childbirth is immoral — ghostlycutter

Life is immoral, so childbirth is immoral. Nietzsche's Daybreak touches on this.

Suppose a neuroscientist is studying how the brain works ... until finally she has a perfect working model of the brain — Benj96

This thought experiment requires us to steer from logic, as Russell's self-containment theorem states: A set cannot contain itself.

Logic aside, then the possibilities are practically endless. It's like using a cheating device for a videogame; you wouldn't just be getting "infinite lives," but you can edit the 0s and 1s that make up the game itself, so anything goes.

is it some weaker claim about an innate ability to develop responses (or experiences) in such a way as to recognise a "rainbow" of distinct (and/or fuzzy) classes (of either stimuli or sensations) that may be different from our own rainbow? But independently of learning what to call them? — bongo fury

I think this approaches the solution.

Conveniently, red is the color of blood. It's striking for us, nature decided so this color should cause such sensation.

Now, we also know that colors are just different wavelengths.

So yes, I'd agree that the answer for this matter needs us to separate rationalization from what we understand so far about nature (physics).

I posit the theory to illustrate the argument that science is significant knowledge we need to pay attention to if we want to survive as a species — counterpunch

Sounds to me like you're constantly exposed to the opinions of dumb fucks.

I hope you succeed amid your context. Best of wishes.

Kant failed to explain how we can properly understand contradictions aside from being brute facts — Gregory

I believe he explained it quite a bit in the idea that we cannot properly understand anything.

Other than that, yes. I agree with you.

Although I'd add a bit of math to the issue. Because everything is mathematics (not a representation) saying that God encompasses everything that is and will be, any idea that tries to define God is, by definition, wrong. What do you think about this proposal?

— Thus Spoke 180 Proof — 180 Proof

Hey Zarathustra, come the f down.

Yeah, this is basically it.

and fucking references?! This guy grabs by the balls.

Hi!

What is the purpose of philosophy? — Jack Cummins

To me, it's simpler.

Philos: To love
Sophos: Wisdom.

To love wisdom.

NO. Your logic is faulty.

You say do stuff that doesn't kill you.
I refer to stuff that will help you not die.

It's different.

"The ultimate technique in persuasion and rethoric(sic) is..."

...do stuff that doesn't kill you. — Banno

This disregards my OP.

---

to say something that isn't a complete waste of the other person's time — Outlander

That's one way to put it.

And why is that what we ought do? — Banno

Because we die and tend to want to live.

---

You connect rather than coming at them as some Newtonian impact — Coben

Haha, I like how you put it. I agree. Listening is always there.

---

Inductive arguments are by definition probabilistic — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say probabilistic. In logic, you can also prove by induction. In that case (if not all) the proof is based on a hypothesis, not a probability. Maybe "hypothetic"?

doubt is an irremovable feature of all claims to knowledge.

In short, no argument ever guarantees the truth of its conclusion in a manner that is satisfactory. — TheMadFool

100% agreed.

You have presented an argument as to what constitutes good rhetoric. As I said arguments don't work — TheMadFool

We clarified that rhetoric had little place in my argument, but I see your point.

You have to win hearts not strike fear — TheMadFool

Maybe many hearts are more stricken by fear of the X race, or the X party, both of which aim to destroy us all? But I'm with you on that we're arguments that are emotional to some degree tend to be more effective.

---

Is it? Can you qualify that? Because as just that general statement I would have to disagree vigorously. — Pantagruel

Do you know about "scientific socialism"? It's like saying: "OK, let's all view the world through this here lens and not through anything else." Does it prove useful to their purposes? Yes. Can it fool someone into thinking that they "know better"? Also, yes. Do they defend these arguments with vehemence? Yup.

Why do you disagree?

Being able to repeat the formula does not mean you’ve learnt anything about it — Possibility

The subject learned that the object is important, and that's enough for my argument.

----

Persuasion is not based in learning, — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, I agree. They're not equal; hardly even similar.

Being well-informed implies being aware of the quality of your information sources. — Pantagruel

Agreed, but what I try to get across is the ultimate method or indicator of persuasion. False or erronous learning is still a type of learning, and I mean to include that.

Of benefit to them, and not harm them. — Pop

Agree.

You can’t make someone else learn something if they don’t want to, or if it takes too much effort. — Possibility

How did you learn about E=mc² ?

Did you read about it in a book? Or do people just go around repeating it? You most likely know the basics of what it means, but you do not question whether it is important. You just accept it.

And understanding it certainly is important for the survival of humans.



