of connectedness and belonging.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Those are the essential attributes of God (don't be tedious and question that - if you want to use the word 'God' to refer to a peach, that's fine, but you're just a berk). — Bartricks

I disagree - not entirely but I think some specifics need to be hashed out.
God is omnipotent (all energy - and matter e=mc2, they are equivalent), omniscient (all information throughout time - all interactions between energy and matter) that have or ever will occur) and omnipresent (all space in which these interactions occur). If that is the truth of things then God cannot be a person (because people are not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent) because they are minute objects in the system (universe).

A person cannot move a mountain for example (potency), be everywhere because they're a singular object (omnipresence) nor be omniscient (a person cannot know what someone across the world just named their newborn baby).

However, a person can behold/believe in this truth of things, this God, can hold that god as their ideal in their mind and understand it, and thus the limitations of its application in the Human sphere. The can channel that truth, its description, but they cannot be that truth - its characteristics.

In that sense one can reveal God to others but cannot be God itself, at most a conduit for the truth, a "truth teller", but not a "truth-be-er".

A person can however be onibenevolent, by describing this truth to others, and thus enabling insight, understanding and empowering them with the knowledge of God. In that way a person satisfies the final of four conditions for a god worth worshipping: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence (characteristics of the universe at large) and finally omnibenevolence (accurate description of the universe) only done by a person, a truth teller (a part of the whole universe).

If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe that combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time — universeness

Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness.

Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.

Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it — Benj96

God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably — universeness

All agreeable statements you've made. One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit.

Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!"

Of course this person channeling their truth, knowing its power of persuasion, its ability to gather a following, would already know this and know that by spreading it they are putting themselves on the line, in harms way.
They would have to accept their fate, that spreading something ideal will bring the wrath of the non-ideal against them. And probably they will be assassinated for what they believe in, but in doing so they demonstrated the highest level of integrity, not shying away or resorting to lying or violence in order to speak their mind.

The killing of such a person ties up the loose ends. If their belief is based on benevolence and unwillingness to put themselves before others, to be selfless, their death is the final proof that their truth was the truth. A good one. A beneficial one.
It would be a demonstration of pure goodness being destroyed by hatred because good will never destroy anything for its own purposes, only offer choice. Such a person would be immortalised through legacy. Considered a god only after they proved their belief by being murdered for it.

Haven't we seen this before? Who has done such things? History has shown us many martyrs which were condemned or assassinated because their beliefs were too dangerous for the most self interested of us, to the false gods amongst men, to condone.

A criminal offence that was unjust. Forbidden fruit.

I take your word for it that you are in essence similar to me and not a binary machine or a zombie. I follow my instinct and "trust" that this is the case. This trust, however, is far from certainty. This is a form of speculation. We have to make such operational assumptons or we would be paralysed in our decision making. But it's ok. Life is a game of limited information, just like poker. Going for perfect solution wouldn't be viable. I assume you are like me, in other words give you a benefit of the doubt, knowing perfectly well that it might be a wrong assumption, but will have to do for now. — enqramot

I couldn't agree more Enqramot. Very well said.

The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first — universeness

I agree with you on the Plato - Aristotle point of digression with one another. But this remark really interests me. Because I'm going to introduce a line of commentary.

I do definitely agree that the omnis/God's posits are a human projection of untenable but desirable ideals. However I also believe that "God" is a rare but possible mind state. A sort of manic, euphoria. A "Eureka!" moment when something major and groundbreaking clicks in one's mind and they're overcome by an acute and intense revelation of new meanings, new insights, new predictive value based on their discovery. This intense "rapture" or "ecstasy" may have been written about in many forms through many disciplines (science. =eureka), (religion =revelation), (psychiatry = mania).

Im not saying they are all the same thing. Perhaps not. Merely suggesting a link. That in a moment of blissful euphoria, overwhelmed by confidence and a sense of knowledge .. One feels like a God.

