Emotions are snap judgements with what we perceive at the time, and nothing more.
— Philosophim
They're not judgments at all; they're primitive mental responses to sensory input from the environment and the body. It takes reason to name and describe them. — Vera Mont

I have no disagreements with this take. If you want to define judgement in the cerebral sense that's fine by me. A quick digest of a situation is probably a more accurate term.

Would you be amenable to the idea that it is just as a convenience that we separate affective and rational aspects
of thought into district categories? — Joshs

No. Its a clear difference in approach and thought. Everyone knows that 'rationality' is the gold standard. Emotional thinking craves that standard for itself. It hates that it isn't at that level. But if it could convince everyone it is, then there's no stopping it.

What if we just treated the rational and the affective , the hedonic and the cognitive, as two inseparable components of all thinking? — Joshs

They are separable because even basic living creatures have emotional thinking. There is a clear separation between the two.

At every turn in a rational argument the aim we are driving toward acts as a guide and criterion for what constitutes the correctness and relevance of our thinking. — Joshs

Again, this is rationalizing. If you're reasoning to obtain the satisfaction of a certain emotional desire, you're going to reject anything that goes against that emotional desire as 'wrong'. This is why emotion is not a good guide for rationality. To be rational, we must often go against ourselves.

I know this won’t convince you, but I wanted to counter your comment with Robert Solomon’s view of emotion: — Joshs

This isn't a very good counter, because it doesn't address what I said.

“I didn’t mean it; I didn’t know what I was doing. I acted without thinking;

I said people rationalize their emotions. That requires thinking, intention, etc. I also said emotions are an impetus to act, they are not thoughts themselves. One can act without any further thought, after rationalizing, or being rational. Emotions do not preclude thought.

“I was emotionally upset”; that is the touchstone of a cop-out plea of momentary insanity.

I never said emotions removed agency. I never said following emotions is something you can't control. Of course you have (most of the time) have agency when you follow your emotions. Saying you don't is an excuse. We are talking about mentally able adults of course.

Nothing you have ever done has been more rational, better conceived, more direct from the pit of your feelings, or better directed toward the target. That momentary outburst of emotion was the burning focus of all that means most to you, all that has grown up with you, even if much of it was unacknowledged.

Right. Emotions are an impetus. They planned around fulfilling that impetus. That's not rationality. That's wanting to emotionally fulfil a desire and planning to do it.

And yet we hear, “emotions are irrational”—virtually a platitude.

Emotions are neither rational or irrational. Your actions are rational or irrational. Acting on emotion alone if you have time to think first is often times irrational. Acting on emotion after thinking about what outcomes will result, and putting the value of emotional fulfillment as a secondary concern, is rational.

The emotions are said to be stupid, unsophisticated, childish, if not utterly infantile, primitive, or animalistic—relics from our primal past and perverse and barbaric origins.

No, I never said this. Impetus is incredibly important for those who have not developed rational minds. Without impetus or some rational guide, you cannot do anything. Emotion is incredibly useful in accomplishing things in life. But emotion is a motivator, not thinking itself.

Emotions, I have argued elsewhere,1 are judgments, intentional and intelligent. Emotions, therefore may be said to be rational in precisely the same sense in which all judgments may said to be rational; they require an advanced degree of conceptual sophistication, including a conception of self and at least some ability in abstraction.

Emotions are digests of a particular situation that want an expected outcome. They are inductive snap judgements, and some people have a more accurate emotional capacity for induction then others. But it is a quick digest, not the careful examination and thinking rationality entails.

In this sense, we may well talk of the “logic” of the emotions, a logic that may at times be quite difficult to follow but a logic which is, nevertheless, never merely an emotion’s own.

No, this is just another person trying to justify fulfilling their emotions and elevating them in importance as something approaching rational thought. It is not. Emotions are snap judgements with what we perceive at the time, and nothing more.

Are either of you familiar with the affective turn in the social sciences and philosophy that took place a few decades ago (Antonio Damasio’s work is one exemplification of it)? The gist of it is that emotion is the cradle within which rationality rests. It is what gives the rational its coherence, intelligibility and relevance. Without emotion rationality becomes dysfunctional and useless. — Joshs

If fully disagree with this assessment. Emotion is the aspect of impetus and motivation. Rationality is an evaluation of if we should, and how we should act if we should. This is through my own personal experience. I have many deadened and addictive tendency emotions. If I listened to my emotions, I would likely be homeless or dead at this point in my life. Its not that I don't have them, but they do not make the decisions, I do.

What matters in life are outcomes. I might feel bad and not want to work, but I go in anyway. I may not care that someone is doing poorly in life, but I know that reaching out can make things better. I could kill somebody and likely not feel any guilt or remorse. But what good would that do?

Emotions are for children and animals. They are guides and impulses for doing, not thinking. Rationality is contemplative. It considers all sides. It looks for outcomes. Then you have to decide if you want to act on that rational outcome, or your emotion.

The impetus from a young age is to rationalize acting upon emotions you feel. Rationalizing is inventing and coming up with ideas that 'back up' the emotional outcome you want. Being rational often times directly challenges your emotions, and thus the natural inclination of people from a young age is not to be rational, but to rationalize.

As you get older, hopefully you have people who teach you that being rational results in better outcomes. Sometimes outcomes align with our emotions, but many times they do not. That's a major difference between stupid and intelligent people. Stupid or ignorant people invent all sorts of rationalizing to justify fulfilling their strongest emotions like sex, love, hate, "I do what I want and its moral", etc. The reason why you can't tell a stupid person that they're stupid, is because they're enraptured by their own emotions. So they'll get angry and blame you. They'll come up with 'reasons' to justify their emotions. They'll say, "I don't feel stupid," then rationalize why.

Intelligent people can be called stupid, and analyze it. They might feel angry, but perhaps the other person has a point. They swallow their pride and realize, "You know what, I was stupid there. Time to correct it," despite feeling shame or embarrassment about it.

That being said, emotions still propel us. Especially early on when we're not rational. But as we improve in life and build ourselves up to lose rationalizing and become more rational, emotions matter less and less. But the seat of rationality itself? No. Just impulse.

No, actually. It was an unfortunate choice of the critical word in the OP: I failed to consider all the ways it might be interpreted. Entirely my fault.
What I asked was not how the potential suicide himself ought to consider the issue, but whether you consider anyreasons for suicide to be rational - as distinct from moral or legal. — Vera Mont

Ah, no worry! Numbers 2 and 3 are my reasons then. Feel free to comment further or end the conversation then. I don't think you had any issue with what I considered rationally viable, only in how to approach it.