Understood. Let's not say rhetoric. Thank you, you taught me something!

being demonstrably well-informed — Pantagruel

What about "fake news"? We're actively questioning sources whose purpose is akin to being well-informed.

convincing a person who committed a very bad crime to turn themselves in. — Sherry

Here the solution is to convince the criminal that its life will without a doubt improve if they comply. But in practice, this is near impossible to guarantee. If they don't care about surviving and are all-out violent, I think we would agree that this person is a psychopath.

But I do like your point of view. Achieving this level of persuasion in those cases (which are extremely common) is practically impossible.

what is good for us, in a self-interested kind of way. The best way to persuade someone is to appeal to their self-interest, creating the illusion that there is something on it — Alejandro

I'll agree that maybe these are all illusions, either built by others or by ourselves.

I think that "what is good for us" is different from "that which helps us survive." This is what I mean:

You get to choose between shampoo, which is good for you, and me not shooting you in the head. Which do you prefer?

who would agree with something that is of no benefit to them, or that causes them pain? — Pop

Well, how about surgery? No one likes to be cut open, but it's for our own good.

I think that "or" should be an "and".

.

Self interest is key — Pop

Although I agree, I fear this can be misinterpreted as egotism or narcissism. What do you mean by "self-interest?"

But dying is always on the menu, isn't it? Have to spend that time in between somehow.

being allowed to live — Sir2u

Why do you say this?

Where do you live? I live in Caracas and I'm of the lucky few that can say "live comfortably." Communism is a kick in the balls to your whole life. People just die and all your options fade away progressively.

When you say "being allowed to live" I can only agree with you if you live in a really shitty situation, where you are controlled to an important extent. Do you know about life in North Korea? Cuba? This is why I ask; not to mean ill.

Yes it can because self-referencing is OK in our mental framework.

Because it's binding, a decision that will help one live on; either physically or through a legacy.

Well, you shared in this here forum, and I've read it and responded. Now your story lives on with a stranger somewhere far away.

I wish you the best of outcomes; truly, the righteous path is the one paved with honest discussion.

Not having to fight to stay alive. — Sir2u

What would you have instead? Uploading your conscience to a computer?

That's valid. Actually, we don't have to like it. We don't have to anything, really, other than stuffing food into our and our loved ones' face and hope for the best.

I think that it's OK to fear death. It's the one thing it's impossible to recover from. A true point of no return (for our conscience, at least).

Now, regarding "should," maybe that's highly dependant on culture and social environment. People do kill themselves regularly, out of a variety of reasons, so either they weren't afraid or they somehow overcame fear.

Perhaps "should fear" is too debatable to settle on anything. May I suggest "respect"?

I'm actually driven by curiosity, rather than criticism.

My parents taught me the Gotcha Game when I was a teen. Any idea I brought home from school they would always jump to the opposite side of the case. — Hippyhead

That must've been fun! I'm glad you had that experience and chose to share it with the world.

Cheat, too.

We can think about Buddhism regarding so, as it proposes that our minds and bodies are just vehicles for these ideas to manifest themselves. Thinking this way eases up the load.

The subject you speak is very dear to me, regarding the acts commitment towards certain ideas or ideals.

But certainly, form is all you. It's about telling the story in your style, with your own words, as it's Borges' or Picasso's. That's where art plays a big part.

Please give it a read. It's disturbing but eye-opening.

An easy answer would be to try to fool death and the absurd.

Maybe through beauty or scientific inquiry; perhaps by trying to push the ideas we deem correct over those we are against. I think it all comes down to how we spend the time trial we defined as "being alive."

To me, writing and sharing ideas seems like a great, fun, and honorable way to do so.

You may have a very interesting and logical theory, but if it is not grounded in reality, it is pointless. — Philosophim

Elaborate, please.

Being able to have a dialog of considerable length with someone who holds an opposing view. Not everyone can do it. — Outlander

Greatly underestimated skill.

Clear, concise, cant-free anti-sophistry — 180 Proof

Might we adopt this as a new definition of philosophy!? Quite good.

We just have to get better at communicating and be patient, you know? At least that's what I've learned from others.

Jorge Luis Borges, one of my favorite authors, one of the most important in the Spanish language and an intellectual but elegant writer, said that if you don't like Shakespeare, don't read it. Maybe it's not meant for you to like Shakespeare at that moment.

The ultimate engagement is honesty, and we need that more than ever. Let me tell you why I enjoy writing back at you: It's because we share something. I share your passion for wanting to write and share ideas. That you want to write a book says a lot about you. And that engagement factor worked its magic by itself.

While there are plenty of tricks and biases due to the numbers and rates of interactions we see on social media, I've found that the most effective way to engage today is to be honest and well-intentioned.

That being said, we still need to write A LOT! Writing is not a science, it's a skill. It's one of those that if you just write a lot, you'll get good eventually and people will just start reacting more to whatever you write. I assure you.

Keep hacking at the tree, it will fall.

(and what @jamalrob says is absolutely right)

Uphold the integrity of intellectual standards above and beyond the regress (manipulation) of emotional states. — JerseyFlight

Apply scientific rigor to the discussion, then.

@Alexis Schaffer

"No people are not dinosaurs"

No people = There doesn't exist an 'x' that meets the criteria.

There doesn't exists a person which is not a dinosaur.

This equals to:

Everyone is a dinosaur.

And this is false, which means:

There is at least one person who is not a dinosaur.

A) Some dinosaurs are people
B) All people are dinosaurs
C) Some people are not dinosaurs
D) No dinosaurs are not people

Neither A or D suffice because you never said that a dinosaur can be people / a person.
B is false, as there is someone who's not a dinosaur.
C is true, as it is compatible with our statement.

In the present context the fault lies with the person who is trying — JerseyFlight

Does fault imply decision or consciousness, then?

Are "emotional decisions" intentional?

Real: that to which an object can be thought to belong necessarily. — Mww

I like this definition, but mind Russell's Paradox: A set cannot contain itself. Maybe "thought to pertain to" instead of "belong"?

something so ill-defined as “as you wish”. — Mww

Agreed, but it's a darn elegant way to say it.

@Sir2u

Why? What's the alternative?

What’s going on in that black box, stepping up through sets, numbers, spaces, differentiable manifolds, Lie groups, quantum fields, particles, chemicals, cells, organisms, etc. — Pfhorrest

You've said it yourself. Math is our ever-evolving language for modeling anything.

If you really want to get down to detail, I suggest focusing on particular areas.

For example, language is an interesting one.

• A language 'L' is defined as a set of symbols (elements) and their possible combinations.
• A grammar 'G' is a subset of a language's combinations.

And you build from there.

Chomsky worked hard on this theory, but I'm no expert. What I can attest to is art and creation , but I'm not ready at this moment to lay out a fitting mathematical approach.

I wish you the best of fates!

You have hit the nail in the head. This is a serious problem.

Have you read "The Black Swan"? It's a notorious no-BS book regarding this exact subject.

Ah! Well, if we're talking about control and consciousness then I'd agree that not all instances have had someone steering the wheel. Makes me think about Hitler and Gandhi, though.

(By no means I'm saying that only emotions have been in control of the wheel, I'm just commenting that they have had their chance)

However, a hypnotist is trained to perceive the world as 90% irrational and 10% rational. What do you think of this?

Does a drunk driver steer himself at 100 mph into a tree? — TheMadFool

Yes?

Could you elaborate?

This is an important subject in rhetoric and it's nice to read your take on it. However, I strongly believe that who's at fault is not the emotional one! It's whoever lets itself take aim at emotions, rather than rationale.

Claiming "you're just saying that because you're angry" is a cheap way to escape an argument, and boy, have I learned that with my partner.

The path that leads to lasting and healthier discussions is understanding that your listener is feeling something. Feelings should be understood and only then addressed, instead of using them as bear traps around which to dance in circles.

However, framing it against a different backdrop will help in bringing out which of the two is the one who wears the pants in this relationship. Which would you prefer? Reason OR Emotion?

Do I love some reasonable arguments! But it's funny, emotions many times provide so much more information about the world. Pride, jealousy, disgust; these have steered humanity since its beginning. The problem is that, to obtain information from emotions, we need to open different channels, those more fit to noise and sights rather than words and meanings.

"catastrophically false" made me chuckle!

If everything is questionable, just don’t question everything. Only question stuff for which an answer is both possible and rational. — Mww

This is a great framework for efficiency, but maybe not the best for discerning knowledge.

I was about to ask about your definition of real, but doing so would be missing the whole point. Still, I'd be happy to read it.

Do with it as you wish.

An easily underestimated statement.

maybe, but we know to some extent what we're talking about.

The problem of what is and what is not.

It's the problem of agreeing on something, of deciding, even if it doesn't make sense whether it can be agreed or decided upon.

It's the ultimate question, for which any answer or viewpoint is valid while none of them are.

It's the fish we can barely spot in the pond; whom no matter what our harpoon will never even graze.

Existential dread sure is inconvenient in a sense.

On the other hand, Sisyphus pushes the stone and Atlas carries the world. Purpose appears to be a force equal to our permanent tendency towards sorrow.

And I believe that having the opportunity to choose whether we die fighting or just die is beautiful.

What do you think?