The danger is not in feeling a godly bliss, perhaps you did discover something authentic, impactful and useful to society. The danger is that in feeling this sensation you make the jump to the assumption that you are infallible thereafter. And that you can commit no harm. And such a sense of entitlement and surity is extremely precarious, likely to do harm indeed.

Are you suspecting that there's more to your uncle than a system of neuronal activity? I guess it will be damn hard to provide any scientific proof of it, and without a scientific proof we are reduced to speculation. That's as much as I can say without having actually met your uncle. — enqramot

Not necessarily speculation. Without scientific proof we can also "trust" that uncle Sidney is more than just a neural network. We can go with common sense (cultural assumptions) that everyone has an "I" ness, a selfness, beyond simply being some mechanical binary machine calculating one's and twos (philosophical zombies) because we know we are, and assume similar things (other people) have similar qualities and behave in similar ways.

How does perception exit neural activity to observe a brain and conceive of neural activity? — Constance

Through self reflection. The brain has the ability to focus on, conjure up, root around in its storage (memories) for large swathes of beliefs, concepts, sensations and ideas that it holds, in essence compartmentalise some of itself, review that info, make new associations (novel perspectives/insights) and in doing so condense that into some more refined conclusions.

The whole brain cannot self reflect on the whole brain as there is no neural networks available to make computations while the others remain static and observed. It can only compartmentalise portions of itself but I suspect these portions can be quite large. Mathematically it doesn't take many neurons to exponentially increase their computational ability. Like factorials in maths.

10 factorial (all the possible arrangements/connections between just 10 neurons) is around 3,628,000 anatomical arrangements. And that's assuming they can just make one connection with one other neuron that isn't already connected to another in the set at a time! When in reality they can connect many branches/synapses with one another - up to 15,000 - dozens of which can be just between two neighbouring neurons.

The "focus of attention" is just that - a focus/focal point, that part of your conscious awareness that can meander through the matrix of collected information and compare it with other stuff. What we aren't actively focusing on at any given time is the subconscious - all those things you "didn't realise you knew" until prompted by a specific trigger or cue that directs you to the memory in question. Like nostalgia for example when you smell something that suddenly reminds you of your grandmother's cooking as a child.

Not only can neural networks process themselves in this way (self reflect). But they can also look outwards to learn about/ secure its own identity by associating with what's around it. Knowing the self by knowing what it isn't (the external world). Observation of exterior incoming data (the external world) is just as important as the reviewing and modulation of internal data (the mind/internal world).

Because in discerning similarities and differences between us and other things (people, animals, beliefs, cultures, customs, classifications: living, dead, animal, plant etc) we are gathering information and making associations between them within our mind (our own neural network).

When we can relate with another for example - by referencing their trauma to a similar trauma that we have already stored away, or if their behaviour and opinions towards the trauma are in line with what we would expect them to say, because its what we ourselves would say, then that's empathy. That is how empathy as a concept can be associated with neural processes - comparison of data and rejection/acceptance of the "likeness" of their data with ours.

We naturally tend to empathise more with loved ones and friends because they are similar to us. We have experienced eachother and enjoy that experience and feel connected to them. They are relatable. It's much harder to empathise with things we have never experienced - strangers, and unfamiliar/strange situations and events that we can't approach with the memories and experiences we have available to us to compare.

I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death! — universeness

Yes I think we can agree that a physically manifested heaven/utopia would be temporally enjoyable but the novelty would soon wear off and become dull and unfulfilling.

Stress can lead to post traumatic growth. For example I got hit by a car a few months ago. Surely an adverse event that wouldnt occur in a utopia. Whilst the immediacy was very unpleasant, the hindsight was very motivating for me to use the time I have on earth more wisely/constructively. I became more dedicated in my career and relationships with friends. What didn't kill me did indeed in this case make me stronger and more resilient.

It seems then that many "bad things" have silver linings in the end. I don't think I would like to be "bubble wrapped" in heaven where there is no threat, therefore no means to learn, navigate, overcome and feel proud for it.