I have done that. Real people, in pain and fear, cannot be unemotional about their situation. Rule 1. bites the dust at the diagnosis of cancer or the repossession of someone's house. — Vera Mont

The topic was how to rationally approach suicide. I didn't state you wouldn't be emotional. I stated don't make decisions due to emotion. That's irrational. Saying, "People can't be rational," is not a counter to point 1, but an emotional denial. Whether or not a person chooses to be rational is in their power. But if you are going to be rational, you cannot make your choice by emotion.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it.
— Philosophim
That is the most difficult piece of advice, and I have told you why, several times. Other people are also emotional. They can't turn it off just because you tell them to. — Vera Mont

Difficult to follow doesn't mean 'irrational'. I've noted you find people who care about you, and consult several people. I've noted that despite there being other people that you may encounter who will not be rational, assuming they won't is irrational as well. A solo mind is weak and vulnerable, and a monumental decision to end one's life should not be made alone.

Your fear that others around you will not be rational is emotional. Rationally, you should be approaching terms of suicide ahead of emotionally turbulent times. As I noted earlier, my parents have already discussed with me end of life procedures. If you come to a point that doesn't meet those parameters and want to end your life, that's a sign its emotional and you need to reach out to others.

Sometimes even people who have discussed end-of-life care go back on their promises when the death of a parent or spouse is imminent. — Vera Mont

This is always a possibility when trust is involved. That is a risk you have to take, and once again, why you involve multiple people to handle if one goes rogue. That's part of being rational about it. Saying, "Everyone might not follow what I ask and everyone is going to be irrational," is an irrational emotional reaction.

Many family members and friends, if you tell them you're contemplating suicide, go ballistic, get religious and righteous on your ass, plead and cry and maunder on about the sanctity of life, then confiscate your meds and have you put in a locked ward, where you are deprived of all means of ending your own pain: you no longer have a choice, freedom or autonomy. I know this from having witnessed it. (One patient was so desperate, she stuffed her bedsheet down her throat.) — Vera Mont

I assume we're talking adults here. Children do not have the right to suicide period. Their brains are underdeveloped and do not have full rational capacity yet. If you're an adult, no one can do this to you. Further, I noted that rational reasons for suicide are excessive resource use both time and monetarily, or excessive crippling over time and being kept alive by machines. More people agree with this rationale than you think. If you're not in one of these cases and wanting to commit suicide, then you are being irrational. If they cannot reason with you when you're being irrational, then monitoring you until you get over your emotional turmoil is the smart thing to do.

I'm not really hearing any rational counter argument here, just emotional ones. And the emotions generally are, "But I WANT to commit suicide. I don't want to tell other people because I'm afraid they'll stop me." That's emotional, not rational. The rational way to approach suicide is this. "I want to commit suicide. I better consult other people I trust who care about me to make sure I'm not being crazy." There is always risk in involving other people, but avoiding other people is a tried tactic of, "I want to do what I want, and I'm afraid other people will talk me out of it because deep down...I know its probably not right." Again, an emotional avoidant tactic, not a rational approach.

That is what I have been attempting to do. Your rules apply in some cases, but do not cover many of the likely scenarios that real people in the real world have to face. — Vera Mont

Explain how your scenarios explicitly are not covered by the three points I posted. You have not done that.

Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first.
— Philosophim
I have solved them for myself. — Vera Mont

Then please explain. I do not know your personal conclusions and how they contrast with the three points I made unless you state it.

Point is, they're not random. They are all too real and too common. — Vera Mont

Its not that the scenarios are random, its that you're randomly putting them in as questions after the fact or a previous discussion without bothering to address why they do not fit the three points I made.

Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work.
— Philosophim
Did that, too. I've been in your perspective, but that was a long time ago. — Vera Mont

No, I have yet to see you say, "X doesn't work with point 1 because..." or anything of that nature.

You keep stating the same thing over and over. I didn't ignore it; I pointed out where it doesn't apply. — Vera Mont

No, you stated a new scenario as a question without regards to the points made.

Sure, it would be nice to think everyone can contemplate their own debility, suffering and death unemotionally, and that everyone has many friends and relatives, all available for consultation, all able to assess the situation and think clearly. — Vera Mont

Your question was essentially "How do we rationally consider suicide?" I noted to find other people who care about you, and consult more than one. That doesn't have to be family or friends as I've already stated. So your point is irrelevant. This is why I keep asking you to think about what's been said prior to posting. Lets focus the conversation a bit more and think, "What if someone is contemplating suicide at this moment and needs some rational steps to consider?"

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give?
— Philosophim
Nope. Just mentioning the realities you didn't take into account. — Vera Mont

Because there are an infinite amount of variations and scenarios one can invent. First try to see if the rational rules I gave can adapt to the situation. If they don't, show me why they don't. Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first.

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me.
— Philosophim
Not what I said. I said many families that care about one another are also emotional when it comes to the potential death of a loved one. You can't necessarily count on them thinking objectively. — Vera Mont

And you can't necessarily discount on them thinking objectively either. You keep emphasizing the first part while seemingly ignoring the second part. This is why I note you consult multiple people, not just one.

You think old age, illness and disability are silly? I hope you have a long wait to find out. — Vera Mont

No, I think your posting random scenarios without thinking about how they play in what has been discussed so far is silly. You're being contrarian instead of thinking about it. Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work. That's a rational discussion. Ignoring what I've said and just bulldozing ahead to specific scenarios without analysis to what's already been said is disorganized, and ignores what I've stated so far. If my points are going to be ignored and not thought about, then why am I bothering to chat with you? Try to view it from my perspective for a minute.

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them.
— Philosophim
Only, they are invested. Deeply. — Vera Mont

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give? Is it going to be, "What if your family are held by hostages, and those hostages are also suicidal?" next? :) I've already given you the answer on what to do from my previous replies. Why don't you tell me what the rational think would be from your viewpoint instead?

But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish.
— Philosophim
No, it's a factual one. — Vera Mont

Let me be very clear about the logic

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me.

This is wrong. This is not factual. I've already told you consult multiple people. For end of life scenarios, you should be discussing these with people long before you're put in this situation. I didn't say every friend or family member is rational. But to avoid friends and family because caring about you means they can't be rational? No.

You're in wheelchair or hospital bed. You go no place. People come to you, if they're willing, or they shun you because you remind them of their own mortality. — Vera Mont

I'm going to one up your silliness.

"You're a brain in a vat. There is no one. Not even you. The concept of suicide or living no longer exists. Despite this, you want to commit suicide, even though you don't know what it is. What do you do?"

Do you understand that I'm telling you general solutions to a general problem? Being rational is partly reasoning through the concepts as a whole to apply to specifics when needed. Use your own brain here. Understanding what I've said previously, what do you think is rational in this particular situation?

