I thought you were going? — James Dean Conroy
You don't even understand what an axiom is or how to conduct rational discourse. — James Dean Conroy
This framework reduces all philosophical, religious, and ethical inquiry to a single question: Does it enhance life’s drive to perpetuate and thrive? If the answer is yes, it will continue. If no, it will fade. This is not merely a statement of preference; it is a descriptive reality. — James Dean Conroy
Because life doesn’t just produce harmony, it produces contradiction, resistance, and adaptation — James Dean Conroy
So yes, life births its own contradictions. But the ones that endure are those that re-align with life. It's part of the dialectic it utilises - both winners and losers - it hedges its bets - always (think grasshoppers turning into locusts and eating each other - or parasitism) - everything is explored. — James Dean Conroy
Conversation with Gemini - a real logical analysis - the correct way to analyse a framework - real discourse — James Dean Conroy
I haven't read the full conversation. I only wanted to point out that it's better to keep AI out of it. If we agree on that, great. — Baden
I've had many different AIs play devils advocate hundreds of times with it - hence it's logical robustness. — James Dean Conroy
I've spent years pressure-testing this framework in rigorous adversarial environments, one casual Gemini chat doesn't even register.If you appreciate Devil's advocate responses, Gemini 2.5's second commentary (edited addition) based on the initial axiom being true should be helpful to you, or not? — Baden
Maybe this question has been asked. — Baden
Lets play a logic game - I'm going to build a system - piece by piece using axioms that flow from one to the next - we won't progress until we both agree. Ready?? — James Dean Conroy
Better off just to debate it with members here — Baden
Even if we generously grant the initial axiom "Life is Good" and set aside the naturalistic fallacy for a moment, the argument's structure, reasoning, and the way it applies this axiom are still riddled with significant flaws — Baden
But this isn't the case, and this is why:
1. No "Is-Ought" Violation:
The axiom "Life = Good" is not a moral 'ought' derived from an 'is.' It is an ontological recognition - that without life, the entire concept of 'ought,' 'value,' or 'good' collapses. There is no observer, no experiencer, no valuer without life. Thus, life is not recommended as good; it is the ground of goodness itself.
In short: value cannot precede the valuer. Life is the valuer.
This is a structural, existential reality, not a moral prescription.
2. Necessary is not equal to Arbitrary:
The oxygen analogy is misapplied. Oxygen is necessary for human life but is not universally fundamental to the possibility of valuation. Life, by contrast, is the universal enabler of valuation across all possible systems.
Oxygen is to a species; life is to the very existence of experience itself.
Thus, life is not just necessary; it is categorically foundational to the phenomenon of 'good' and 'bad' arising at all. — James Dean Conroy
Even if we generously grant the initial axiom "Life is Good" and set aside the naturalistic fallacy for a moment, the argument's structure, reasoning, and the way it applies this axiom are still riddled with significant flaws
— Baden
If we generously grant... LOL
Why don't you actually try to disprove it - on its own - then, when you're ready to admit that it's unassailable (without the pithy comments edited into your old posts) - we can then start to discuss axiom 2 - and if you can you disprove that - as part of the logical system I've constructed - using rational, logical discourse - I'll admit I'm wrong and should have listened to the very first keyboard warrior non argument, if not and you have to concede i'm right, then we'll be ready for axiom 3, etc etc.
Or, are you incapable of real discourse?
Axiom 1: Ready? Or are you scared? — James Dean Conroy
You are quoting the AI generated text above, not my words. (I thought we established that.)
My personal opinion, which I hinted at before, is that I am sympathetic to at least some of your general direction. You can consider my previous question as an attempt to tease out your reasoning concerning why you chose to state your first axiom in the form you chose to state it. I am aware of what it means. But, in any case, I was trying to initiate a discussion in that post rather than attack your argument. At this point though, it looks like we are not in a productive dialogue, so suffice to say I share a certain sentiment (if not the details) with you concerning how ethics might be oriented, and so I'll keep an eye on the discussion and see where it leads. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.