I do think heaven exists. As a concept. But only an ideal in our minds. Its something lucrative at a distance, from which ambition, inspiration, innovation, knowledge, all the good/virtuous/idealistic characteristics of humanity can be extracted in pieces throughout time to bolster progress and evolve culture.

But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward.

In other words, their actions will never amount to more than a gamble with someone else's well-being. — Tzeentch

It's also a gamble with their own well being. They could soon find themselves the scapegoat for any and all of the problems ever faced by their child. Dragged through the mud and tortured relentlessly by someone that resents them.

Ignorance is not an excuse. — Tzeentch

Ah I see so we must be omniscient before bringing anything into existence. No room for any answers being still unknown? How's that pursuit of omniscience going for you?

One more question: if you think it's immoral for parents to ever bring children into the world do you therefore resent your own parents? Do you despise them? Or do you think they are good people just trying to do their best? Is it fair to blame everything on one/two people? Do you believe that's a mature or grown up approach to make parents suffer endlessly because you're not having a good time? Or maybe perhaps we can take control of our own narrative and create our own happiness and self fulfillment?

possibly a lifetime of suffering on another. — Tzeentch

"Possibly" being the key word. We don't know the future so we don't know if it will be all suffering or actually pleasant and doable. We can't make the world perfect for our future chindren. No generation has ever managed that. We can however educate them and give them the tools to combat adversity themselves. A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything, people wouldnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Someone could be like hey let's do this (and everyone would say oh its already done sorry. You've been beaten to the punchline). We would have no free will. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death.

It's not a dilemma to you that you don't know whether someone consents before making a monumental decision on their behalf? — Tzeentch

Who? Who is the someone? The yet to be born? How do I talk them what's their number? Email? Perhaps WhatsApp?

Dilemmas apply to conscious agents that "already" exist and can make decisions. They don't apply to non existing possibilities. You can't ask all your future possible children who wants to be alive? Therefore you cannot treat them as already existing agents. Only potential ones. They don't have a say because they aren't alive. Just as I cannot ask my dead great great grandmother whats her ethical attitude towards Facebook, or climate change, or autocracies.

You as the the one who is capable of creating living agents (assuming you have a partner and you're both fertile) have the option to make them or not. You do not however that that option for all peoples will - everyone else's personal choice as to whether they want to reproduce.

If you want to abstain from fathering children, if you want to remove your own genetics from the constant competing evolution of life, that's fine. No one is going to judge you for your decision to not procreate.

They would kindly ask you to respect their own autonomy of choice in a likewise manner.

The reason antinatalism isn't the predominant belief already, the reason we haven't all purposely gone extinct by now, probably means that antinatalism doesn't nor has it ever nor will it ever make much sense to the majority.

If an infertile couple approached me devastated by their inability to have kids, I think telling them "well you shouldnt have kids anyways" is not particularly empathetic.

Just a question, and I am sure there is a ready answer; and then, I will be on my way, satisfied that the world is the world. Would someone please tell my why, when I greet my uncle Sidney, I am not "greeting" exclusively (!) systems of neuronal activity?
Troubled sleep over this. — Constance

Who's systems of neuronal activity exactly? Yours or his?
We are all systems of neural activity - impossible to untether from external environment through our senses.
A two way system of information exchange.

Ideas, thoughts, beliefs, imagery, sounds, smells, tastes, touches come into our neural system. We process it either storing it as memory or ignoring it/not paying much attention and it is soon forgotten.

And similarly we are also an active source of those things: thoughts, ideas, art, knowledge etc. That we put out into the environment through our verbal (speech) and non verbal (body language) as well as our behaviours and interactions.

We experience sensations and we are also "a sensation" for others- the sensation of what it is like to experience Constance for example, to interact with her, to observe, understanding, question etc. To build a knowledge of that person.

Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch

It's not a really a dilemma because we can't "consult nature" and ask if we can have a chat with our non existent child as to whether it wants to be born before it is. How would something non existent know what existing is like to make an informed decision?.