An isolated mind is not smart or a genius.
— Philosophim
Some are. But it doesn't take genius to decide whether your own life is too hard to bear. — Vera Mont

No, incredibly few are. The myth of the solo genius is a myth. Every idea needs to be bounced off of other human beings. No matter how smart you are, you are still human. You have a very limited world view compared to the richness of perspective and thoughts of multiple brains working on the same situation.

As for whether your life is "Too hard to bear," do you remember rule 1? Don't make emotional decisions. "Too hard" is an emotion. I already gave viable reasons for suicide that are non-emotional, and informed you that you should involve other people in it. Have you been thinking about those as you ask your questions? Because it feels like you're ignoring it and just pressing on with a bunch of "What if" scenarios that already have answers.

If you're a whiny emo who believes you're smarter than the rest of the world, that life is pain, and no one else can understand it because you're surrounded by idiots, you're being a child. I'll make the points even simpler.

1. Don't be emotional in suicidal decisions.
2. Involve other people who have your best interest, consult multiple to ensure the most rational decision can be gleaned.
3. Rational and viable reasons for suicide are excessive crippling, degradation, or excessive costs in resources or time from yourself or others to stay alive.

If you ignore the first 2 and decide you can make a sound judgement on 3 on your own, you cannot. That's an emotional retreat because you're afraid the first two will dissuade you from your emotional desires. Its not that complicated.

Other people are, unfortunately, stuck with religious, volatile, sentimental, emotion-driven relatives, with whom you can't discuss anything serious. — Vera Mont

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them. Thinking about what I said should have made this answer obvious. Do you have an emotional wish to justify suicide? You doing ok?

Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational.
— Philosophim
Not everyone, but many. — Vera Mont

Again, this is an irrational response. Of course there are people who can't think rationally. Don't rely on those people. But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish.

A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose.
— Philosophim
Maybe so. But who says all the minds in a given situation are rational? — Vera Mont

Again, I felt I was pretty clear. You go to multiple people. Find professionals if you lack friends. Go online to suicide help forums. Call someone. The rational thing is to reach out to other people to ensure that your decision making is on point. An isolated mind is not smart or a genius. It is vulnerable and weak.

What? If your throat is blocked by a feeding tube, you can't think? — Vera Mont

All you need is a finger on the button that controls the morphine feed and permission to use it.

But my question wasn't about physical capabilities. It was only about reasons. — Vera Mont

Then lets leave the physical capabilities out of it.

Where do you find these rational people in this situation? Not family members: they're emotional and have their own self-interest to consider - from both sides. — Vera Mont

Wrong. Rationally you want people who are invested in your well being in the picture. For example, my parents have given me the ability to call a "Do not resuscitate". I understand why. I will ensure that if there is a viable chance for their life and well being to be preserved, I'll do everything in my power. But I won't put them through torture or keep them artificially alive. Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational.

On the other hand, I can make a judgement to see whether they're just tired, depressed, or frustrated if they wanted to be killed without good reason. In that case, I can get them help. Emotionally they won't want it, but rationally, they should have it.

If you talk about the burden your continued incapacity will place on them, they feel pressured to demur, say they'd rather have you than the money or free time or use of the living room, even though they secretly wish you had died in the accident and feel guilty as hell about that. — Vera Mont

That is why you have multiple people. There may be one family member or friend who feels inconvenienced by you for the wrong reason. I won't 'pull the plug' without talking to my sister first. A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose.

You could take a chance on your doctor, I guess. If you have the ability to speak intelligibly. — Vera Mont

If you don't have the capability to ask your doctor, then you're not being rational in a decision to commit suicide. You can kill yourself but can't ask a doctor? That's not rational. That's purely emotional.

Pretty clear why it wasn't published.

From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide? — Vera Mont

Yes.

1. It must not be emotional.

The mistake a lot of people make is they try to rationalize going through with an emotion. In all of these cases, this is not being rational and should not be done.

2. The resources to keep you alive are too costly.

If you're so injured that the only thing keeping you alive is a machine that will cost an inordinate amount of money and/or your time to the point where you and or your family are crippled financially and/or by time stolen from this, its viable to decide to commit suicide.

Again, this is not emotional. This is a careful cost benefit analysis that should be reviewed by others first.

3. Staying alive will result in an inevitable amount of unavoidable pain and degradation that will cripple you, and create an undue burden of time and resources needed by others to take care of you.

These seem to be the core three, and most situations can be addressed by putting them through these three points.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it.

And yet, while we blame businesses, we often times do not blame people who work for them. I mean the rank and file. You see, many basic workers are greedy too, and can be convinced that increased wages mean worthy people will lose jobs. Or that regulation means less profit for the company, and therefore a lower paycheck. Or that wealth is a measure of 'hard work', and you don't want your 'hard work' to be diminished by outside forces either.

And its not that these things aren't true. Its that greed forces a myopic view point on "my self-benefit only", instead of thinking about the broader picture and economy. The resistance to fix the issue of greed could easily be overcome if it were just a few people at the top. But its a large mass of greedy rank and file people who are the real problem.

So much agreement - but the devil is in the details — Treatid

True! Even if there is disagreement, I enjoy reading your details.

1. The choice is not between objective and chaos. The choice is between objective and relative. — Treatid

I agree with this.

General Relativity (GR) is wholly incompatible with Newtonian Mechanics (NM). — Treatid

That's not quite correct. NM works at small bodies, but does not scale to large bodies. GR works with large bodies, and when you scale it down to small bodies, it results in NM. That may be irrelevant however, your point is really you seem to think I believe in chaos versus objective. If the example doesn't quite work, I still want to make sure I understand you point. If I don't quite understand it, please try again.

1+1=2 is true within Euclidean Geometry. We know for a fact that our universe is non-Euclidean. — Treatid

This is also not true. We have Euclidean and non-Euclidean applications depending on what we're measuring. Just like big vs small bodies, the context of how and what we're measuring matters for the equation.

Which is to say, there are infinitely many more systems in which 1+1 != 2 than in which 1+1=2. — Treatid

No. If the definition of 1, +, =, and 2 are the same, the result is the same. We can change the definitive context of each of those symbols, so 1 would would translate to 3, and 2 would translate to 8. In which case yes, 1+1 != 2 because that would translate to 3+3=8. Once you have solidified your concepts, the application can be inductive or deductive. Yes, we can change the meaning of the symbols to whatever we want. But once we decide on them, there is a set logic that always follows.

In a closed system (like the universe) all definitions are circular. That is A --> B --> A.

Which is to say that according to the common conception of 'definition' there are no definitions.

We can describe A in terms of B. We can describe B in terms of A. That's it. That is the complete list of things we can do with language. — Treatid

My theory escaped that circularity. You can start from the fact you discretely experience, and assign any of those discrete experiences as words in your memory. The base discrete experience is the foundation. It requires no further description. It is when we try to communicate these experiences with other people that we have to find common meaning somehow in symbols. Once common meaning can be established, then both of us can deductively conclude that 1+1=2 objectively.