People don't ask the stories they imagine if they would like to written down as a novel. We create, in good faith, as an exercise in trust that we can bring into existence something that offers good purpose - more beauty, more knowledge, more understanding, more benefit.

If a parent is certain their child will be an awful monster for whatever reason then yes it's likely they wouldn't procreate. But how on earth can a parent know that in foresight? I doubt Hitlers parents knew what they would be creating when they reproduced. So we can't blame the act of being born inherently. We can only blame the environment, teachings and beliefs we instill in our children. We can teach them to be racists, we can teach them to be selfish, to manipulate etc or other people could teach them that if we are too passive in our role. Parents do their best. Sometimes it's enough. Sometimes it's not. Because what they've made is another agent - with their own agenda and self determination, decisions to make, responsibilities to take on. But never is that a reason not to exist at all.

That's obviously not what I'm saying — Tzeentch

Well perhaps elaborate more so I can understand exactly what you believe? I don't want to make assumptions but I will follow the logic of what you present in your arguments.

Again, I'm coming at this from an angle that is only concerned with the choice of the parents to create a child, and whether that is a moral action. — Tzeentch

Well what I'm trying to point out is I think it's a moral fixation that is overshadowed by quite frankly much worse things that could and are happening right now in the world that does exist and does have people in it.

To believe its immoral to have children is to believe you're incapable of being a good parent no? And raising them to be outstanding citizens. A lack of self belief the I suspect.

The point at which they decide to have children. — Tzeentch

So people are innocent in their entire life all the way up to the point that they procreate and then they're criminal/deserve shame and guilt etc?

So during their whole life even if they don't have children and they go around committing the most heinous atrocities they're not guilty because they didn't have children? Or perhaps is having children not as evil as I dunno, raping pillaging and plundering, mass genocides etc.

If you had the choice between having a child or having Hitler exist in the world again... Which would you pick?

The baby bears no blame, of course. The parents do. To me, antinatalism is about the choice to have children, not about what to do when the child is already there.
24m — Tzeentch

Parents were babies once too. So at what point does the blameless/innocent baby become guilty and shameful?

For me: People have evolved the means to reproduce as its biological and natural. All of nature seems to agree that reproduction is not only permissible but necessary.

As for whether two loving parents want to bring a lovely little baby into their happy lives or not, that's their business.
I don't dare impose on anyone's right to or not to have children as they have their own rights and autonomy.

I don't think anyone should have that sort of autocratic power over whether others live or die. We are equals.
I do enjoy living but personally I don't want my own child. I'm happy to be an uncle.

That does not change the nature of an imposition. — Tzeentch

How is it imposing to make suggestions? They're just suggestions. You can choose whether to take it on board or not. That's your call, ball in your court. Imposing would be to force you to agree or accept something.

I won't do that. You cant offer anything to someone who doesn't want it. All I can do is give my perspective and be ignored, or maybe if someone decides, listened to.

Not the AN issue. — schopenhauer1

No not an issue of antinatalism as a concept. But it is a "you as a person" issue no? I mean im sure you go about living your life, enjoying things, taking care of your loved ones, watching TV etc. Because all these things are good right? You desire them.

How then do you reconcile you antinatalist ideal with your current life? It doesn't make sense to me. Everyone who continues to brave it in the world, to strive forward and survive, has hope. They have to. People who lose almost all hope and fall into the deepest pits of depression are vulnerable to violating their own right to life.

So as far as i know everyone who lives has a reason to. They believe there is something worthwhile, something good to hold onto right? That's why I disgree with antinatalism as anything esle than just a concept.
I think people who live want to continue living. And there's nothing wrong with that we shouldn't be guilty for being born when we can inspire happiness in others or at least try.

I don't think offering people ideas, suggestions, possibilities of new ways of thinking is imposing. You don't have to accept anything im saying. You're free to believe whatever you want. I just want to try to do right by others if I can and if they'll allow me.
We can leave it at that and just agree to disagree if you want.

I’m not taking away anything from anyone. But if you explore that implication you would be facing problems of using peoples suffering for personal gains. That’s your arguments problem though, not ANs. — schopenhauer1

I'm merely saying that existence is polarised. Non-existence is neutral. If one wants to exist they must contend with navigating those opposites - the good, the bad. Etc
But they have a choice in that case dont they. To improve or worsen the situation.

You can have Good, co-operative humanitarian systems where evil is maximised to the most conceptual idea possible and minimised in the most physically acted way.

That's what entertainment is. When we indulge the thought of good and evil at war with one another without ever manifesting actual criminal things/evil acts against eachother.

That way both evil and good can exist (evil as a concept) and good as the physical world. And a good physically world is an acceptable reason to want to exist. Its our choice whether we do that.

Not a problem for anyone, literally, is it? — schopenhauer1

And yet it's merely hypothetical because you're not omnipotent - you don't have the ability to make antinatalism come to fruition. So we should probably just settle for what we do have - the fact that we are here already.

Sentient beings that have such dilemmas and philosophical arguments would be sure to evolve again to occupy the niche currently occupied by humans in nature if all of humanity were to self annihilate. Maybe some other primate over millions of years would go through the same processes of adaptation under the same pressures exerted by nature and re-emerge.

Re-emergence of species is well documented by biologists. So the argument would just be postponed until next time wouldnt it

Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition. — Tzeentch

Yes you can't impose on anyone. But a baby is born and its existence somehow already imposes on others through no fault of their own. So the best they can do is grow up, help others and in that way try to mitigate the blame, shame, guilt etc that comes with ignoring others that exist and are in need

To me the central question of antinatalism isn't whether people should or shouldn't experience all of those things, but whether an individual should get to decide on another's behalf that they should. — Tzeentch

Yes that's why we have a moral imperative if we want to exist to help eachother. Then you're not deciding to exist instead of someone else but through them, with them

Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. — universeness

Good luck with it.

Looks like the aim is at you. Enjoy the spotlight. I think you can easily handle it. — universeness

I'll do my best.

Casually associating AN with evil, whilst ironically, no one has to experience evil in the first place with AN — schopenhauer1

No one gets to experience anything good then either do they? Would you be satisfied taking away all the people in love (with eachother, with their kids, with their jobs, with food, entertainment friends etc, people living their life the best they can and enjoying it) just for the sake of not existing at all? Just so that two opposites can be neutralised and nothing can or ever occurs again.

Sounds super boring tbh.

I think we just saw a flash of popon-popoff antinatalism. Anyone else notice? — universeness

I sure did.
I quite like living tbh. Despite what they may say.

I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. — universeness

Yes I agree. Hence why I discuss things with people (big things, trivial things, personal ones, political ones). Arguing for what's right/ideals is activism despite people's use of the term "actions speak louder than words". They forgot that speaking is action. I try to raise awareness through discussion of both my own fallability (wherever the flaw in my thinning exists now) and that of others.

I also dislike antinatalism. I did a whole discussion with someone earlier not sure which thread where I expressly disagreed with it.
What I do believe though us that it's not going anywhere. That's why I said no beliefs are BS, in the sense that they exist for a reason - even if the only reason is to stand as an unreasonable thing to think. Just as evil isn't going anywhere as a concept. As without it we don't really have free will and good woukd be meaningless.

People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others.

Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect — universeness

Anna's conclusion could be wrong yes. John may be perfectly fine.

But Anna's conclusion could be the only correct one (if John felt comfortable around only Anna and expressed his sadness, but then saved face in front of everyone else because of not feeling comfortable to express his true feelings, lying about Anna claiming he was sad the the larger group to Anna's disbelief.

The verifiability of the true nature of the situation from the perspective of any of the participants within the situation is difficult and limited by what each person is willing to explain.
Not all of the information is accessible to each person.

Only us the audience, third observers - have the details of each of their beliefs and their behaviours. And even then still we can only hypothesise the possible choices they may make, but we won't know which until they do.