In the entire history of mankind there has never been a non-circular definition.

Or, more constructively, meaning is dependent on context. — Treatid

Again, we both have discrete experiences. We are both able to assign that personal experience to a common symbol for common ground. We could not communicate at all if we did not do this. And yet we're able to. You can't quite provide your discrete experience to me, and I can't quite provide my discrete experience to you, but we can come to a common enough ground to communicate the essential picture of the experience without the specific picture of the experience itself.

What I am doing is trying to break down complex concepts into more simple and easier to comprehend ideas. People think better when you can get down to fine grained foundations, and build on top of them.
— Philosophim

Do they? You have evidence of this? — Treatid

I do. :) I was a high school math teacher for five years. This is one of the many techniques to teach something effectively to others. I currently program for a living and part of the best practices is to code in bite sized pieces for readability. I have an engineering friend that has shown me diagrams that break complex components into simple to digest pieces. There is a certain limit in how much information a human can hold at once in thoughts. We use 'grouping' to help this.

Try to memorize this number by single digits: 24777977
Now try to remember it by grouping it: 24-777-977 The second is much easier.

This is also what words are for. Grouping complex and detailed concepts into generalities. When I say "Physics" you don't think of the entirety of every physical law and formula. We break physics down into "theories" and "formulas". Too detailed, and you can't comprehend how it all fits together. Not enough detail and the generality seems obtuse and overly generalized.

Joshs describes how experiences (such as new ideas) are more easily digested when they largely align with our expectations for those experiences.

In this conception (which I agree with), the ease of assimilation is how closely new ideas fit within our existing framework. — Treatid

Agreed. This is because the human mind favors efficiency and 'good enough' over perfection. Sometimes that bites us down the road and I'm not immune to it. But what ensures the base of that framework in a rational sense versus an ideological sense? Rational frameworks can weather challenges that reality throws at it by adaptation. Ideological or emotional frameworks oftentimes have to go to great lengths to cover up its rational holes, because some framework is better than no framework at all.

That is why an idea can be unique and correct, but entirely rejected. One has to shape new discoveries in relation to the current framework so that there can be understanding. People will tentatively explore the new framework only if they see benefit. If those that adopt it start to see success, others will follow.

Just as plausible that everything we know in physics will be found wrong in the future
— Philosophim

Like the JWST crisis in cosmology? — Pantagruel

Exactly. All knowledge is an assertion of what we know today. We know its possible to learn new things and change what we know over time. What I'm stating here applies to all rational claims, not just the afterlife. I don't have anything personal against the afterlife, there's just no evidence for it. It doesn't mean we didn't know what physics was prior to the new discovery. Its that we knew physics as what it was prior to the new discovery. That knowledge is based on what can be rationally concluded with the information we have at the time.

I have a pretty good grasp of what's scientific and what's not. I'm not aware of any science that contradicts the fact that consciousness appears to transcend materialism in significant ways. — Pantagruel

The significant science and medical conclusions over the years can be summarized here:

Advances in neuroscience: Being able to predict what people are going to say before they say it. Prodding the brain to elicit responses. Brain mapping which entails areas that are catered to different functions of the body and sense interpretation. Cutting the corpus callosum and seeing how people are different afterward. Brain injuries that alter people's personalities, or ability to perceive senses despite the sense organs being perfectly healthy.

Psychotherapy: Depression and psychiatric treatment of extreme mental disorders such as schizophrenia and other forms of psychopathy. Alcohols slow deterioration of the brain in alcoholics and how it directly affects their motor skills and capability to reason.

No measurable energy outside of what would chemically be predicted upon brain death emerges or is found emanating from the body. No indicator of being able to communicate with a dead consciousness.

Everything points to your consciousness forming from your brain, and without your brain, you have no consciousness. If consciousness could exist separately from the body, but it needed a physical brain to 'live', then the disentanglement of consciousness should be physically detectable. But there is no evidence.

The study of insect and mammalian brains. Do you think they're consciousness exists after death? There is no evidence of this either.

So I see tons of points that lead us to rationally conclude consciousness does not extend on after death. There is no how, where, what, or why. There is only a personal belief in the desire that it be true.

Found lacking by you and some others. Some other others have been more sympathetic — T Clark

I'm not talking to them, but about our conversation.

Thank you for your smug condescension. — T Clark

It was not meant to be condescending, but pointing out as a fellow human being something I think you were not aware of. Feel free to disagree, but it was not meant to talk down to you.

By contradictions I assume you mean conflict or potential conflict. There is nothing in my description of my personal morality, so-called, that prevents me from taking the needs and interests of other people into account. — T Clark

Nor is there anything that compels or inclines you to take the needs and interests of others in account. Which again, is not any moral principle at all besides, "I do what I want". And if other people take your moral principle and interact with you, steal from you, beat you up, then say, "Its just my nature, I'm being moral," you have no rational answer besides to accept their claim. I'm not saying you couldn't come up with a more reasonable answer, but you didn't even bother to.

As for the direct question of, "Are our values based on rational considerations?" this is hardly a debate.
— Philosophim

Based on the contents of this thread, it seems you are wrong. — T Clark

I am not discussing with the thread, I am discussing with you.

You've started to be insulting. Perhaps we should end it here. — T Clark

I asked you not to get defensive and just think about what I was saying. That's hardly an intent to insult, especially after I've complimented you a few times in this thread. If you don't want to engage anymore, that is your call.

Life? Sure. Consciousness? No. They are not necessarily equivalent. Perhaps Consciousness is emergent from Life. — Pantagruel

True, they aren't equivalent. But we have not seen any evidence of life nor consciousness continue after death. Therefore there is 0 probability, and thus it is impossible for us to say consciousness continues after death as well.

Is it plausible that consciousness continues after death? Just as plausible that everything we know in physics will be found wrong in the future. But these plausibilities are not facts, likelihoods, or an assertion of anything more than imagined speculation. We may speculate and imagine all we want, but rationally we need to make decisions regarding what we know today.

You of course can believe in pluasibilities, there's nothing stopping you. The question is whether the belief is rational or not. In the case of consciousness after death, it is an irrational belief. All evidence of the brain and mind points to the end of consciousness after death, while there has never been any viable evidence that points to its opposite. It is, with our current understanding, only justified by the fact we want consciousness to exist after death, and nothing more.

I've made a rational argument that non-rational considerations have to be taken into account when dealing with philosophical, and human, issues. That is not a radical position to take. — T Clark

Of course, no disagreement. You've taken an non-rational position into account, but it has been found lacking in the larger claim of morality. Considering not rational positions is fine and a good thing. But considering something does not mean concluding it is correct. I see no indication that your position is tenable as anything apart from someone who wants to justify living as they see fit without any further consideration of how this plays out if everyone followed the same ideal.

Emerson and I respond - "So be it." I think that answers your question. You may not find that satisfactory, but I think it's at least clear. — T Clark

If this is your final answer, then you did answer my question. You do not believe in morality then, you believe nothing should dictate your actions besides yourself. You are unconcerned with contradictions when other people are involved, and I doubt that in practice, you would live in such a way if such conflicts arose.

T Clark, I like you and think you're generally a well spoken and decent person. But this is weak. When you introduce your ideas on these boards, it is not a place to assert and not address the details of your argument. That's just proselytizing. I feel you can be better than that, and maybe you're unaware of what you're doing, so I'm bringing it to your attention. I get you may feel defensive over this accusation, please don't. Think about it for some time first.

How is what you've written not also an opinion? We've both supported our views with more or less rational argument. — T Clark

No, I have not seen a rational argument. I have seen rationalizing, or presentation of weak support for what one wants while dismissing things which would challenge it. A quote from someone expressing a similar opinion as yourself is not a rational argument.

They both go back to a question of values. Is it your position that our values - what we consider important, what we like and dislike, what we think is good and bad - is all and only based on rational considerations? — T Clark

No, it is a question of what morals are vs what we value. If you claim what you value is what is moral, then you have much more to explore and answer as to why this rationally is. If you're going to claim, "It just is," then this isn't a rational conversation, just a statement of opinion. This would be the same as me asking someone, "If God is real and good, why does evil happen?" and they replied, "It just does, its good because God allowed it."

As for the direct question of, "Are our values based on rational considerations?" this is hardly a debate. Personal values do not have to be based on rational decisions. But this is not morality. You have to assert that what we personally desire and value is morality, when the default is that they are very separate things. It is your assertion that they are the same that you have not proved that is the problem.

Its plausible that we survive after death.
— Philosophim

I agree. — Pantagruel

Which is fine. You can agree with any plausibility. Its plausible that green men live on the moon. Or plausible that anything you can imagine could be. Agreeing with it is irrelevant to any claim of truth or fact.

More importantly, do you agree by the definitions above that it is impossible for life to continue after death? And I don't mean your feelings, I mean rationally?

I also believe that a good measure of logical thinking is built into our biological firmware, but so is quite a bit of arithmetic: — Tarskian

Oh, no debate there. I'm just noting that to express the formal logic of arithmetic, you have to logically ascertain what '1' is as an abstract. What '+' means as an abstract. What '=' means as an abstract. You can't use math to prove math, because you must first invent the symbols and meanings that math is based off of.

This seems like a side track off of the larger conversation at this point however.

Sure. Democritus imagined atoms were real. And there was evidence. It just wasn't available to him at the time that he imagined it. But his imaginings formed part of the overall inquiry that eventually led to the discovery of that evidence. Which in itself is yet more evidence that consciousness transcends that of the individual.... — Pantagruel

Induction is a valuable form of thinking, but we must be very careful in how we use it, and what we can conclude from it. People also imagined that spontaneous creation was real. If you left meat out overnight, flies would spontaneously create themselves. This is because they didn't understand that flies laid eggs.

Induction, depending on how its formed, is a reasonable state of inquiry, NOT assertion. Its a mistake people make all the time. Let me give you some examples.

Probability - The coin in most cases has an approximately 50% chance of landing on one side. This is a calculated set of limited outcomes concluded by reason and the known physical realities of the universe. But we still need to flip the coin to see a side.

Possibility - Its possible the coin could land on heads or tails. Its because we've observed it happening before. If its been known to happen once, it could happen again. But we need to flip that coin to see what comes up.

Plausibility - The coin could change its material essence due to an unknown law of physics, and on flipping, become so light that it escapes Earth's orbit and never comes down. We can imagine it, it, the construction of our statements make it feel (not actually be) reasonable, so we think its possible. We still must have someone die, and find some evidence that they survive after death. But its not possible because it hasn't happened yet. Its plausible, or an imagined scenario that has never come to pass.

Its plausible that we survive after death. But its also plausible that your ceiling is actually a sentient alien that likes watching humans. Plausibility has zero fact behind it, it is just what we can imagine that has not happened even once. Plausibility is not in the realm of facts. Probability is based on the logical limitations that come from known facts. Possibility is based on the fact it has happened at least once. Plausibility is purely the realm of imagination.

Plausible thoughts are absolutely essential for discovery. They are what compel us to explore and find new things. They are the source of creativity. But they are NOT facts. They are feelings that should never be confused as being real until we have confirmed that they are in fact real.

So, no. Being able to think that its plausible we live on after we die is no evidence of any fact that we live on after we die. In fact, every fact that we do know of shows that the probability of our consciousness living on after death is 0%. We know that its not possible to live on after we die. And since probability and possibility are at least based on some facts, they are more cogent, and take precedence in logical thinking over plausibilities.

Therefore it is a deduced fact that we do not live on after death. And if we are to enter into the realm of induction, the more reasonable inductions are that it is both improbable, and impossible that we live on after death. It doesn't mean we can't keep looking for plausibilities we like to be true. But we can never reasonably assert that because we can hold a plausibility, that it is any evidence that it is true.

Arithmetic can be reduced entirely to logic. However, logic can also be entirely reduced to arithmetic — Tarskian

Translation does not mean you did not need to understand logic first to discover math. I don't mean formal annotated logic, I mean 'logical thinking'.

The quote didn't answer my question.
— Philosophim

I think it does, although you might not like the answer. — T Clark

It had nothing to do with like or dislike. It was the same answer you gave before wrapped in a quote. I don't see how it added anything to your point, or answered mine.

but on questions of how I treat others, I think I see clearly. You can doubt that, but that sort of ends the discussion. — T Clark

No, I don't doubt that. Many people believe they are good people, better than average, and have faith in their own judgements. A philosophical examination should find a stance that is rationally consistent.
You're on a philosophy forum, not a religion, meditation, or self-help forum. Its not about what makes us feel good, its about coming up with rational arguments. Your assertion of a personal opinion does not pass as a rational argument. Your morality has a severe flaw if anyone but yourself practices it. And you miss the fact that despite you thinking you see clearly, you make mistakes. If living by your nature is also making mistakes, and you make the mistake of getting drunk, driving, and killing someone, are you living a moral life?

I'm talking about people who aren't good people.
— Philosophim

I have been explicit that I am describing my personal philosophy. — T Clark

That's just an opinion. That's more of a slang or general use of the word, but not a standard of logical reasoning. I have no objection to you deciding to live your life by an opinion, but if you're going to claim its a philosophy that has anymore to it then a personal desire in how you want to live, its not going to pass muster.

If tardigrades have experiences, then near death experiences are possible. :cool: — jkop

I never said people didn't have these experiences. I've just noted they are not evidence of experiences after death, or that there is a survival of consciousness beyond brain death.

You can't prove arithmetic from arithmetic because we created it.
— Philosophim

Given a theory adequate for a certain amount of arithmetic, for example, PA, it's redundant to say that the theory proves all its theorems. But if the theory is formal and consistent, then there are truths of arithmetic that are not provable in the theory. This has nothing to do with who "created" the theory. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I should add a bit more to this. Arithmetic is a tool we've created from logic. It is logic which proves arithmetic, not arithmetic itself.

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer?
— Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance." — T Clark

The quote didn't answer my question. The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. I'm talking about people who aren't good people. Good on you if you haven't encountered many, but their nature is nothing you ever want to bump into.

My issue with this is that there is absolutely no requirement to postulate objective goodness to explain these things, and to my mind the ontology of "objective goodness" doesnt even make sense. — Apustimelogist

An objective goodness is a definition of goodness that can be rationally used by everyone despite our own personal subjective viewpoints. Its the difference between, "Rain is heavy cloud precipitation that falls to the ground," versus, "Rain is a feeling of rainness."

↪Philosophim

You arr talking as if there are certain things that just ought to exists and I don't think this is how it works. You may postulate something exists, look for it and then find that you have no evidence that it exists. Completely reasonable to not believe it exists. — Apustimelogist

I would agree if there was absolutely no evidence of its existence. But we have plenty. Universally there are moral sentiments such as "Don't murder, don't steal," that transcend culture. Most people understand that laws are societal enforcements, but that laws themselves can be moral or immoral. It is used in vernacular and in culture. The job of philosophy is to find those things, find a logical way to verbalize them and bring them into discussion beyond intuitions. As there is plenty of evidence for morality, to say it does not exist is normally someone who is bothered that they can't personally figure it out, so throws up their hands in the air.

Now, if you specifically want to give an argument against it, I can take it seriously. Most are simply lazy people who self-centered motives, but maybe you aren't.

Well said Timothy! I agree. Just going to add to your already fine points.

1. There are no moral facts (facts about the goodness of different acts, people, events, etc.) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this a fact? Seems to be that its a fact that there's no morality then.

2. "This is good" is just another way of saying "I prefer that x and I'd prefer it if you would too" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Morality becomes, "Whatever I want to do", or, "There is no morality.

3. Goodness doesn't exist but is rather a mirage enforced by the dominant party in society and is really just a form of power politics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

People confusing laws with morality.

If we don't think any sort of "goodness" exists, how do we choose between different paradigms of morality to use to set up laws, customs, norms of behavior, etc.? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. Its idiocy for self-fulfillment of one's own ego.

Well, we pragmatically select a measure by which norms might be judged good! But then how do we justify our pragmatic standard as a good one? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because I like it, it benefits me, and I don't want to have to think about it beyond that.

This same sort of problem crops up if truth is denied. That is, something along the lines of "nothing is either true or false, but only true or false in terms of some particular system. But we are free to pick such systems pragmatically." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is this universally true or false? Uh oh...

As for the point about reason being "ruined", it's certainly quite common for people to deny moral facts and to use facts about "everything being atoms in the void," to justify this. Thus, they clearly think there are at least other sorts of (theoretical) facts but not moral/practical facts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

My point is that maybe morality applies to those atoms as well. You may be interested in an attempt at an objective moral theory I've posted. Read it carefully though. Many people don't. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

I should note here that I am absolutely no enemy of pragmatism or even certain sorts of moral relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am. Its intellectual laziness for selfish gratification of one's own ego. Anyone who says, "I can't figure it out, but it would be nice if I could say its because it doesn't exist at all," is the intellectual equivalent of a slob eating potato chips on the couch. With even a modicum of rational thought, one can realize how untenable the idea is.

This may be bias on my part, but I've had the chance to talk live with quite a few of these people, and every single one has come across as an idiot who just wanted to justify doing whatever they wanted to do. My apologies if I'm a bit harsh, but this idea has always just struck me as being terrible and attracts the worst thinkers to it like bear turds attract flies.

For me, personal morality includes the principle that guides me in my personal behavior and it’s very simple - to the extent possible, my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? The problem with this definition is morals gets changed from, "What should be" to "What I want to do."

Maybe. Does this entail or imply that there is nothing after death? — Pantagruel

Entail. Its easy to make the mistake that just because we can imagine something, and it seems reasonable to us, we think it has the possibility of being real. It does not. For what is imagined to be real, there must be evidence of it being real somehow. There is zero evidence.

ou yourself are an aggregate of individual entities (cells) whose mutual "communication" is integral to what you experience as consciousness. But your cells constantly die. So if you cannot reductively explain consciousness with reference to the finite lifespan of individual entities — Pantagruel

But this applies to every cellular structure. So does my skin transcend physical limits because muscle cells constantly die and are replaced? But lets go further. Does this also apply to society? Isn't a society a set of communicating individuals that constantly die? Does this mean societies transcend their physical application and live on in some other dimension after they die?

The problem is your argument just doesn't apply to brains specifically, but to every single thing that lives and communicates on the planet. And of course you think its absurd that there is a consciousness of society that still lives on in heaven when the society dies. The personal desire for eternal life overrides your ability to apply the argument broadly and consistently. As a rational argument divest of any emotion, bias, or self-interest, it is completely illogical by everything we know to think that a person's consciousness lives on after they die.

My fight with you regarding logic has been entirely based around demolition of a specific mechanism that you don't even subscribe to.

Your empirical (observation) based sense of logic is far more rational than formal logic. It correlates well with the principles of science (excluding mathematics). — Treatid

Then I bow out. Great conversation.

A statement with no context has no inherent meaning.

The better the context is defined, the better the meaning is defined.

The better any given context is defined, the better every other context is defined.

Virtuous Circle

The better we understand a given concept, the better we understand every other concept. — Treatid

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

Impossible to reach omniscience - yes. But partial understanding is better than no understanding.

We are agreeing with each other so hard here it makes me wonder how we can possibly diverge elsewhere. — Treatid

Likely its in our definition differences. Even if we use similar words, there may be personal context to those words that results in us drawing different conclusions. The most important thing to find agreement on in a discussion like this is the definitions themselves. We are two different minds with unique backgrounds coming together. It takes some time to learn what each other intends by our words.

I want to take it further. Apply this to everything. Your perception of the world is rooted in your experience of the world.

I think your description of 'Dread' applies to every concept that we can feel, experience or think — Treatid

Within our own personal context, this is true. I can never know what its like to be another person. That doesn't mean I can't conclude other people exist, or that they and I cannot come to a common understanding of the way we both experience the world. Coming to a common understanding requires finding the things which are uncontroversial between us, while generally dismissing the rest as non-essential variety.

Rain is a common experience and by sharing our experiences we come to regard the experience of rain as being objective - something that everyone experiences in the same way. However your description of 'dread' applies to my experience of 'rain'. — Treatid

Again, it all comes down to contexts. What is the context of rain that is personal to you vs personal to me? I'm sure when I envision rain I have a different memory then you. So we likely can't relate on that context. But we can find common ground. Water percipitates in the clouds and falls to the ground. You and I both understand what that means. We can apply that definition to reality. If we did it together, maybe we would share some more common emotions like both finding the rain cool. Or maybe you would find it hot, I would find it cold, and we would get a good laugh out of it.

That is why society builds certain rules of measurement that do not rely on personal experience. They are abstracts. Meters for length. Liters for volume. Words that fit both an efficient general sense like 'tree', and more descriptive and specific words like Sycamore.

You've talked about taking shortcuts where we don't want to build everything from first principles just to say hello to the neighbour...

Shortcuts are fine, even necessary, but they are a convenient approximation.

When doing a deep dive into philosophical knowledge we are liable to find ourselves led astray if we rely on the shortcuts as being fundamental in, and of, themselves. — Treatid

Perfectly correct. For the build up of knowledge specifically, I noted specific rules to follow. And in cases where knowledge is not possible, or in the quest to build up knowledge, we have a hierarchy of inductions we can follow for cogent thinking. If you feel I'm not being specific enough or taking a short cut where its not needed, feel free to point it out! I will get as detailed and specific as needed.

Here we part ways.

You purport to demonstrate that we consider '1' discretely.

I'm looking at your description and seeing you describe '1' using a bunch of explicit and implicit relationships. — Treatid

Right, I've already noted there is nothing against defining something in relation to another discrete experience. The point I have tried to make is that one can have the discrete experience of everything. What allows us to create relations is memory. I have to remember that I focused on something else just a few seconds ago to compare. I think that's where I've missed the mark in what I've been trying to communicate. Discrete experience is the act of simple focus. We need memory of our discrete experiences to form and process relationships.

You sit down to read a book. The first page contains the word 'one':

"one"

And that is it. That is the entire book.

You understand 'one'. The word has some meaning for you. But simple stating the word 'one' doesn't expand your knowledge. No new information has been conveyed.

To convey information you must put that 'one' into some context - some set of relationships with other words. — Treatid

But first comes 'the book'. The focus. With memory, we can create comparisons. With memory we can relate. With memory, we can create words to recall and apply later.

As I read these two sections I see a disconnect. You are contradicting yourself. You are arguing two distinct contradictory positions. In the first paragraph you argue for the importance of context, in the latter paragraph you are arguing that we can consider things without context. — Treatid

What I am doing is trying to break down complex concepts into more simple and easier to comprehend ideas. People think better when you can get down to fine grained foundations, and build on top of them. So we have discrete experience + memory + comparison between memories = relationships. If everything is a relationship, then what do we call a thinking thing that can discretely experience, but has no memory of it? A camera taking a snapshot and processing it to paper without ever knowing any relation to what it is doing.

And then we have everyone from philosophy through mathematics to physics arguing that there are inherent truths independent of context. — Treatid

It depends again on what they mean by context. Oftentimes context is applied to 'subjective context'. But there is 'objective context' as well. People are oftentimes efficient in language, and leave lots of implicit implications in which get lost as they filter out into the general population, or even over time. Its our job as philosophers and thinkers to bring it back every so often. :)

If you doubt that there is an objective context, how is it that almost all human beings of a particular intelligence are able to learn that 1+1 = 2? How do we all learn that if we stop breathing, we'll die? I do not deny that there are contexts formed between every single person and subgroup you meet. But their existence co-exists within a created objective context of measurement and identification of reality. It does not undermine it, even if it wants to.

You obviously understand that full knowledge (truth) requires all the contexts.

This is my proposal. This is where I think we can make progress as philosophers and as humans. This is where the pursuit of knowledge lies. This is the path to all possible understanding. True, we can't reach the limit - but we can approach that limit. — Treatid

100% agree! I hope you understand that while I may have some counter points to consider, it does not mean I am not considering your viewpoint carefully. It is refreshing to have a conversation with someone who is interested in a good discussion.

Despite this clear understanding, Everybody and their dog suddenly starts insisting that knowledge, truth, meaning, ... are inherent properties independent of context.

This isn't a rational position. It is a direct contradiction of our direct experience of the importance of context.

Even after making the clearest statement of meaning/truth/significance I have ever seen; you flip around to arguing for inherent meaning just a few paragraphs later. — Treatid

Hm, I did not intend to imply there was inherent meaning. There are contexts that apply beyond our individual subjective viewpoints that are the collective context of rational agents. And many times when communicating with one another, we need certain clear and fixed essential commonalities to those words or phrases, or else we will, "miss the mark" if you get my meaning.

We are not really disagreeing much, if at all, in the big picture. The purpose of the paper is to take that common picture that we see, and put it into words that can be communicated effectively and consistently to several people. I know there are several people who believe both in parts and relationships. Does a break down of the act of discrete experience, memory, and the interplay between them forming relationships make it more palatable to you? It may not perfectly coincide, but do you think it can be more easily communicated to others who don't think like us? The world is full of people who found out knowledge, but were unable to communicate it in a way that a majority could agree with and use effectively.

Each piece of context you remove takes you further away from knowledge. Every extra piece of context takes you closer to knowledge. — Treatid

I agree with you, but one minor detail. "It takes us closer to complete knowledge". To build, we must start with a basic definition of knowledge in the barest sense. Something you may not have considered yet, is the theory I've proposed here can potentially be applied to non-human intellects. Dogs, computers, the process would be the same. Thus something could be said to applicably know X within its context, while if one has been challenged through multiple contexts, one can only applicably know Y.

Great conversation!

I would agree with Tarskian, especially a mix of both can be harmful, because one can come to be so dogmatic that one starts to think that model or theory of reality is far more real than just the reality itself. — ssu

Isn't your problem with dogmatism, or a misuse and/or misunderstanding of science/positivism, instead of with science/positivism itself?

If you feel threatened by its chaotic nature, it means that it disturbs your ideological beliefs. Someone who uses them as tools of precision and meaningful discovery would never feel threatened by that. — Tarskian

I'm not threatened, I'm just having a conversation with you. Here I try to elevate the discussion more than emotion, politics, or bias. Its about trying to get to the root rationale of arguments and see if they hold up. Your answer is an emotional one, not a rational one. It can take some time to adapt coming from other forums, I get it. So lets think about it again. If these old discoveries really did shake the foundation, why are people smarter than us don't seem bothered and still use them?

It is probably best to use an example from Soviet Union but in fact modern western society does exactly the same: — Tarskian

I think your problem isn't with science, but when people use the word 'science' to describe something that isn't actually scientific. Science is a very rigorous method of testing, and in essence tries to prove its conclusions wrong, not prove them right. The idea is to see if something can be disproven, and if it can't, then it must be something that works with what we know today.

and especially because you will get burned at the Pfizer antivaxxer stake if you refuse to memorize this sacred fragment from the scripture of scientific truth for your scientific gender studies exam. — Tarskian

It sounds like you have an issue with Covid vaccines and gender studies. Or more importantly, perhaps you have an issue with the way some people have reported on it? Many people have opinions on the science involving these two fields, but that doesn't mean it accurately reflects the science of those two fields.

We can test this by first starting with Covid vaccines. What part are you against specifically? I am moderately familiar with the scientific consensus on the Covid vaccines, and we can see if your issue is with the science itself, or people's opinions on the science itself.

No, nothing you have discovered here has shaken the foundations of math or science.
— Philosophim

I did not discover anything. Gödel certainly did. Chaitin also did. Yanofsky moderately did. I just mentioned their work. — Tarskian

Right, and despite their work being concluded for quite some time now, people several times smarter than both you and I combined still hold math and science as tools of precision and meaningful discovery.

My problem is with positivism and scientism. I find these ideological beliefs to be very dangerous. — Tarskian

I find this point more interesting. Why?

Well, instead of being able to predict just 0.1% of the facts in the physical universe, this would improve to something like 0.3%; not much more. — Tarskian

Again, hyperbole. I can assure you if we were able to predict how everything in the universe worked, we would solve all of quantum mechanics for starters. That's pretty huge. We would also master quarks and gluons. That's not insignificant.

Scientism is widespread as an ideology in the modern world. Any true understanding of the nature of mathematical truth deals a devastating blow to people who subscribe to it. This is exactly why I like this subject so much. — Tarskian

Right, people of all stripes can fall into the intellectual trap of, "Nothing is true!" and think that gives them an insight that others don't see. After all, if nothing is true, no more thinking right? Except its really just an illusion of intelligence. Want to really impress? Try coming up with ways to make sense of the world despite the 'chaos'.

I say this not to insult, but to kick you in the pants a bit because I see too many people fall into this trap that stunts their further growth. No, nothing you have discovered here has shaken the foundations of math or science. Knowing some limitations in how it comes about or what it can do, does not invalidate what it can do and is useful for.

In 1931, Gödel's incompleteness theorems dealt a major blow to positivism and scientism, but it was just the beginning. It is only going to keep getting worse. As Yanovsky writes in his paper:

Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorem showed us that there is a statement in basic arithmetic
that is true but can never be proven with basic arithmetic. That is just the beginning of the story. — Tarskian

You can't prove arithmetic from arithmetic because we created it. The concept of "One" is from our ability to create discrete experiences in the world. For example, look at your keyboard. Now your keys. Now a portion of the key. Those are all your ability to create the concept of "one". "Two" is the concept of one and one grouped together. And thus the logic that continues from there is math. Again, just because math can't prove math, doesn't mean that its not a viable and useful tool that results in amazing leaps in technology and understanding of the universe.

In my opinion, scientism needs to get attacked and destroyed because its narrative is not just arrogant but fundamentally evil — Tarskian

That's new! Why is it arrogant and evil?

It is a false pagan belief that misleads its followers to accept untested experimental vaccine shots from the lying and scamming representatives of the pharmaceutical mafia; and that is just one of the many examples of why it is not hyperbole. — Tarskian

Well lets say this is true. What method did you use to find out that its true? Can you be confident that your own method is sound, or at least more sound then science?

That is the only direction that we use in engineering. We never use the other direction:

If it is true, then it is pretty much never provable. It is a rare exception, if it is. — Tarskian

Ah, it depends on how you're using the word 'truth'. If you mean absolutely truth or, "what is," yeah, its hard to find those. If you're talking about propositional logic or terms in math, then true/false is fine. I just think you're being a bit dramatic. :)

Knowledge is a tool. Because its not precise to the nano-meter, does that mean a wrench is highly chaotic and unpredictable? Of course not. Our language, while imprecise at times, is useful for its imprecision for efficiency. Just like I wouldn't grab a wrench if I were studying the atomic level of the universe, one shouldn't use certain language and terms when dealing with the foundations of knowledge and mathematics.

The hyperbole just isn't true. Its like standing in a white room and noting, "Look how chaotic the colors are, flying every which way around this room! The chaos!" And of course there's someone looking at you from the outside wondering if they should pad the walls and give you a jacket to go with it.

The world of mathematical truth does not look like most people believe it does. It is not orderly. It is fundamentally unpredictable. It is highly chaotic. — Tarskian

This is a far cry from the point that math can be difficult to put into words. The proof is in the very fact you're able to post online consistently for us to read your posts. That was all capable through math.

I'll ask you one more time, what do you mean by complete brain death? — Sam26

Here is a scientific article on the matter Sam26. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/5/2/18 I encourage you to read that.

This is a well documented case, here is one of many videos on this NDE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNbdUEqDB-k — Sam26

I know you're well meaning, but a 'for tv' story is not a factual analysis. Here's an analysis of why Pam Reynolds NDE does not note anything remarkable. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461684/m1/1/

First, what you're claiming is not an unerring fact. Just because someone claims something is factual doesn't make it so. — Sam26

Correct. But we have all the proof we need. If I say, "Its a fact unicorn's don't exist," you're not going to question me on it right? There is no measurement of anything that leaves the brain or body after death. If you have brain damage, you will change. You are part of this universe, not separate from it. I get that your intelligence and sense of self-preservation make you want to give the proverbial middle finger to the rest of the universe, but you are not special. You are made up of the same stuff everything else is.

But we are not special. It is hubris to think we are. Check out some neuroscience. Check out psychotherapy. Get drunk for a while and see how much you change. There is nothing special about you beyond your physical make up.

Many thousands of NDE testimonials have been corroborated by doctors, nurses, friends, and family. If someone claims to see something at T1 and others corroborate that claim, then it's objective testimonial evidence, period. — Sam26

I am not disputing that people have these experiences. But I am disputing that they are any evidence in any serious discussion of life after death. All the facts are on my side, while all you have are inductive arguments, and a strong desire for it to be true.

There is no other alternative, what a silly statement, and an arrogant one too. Many scientists dispute this — Sam26

Its not arrogant, its a fact. If its arrogant, give me a counter fact. To not give me a counter fact is a person who is angry at a point, but nothing else. I don't want you to be angry, hopeful, passionate, or anything emotional. I want you to look at the facts. Don't tell me, "Many scientists," show me a scientist who has a peer reviewed study that cites a factual argument for life after death. There are none. Because there is no life after death. It is purely an emotional desire people want to believe in.