The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case — universeness

Well I am an optimist. You can call it naive if you wish. But its just in my nature. I assume the best until shown the worst. I also think people can and do often change their views when faced with well reasoned discourse - they can become more or less honourable. That's their perogative. Mine, is to present the arguments I have available to me.

Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that! — universeness

The same goes for irrational numbers like Pi, Phi, and e. We can always improve the accuracy but because they never repeat themselves we can never make that accuracy discrete and full/complete. It would have to go on to infinity. So the accuracy we have for irrational things will never be perfect.

Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities.

My intentions was to highlight that nothing is BS in the dynamic of "ALL" opinions and their interrelation with one another. Beliefs are believed to be true by the people who hold them otherwise they wouldnt be held.

That is a matter of demonstrating patience and empathy for people with what one thinks are BS beliefs. Because just saying "that is BS" is pretty useless in resolving the contradiction.

To dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude.

Hence/thus exemplified by what I said here:

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so". — Benj96

It wasn't designed as a personal attack but a device to implore you to explain. As only through discourse do we elicit whether we are on board with one anothers ideas or not.

Being resolutely sure of your opinion, confirming your own reasoning without sharing it with others. Without speaking your mind leaves nothing left for others to do but to define you by your own certainty - as some sort of god (know it all) and one they have no access to because they will not demonstrate this reasoning as to why they know it all. A good omniscient being would share that knowledge with others instead of stomping on the ground and just reiterating that they know it all. Claim is there, but no evidence.

Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin: — universeness

We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneous assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. But you clarified then well and then I understood. So I can totally relate.

Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? — universeness

Haha I like your humour. Yes I suppose its the formal academic equivalent.

factual — universeness

observed — universeness

See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it.

Others observe John and determine that he is not upset. They say his lack of sadness is fact because they have observed it.

They may determine that because the vast majority determined that John is not sad then Anna must be wrong. However this cannot be proven as absolute. What we are missing is John's input as he is the only one that knows johns internal mood/mindstate. And furthermore everyone is observing based on preconceived ideas - of the relationship between observed behaviour and emotional state. None of which are considering addressing their own preconceptions instead of making a judgement about John.

All of them are using the same empirical approach with differing conclusions.

My point is that if one wants to deduce conclusions from premises based on formal logic, then the meaning of the terms is irrelevant — neomac

The meaning of terms used to construct premises and deduce conclusions is irrelavent? I don't think I agree.

When dealing with maths equations the meaning can be considered irrelevant as it's completely standardised, is discrete and finite. 1 =1. We don't have to bog ourselves down with "what do we really mean by 1". Everyone knows what one of something is.

But when applying logic to the broader language-scape _
- to concepts that are not as discrete as numbers like "human", "animal" "wing" etc, It's much more subjective and open to interpretation as the same word can have many nuances of meaning and many relationships and associations, depending on who is reading it.

Therefore meaning is always relevant in linguistic logical discourse dealing with anything more than the numerical (mathematics - which we typically make distinctions with from linguistics because of that very fact. Mathematic meanings are universal and standardised and thus ignored to perform logical deductions. But maths is a still a language like any other.)

In more complex languages, one must define exactly what you mean by the words (terms) or abbreviations used to make them applicable to a logical deduction.

I already highlighted precisely what I meant by H, A and W and strictly within the confines of the meaning i defined for each and there relationship to eachother, the logical conclusion was thus.

I never said the conclusion was correct based on actual reality. All I was demonstrating is the importance of the meaning (relative nature) applied to the terms, do they "equal" eachother in which case the equation is reversible and can run forward and backwards
Or is one "a lesser subset" of the other in which case A =B but B is not = A (not réversible)

. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense. — universeness

On the contrary I think consciousness is fundamentally possible to occur because of how physics is set up (quantum and Newtonian). Especially the quantum phenomenon of determination of a result through observation.

I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree.

This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not? — universeness

It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god.

What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard.