I agree. Life is good. And time goes by so fast when you are alive!

Right? The fact that time moves at all, that it flows, only makes sense inside the living frame. No perception, no passage. It's wild when you really sit with it.

Synthesis starts exactly there: Life is what makes value, time, meaning, even thought possible. And once you see that clearly, everything else starts to click into place.

Appreciate the resonance, BC

Although I am reminded I'm getting older haha

I often face accusations of either being in some way "Randian" ( i.e. Morally Objectivist ), or another popular one is that it's a "Naturalistic Fallacy" ( i.e. Hume's Guillotine )

Neither are true and miss the point...

My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE.

No "Is-Ought" - just is.

Not morally prescriptive in any way.

Good = positive value.

Bad = negative value.

No one has ever defined these any differently - they just get caught up in what their perception of positive value is.

Plants judge value. They judge sunlight to have positive value ( i.e. it's Good )

Refer to the trifecta - thats a great ocean floor to start from with any judgement - and it's undeniable.

This isn't my opinion - it's a fact.

This isn't my opinion - it's a fact. — James Dean Conroy

This will go swimmingly.

Just a quick clarification:

When I said “this isn’t my opinion - it’s a fact,” I was referring specifically to the formal structure of the Synthesis framework, which defines value in purely descriptive, non-moral, axiomatic terms.

Of course, interpretations and implications are open for discussion - and I actively welcome critique here, as I have in other threads.

That said, frameworks like this (when properly engaged with) should to be engaged from the top down. You begin with the core axioms and follow the logic - that's not just how Synthesis works, it's how all formal systems work.

Happy to discuss any part of it, but ideally in a way that aims at understanding rather than derision.

Thanks again to all those engaging in good faith debate.

Do you have a particular point you wish to debate Amadeus? I'm happy to discuss

I'm hoping any contribution you make here will be helpful, we didn't see that the last time.

Explanation: A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection. — James Dean Conroy

This is exactly my way of thinking too, except that I allow emotional functions within this structure. I call this structure "love". But not in the romantic sense. I consider love a paradigma. In this paradigma there are elements such as attraction, fascination, empathy, the urge to help, the joy of being helpful, biological magnetism, sexual gravitation etc. This whole paradigma has been holding life on Earth together for billions of years. Random evolutionary mutation sometimes adds opposite systems, like nazi, fascist and other terror systems, but these usually don't last longer than a couple of decades; they destroy themselves because they contain no gravity, no magnetism; they are self-destructive as nobody can trust anybody within such a system; they don't include real love-based cooperation. They fall apart after a relatively short period of time. The others, the attractive ones, are the majority and their genes will survive billions of years along the evolutionary process.

Yes, well said Quk.

I'd say the exact same but with one word added: Love Life

Peace.

Noticed a few earlier comments of yours have vanished - just for the record, I flagged them due to tone and shared it with Jamal before they vanished.

Glad to keep things constructive if others are willing

I'd say the exact same but with one word added: Love Life — James Dean Conroy

OK. Maybe Love and Life are even synonyms. The two words sound similar, at least in Germanic languages, hehe. Anyway, a new living creature can only come into existence when two other creatures pair. Pairing is the essential basis for making love and life, I think. Life is a system of groups. A pair is the smallest group. The biggest group consists of about 8 billion homo sapiens. But the animal homo sapiens also lives with other animals, and most animals love each other. Violence is very rare. Wilde life documentaries show a lot of violence, but that makes less than 0.1 % of the entire film footage which may be thousands of hours long; in the final cut the film is just an hour long. They cut off most peaceful scenes because they consider them boring.

Would you like me to report a few of your non-constructive comments too?

Implication?: the creator of life is good.

Implication?: the Creator of all life is supremely good.

What do you make of a sacrificial act that is done for the sake of another? Good or bad?

@James Dean Conroy

Your theory is very good and at a service glance, would appear sound. But I find that there are several nuances and contexts to seriously consider, that could potentially poke holes into it. Furthermore, I'd like to way in with portions of my own framework, some of which do align, but also drastically counters yours.

Let's Start.

Vita Sentit
And sentiment number 1
Life is, therfor value exists.

You posit that life only started upon awareness. Before nothingness dominated. Next you say that life creates value, but also make statements regarding non life not enacting before in any way, like rocks, the universe exc.

There are several nuances in my research, findings, phylosopies and designs that poke some holes in these statements, or atleast, expand them in honost rigour.

1. Awareness did give rise to humans being the first known beings to conceptualize reality and existence true. But thanks those same humans, we do now know for a absolute fact, that even without any awareness, or any beings conceptually aware or realizing reality or existence in place or time anywhere, it still existed, was a living moving, evolving, changing and growing and living system regardless of that lack of awareness or placement. We know this through science. We know things happened in the universe, took place, and even that living entities existed all over earth, long before humanity cognitive sentient awareness. Therefor "life" existed very very long before the rise of any conceptual awareness of any kind, unlike your theory states.

2. Sinse your definition of Life, being lisely defined as "Awareness Systems" as I understand it, has been soft debunked in point one, I now direct you to my frameworks definition.

This definition is formed, by defining life at a core foundational level striping away attached mechanisms, processes and biologies, and focuses on the "what", as is the question after all, in "What is life?", not "how, why, which".

Here's the core definition of what life essentially is an fundamental level when logicly breaking it down to base function:

1. Life is anything or being that has a continuous permanent active state, in time in realities existence, perpetuating in time in existence till the active state stops in function.

2. Being Alive, means that one is also simultaneously permanently actively cocgnively concious, perceptive and conceptually aware of the permanent active state in time in realties existence, and ends once that state can no longer be perceived due to loss of cognitive permanence.

In essence as example

Animals, plants, bactetia and viruses have life.

But only humas are alive as far as we know due to the only ones having met condition 2, while the former only condition 1.

Similarly, alot of other things also meet condition one leading to the next point

3. Your Claim about dead things not assigning Vallue. Well due to my framework the following things now also fall into the catagory of life.

Objects, Digital entities, machines, Metaphysical entities, natural formations, minerals, planets, stars, extestensial entities.

This means indeed rocks,universes, AI systems, guns, entropy, and many more have life, as they are permemently active in time in Reality.

And they, all of them, experience and assign vallues greatly in their existence.

In conclusion summary on this section

Your premise on life's origin is wrong according me and my findings, as well as that of science clearly stated. But you are correct the that morals, rights, ethics and laws are not inherit to life, as life is neutral base starting point, and indeed does assign own vallues from there hence forth, but not necessarily just for "good", but for negative adverse effects aswell, like inheriting those very systemic binds upon oneself by own Vallue choice.

In your theory Vallue can be seen as an analogy to an extension sentient evolution, but it to sellects random still just like it did Pre sentience. And it's agnostic, catering neither for survival nor death, it simply drives one forward , and promotes striving, rewarding random adaptations or vallues both good and bad depending on situation, location and pressure.

Seems from your style that you are not looking for critique but for converts.

Yes, you're on it, thanks again Quk.

I was trying to help a nihilist who was having an existential crisis on a FB forum. What I told him is probably relevant here and in perfect agreement (names redacted):
-------
[REDACTED]
There's is absolutely NO such thing as "choice".
The whole affairs of life has already been predetermined but life itself began.
So your concept of signal and noise is far-fetched.
1d
Reply
Share
James Conroy
[REDACTED] You're welcome to believe that if you want, but ask yourself this: Is this mindset making me happy? And, does this way of thinking help anything?
To me, the answer is clear. Ask the garden warden I showed you (for context, a Synthesis dedicated AI that I've developed ). She'll help with this - and you'll feel better about yourself and about life itself.
Think of the awe you feel when looking at something beautiful, a lush deep forest, a scenic mountain range - or even the sight of children happily playing together. I have two daughters and was a single parent for 11 years - ALL my best memories are of the time we spent together - listening to them sing together while taking our dog for a walk in late summer, the holidays we had together, the coherence and cooperation all built on love.
If that's not meaning I don't know what is.
Choose life and love, my friend. It does love you, even if you choose not to love it back.
-------

I'm sure you'd agree.

Respect.

Hi NotAristotle ( like the name, btw :smile: )

Implication?: the creator of life is good.

Implication?: the Creator of all life is supremely good.

What do you make of a sacrificial act that is done for the sake of another? Good or bad? — NotAristotle

Aww, I'm humbled by your inclusion of my name like that (Although I really, really, don't deserve it) and the interest in my opinion about sacrifice.

I'm not anti-religion - I'm pro-religion (just so you know where I'm coming form)

But, I do think there are Dogmatic aspects which aren't helpful - and something that time and life itself as a process will ultimately resolve (simply by selecting it out). Judaism, it's reliance on recursive logic and the iterative process seen in Talmudic tradition are a clear example of this happening in real time.

I do think animal sacrifice is anachronistic Dogma, one of the clearest examples of it. To add to my previous point, apart from recent antics regarding the red heifers within Zionism, Judaism no longer performs these rituals.

Personal sacrifice for others - on the contrary - is essential and easy to demonstrate. I sacrificed lots personally for my daughters and their well being (I've been a single parent for 11 years) - I'm not complaining, I wouldn't have it any other way. Without that, their chance of truly flourishing in the world would be severely reduced, potentially creating a toxic spiral of decline.

Peace.

Thanks for the thoughtful critique, and I appreciate the intellectual rigour you're bringing to this.

I love debating real philosophers who engage in good faith.

A few clarifications that may help us focus our points of divergence:

Synthesis does not claim that life began with human awareness - only that value and meaning emerge through perception, which is a function of life. Yes, the universe existed prior to conscious observers. But without perception, there’s no frame of value. Rocks don’t judge. Bacteria do - minimally. Humans, richly. That’s the crux.

Your expanded definition of life as "anything in a permanent active state" is an interesting metaphysical move, but it dilutes the specificity of life as a self-preserving, adaptive, and value-assessing process. That’s where Synthesis starts: not with existence, but with valuation.

You actually admit that "only humans are alive" in the strong sense of being consciously aware of reality. This concedes my point, because this is the frame in which meaning, time, morality, and systems of value emerge. That doesn’t make humans superior, it just makes us participants in meaning, not just mechanisms in motion.

Thus, the first axiom hasn't been "soft-debunked" - just misinterpreted.

The aim of Synthesis isn’t to reduce life to biology or exalt humanism, it’s to show that all meaning, value, and thought are structurally dependent on life. That’s not a moral claim. It’s an ontological one.

Appreciate the depth you’re bringing, I’m open and keen to ( the British, not American sense of 'keen' ) have more back-and-forth on this.

Shalom!

I don't know how constructive your comment is. You're entitled to perceive whatever you want, however erroneous and based on confirmation bias it might be.

To reiterate:
Synthesis is axiomatic: not a claim to be believed, but a structure to be tested.

I hope thats clear, that we all understand what axioms are, and how to interpret and interrogate them.

For anyone jumping in mid-thread:

Synthesis is an axiomatic philosophical system.
Its core axiom is: “Life is the necessary precondition of all value.”
This is not a belief or opinion. It is a structural observation:
If there is no life, there is no subject.
If there is no subject, there is no value.
Therefore, Life = the condition for value.

This is ontological, not moral. It does not claim what should be - it shows what must be true for anything to matter at all.

You can interrogate it by attempting to disprove the structure - not by disagreeing emotionally, but by showing how value exists without life. No one has done that yet.

The rest of the Synthesis framework emerges logically from this point.
The goal isn’t to win debates. The goal is to clarify reality - and build from there.

Just an additional thought: Are pain and happiness equally distributed in life? What do you think? Or does happiness dominate? Obviously, pain is not entirely absent. Pain is there as a contrast to give happiness a meaning. However, if pain and happiness were equally distributed, then life would be, in summary, neutral rather than good. I think happiness dominates. That's why evolution has been running for billions of years. If life were neutral in summary, evolution wouldn't have any motor. That's one thing I would tell that nihilist you mentioned. Regarding the nihilist's claim that there were no choice, I'd add another thing: If the universe were predetermined, it would develop a regular pattern. But there is no such thing. There's random noise everywhere. At the quantum level, in the microcosmos, particles jump to random positions. That's why TV-screens look noisy; that's why radios and tapes sound noisy. There are no patterns, just random noise. Thanks to this random noise, life can develop its variety. The future is not predetermined. The future is determined by some (temporary?) laws and by some random factors. There are countless choices and they are not set yet.

To reiterate:
Synthesis is axiomatic: not a claim to be believed, but a structure to be tested.

I hope thats clear, that we all understand what axioms are, and how to interpret and interrogate them. — James Dean Conroy

@Banno can you help me understand this appeal to axiomatic or foundational truth? This is an axiom held within a system developed by JDC. But is there any reason to accept it from a broader philosophical perspective?

You again tempt me in to threads I really should just avoid.

A good way to think of an axiom is as constitutive of a language game. So Euclid's Axioms set up the game of plane geometry, there are various axioms that set up propositional logic, and so on. Without these rules there is no game.

Traditionally, axioms are thought of as "self-evident truths", a notion that was always problematic. There's not comeback to someone who says that a truth is not self-evident to them.

This traditional approach might be what James has in mind. I'm not sure. He seems to treat the axiom "Life is the necessary precondition of all value" as if it were self-evident... at least, that seems to be what he means by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it.

There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. Values are what we want, and facts are how things are, and since nothing in how things are tells us how we want them to be, there is a logical gap to be crossed. But that's not so much about axioms.

Does that help?

You again tempt me in to threads I really should just avoid. — Banno

You always bring precision to the cause.

as if it were self-evident... at least, that seems to be what he means by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Ok, good. I guess that's where I sit.

There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. Values are what we want, and facts are how things are, and since nothing in how things are tells us how we want them to be, there is a logical gap to be crossed. — Banno

Well there you go.

Does that help? — Banno

Indeed. Thanks. I think this is similar to what I said at the start of an earlier thread on this.

Thanks Banno, but it seems your critique is more intuition than argument.

So firstly, you're right, Synthesis is a "language game" in the Wittgensteinian sense - but it is the one that contains all others, because without life, there are no games to play.

by it being a "structural observation" - that it is somehow inconceivable that it were false. I'm not seeing it. — Banno

That's a personal response, not a refutation. An axiom is structural, not persuasive. Saying "I’m not seeing it" isn’t a counterpoint unless you can show that the structure fails to hold or leads to contradiction. If we're playing the game lets do it properly.

There's a pretty clear violation of is/ought here, it seems to me. — Banno

Respectfully, this is a restatement of the classical Humean split, not a critique of Synthesis. The Synthesis axiom does not smuggle in values from facts. It shows that all values presuppose life, not because life "is" but because without life, there is no valuer, no perspective, no telos. "Ought" doesn't arise from an "is" - it arises from a living system interpreting its world.

This is a descriptive structural claim, not a moral or normative one. There is no "ought" in the axiom, only the observation that value only arises within living systems.

I have repeatedly stated this, but we seem to just fall back on intuition instead of provides an argument.

When you say "Values are what we want," you’re already within the life-frame. You’ve assumed a wanter. That is the point. Life = the structural precondition for valuation. Not a leap. A lens.

If you want to contest that, you need to show a coherent counterexample: a system of value or judgment arising in the absence of life. That's how these games work.

If that’s inconceivable, then you’ve just proven the axiom by default.

threads I really should just avoid. — Banno

Why is this a thread you should avoid?


Tom Storm, with respect - it seems you're just agreeing because the framing confirms your prior stance. There’s no fresh argument here, just a "yes, that’s how I see it too." That’s not engagement; that’s confirmation bias. A very clear example of it.

This is a structural claim, and so (as Banno just pointed out) the test is structural: is it coherent? Is it falsifiable? Can a counterexample be conceived? So far, nothing’s been offered on that front. The best we've had is

I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Which frankly, isn't an argument.

Why is this a thread you should avoid? — James Dean Conroy

Simply becasue of the time that would taken in responding to your misunderstandings.

Maybe later.

Simply becasue of the time that would taken in responding to your misunderstandings. — Banno

Are you familiar with the works of John Hodge, John McMurty and Robert Brem? If not, look them up.

This isn't an idea I have in isolation, nor are they misunderstandings.

These kinds of statements act more as passive-aggressive deflections, a rhetorical sleight to avoid engaging with the argument on its own terms. Dismissing critique as a "misunderstanding" without substantiation is not philosophy; it’s gatekeeping.

If you can't address the idea, don't pretend your refusal is an intellectual high ground.

Thanks, :lol:

Thanks, ↪Tom Storm :lol: — Banno

What’s so funny?

That people agree based on confirmation bias?

You still haven’t provided a coherent argument. You've dismissed without reason, relied on rhetorical posturing, and now resort to emojis instead of engagement. That’s not philosophy - it’s gatekeeping masquerading as insight.

If the idea is wrong, show why. Otherwise, the laughter just looks like a mask for avoidance.

Tom Storm, with respect - it seems you're just agreeing because the framing confirms your prior stance. There’s no fresh argument here, just a "yes, that’s how I see it too." That’s not engagement; that’s confirmation bias. A very clear example of it. — James Dean Conroy

You're partly right. I was wondering if my take was right or not, so I asked for his view. It does correspond to some of my thoughts, so there's that. I’m not sure that qualifies as confirmation bias—if it does, then all agreement would count as such, which seems unlikely.

I agree - agreement alone isn't necessarily confirmation bias. But in context, what I noticed was this: you weren’t testing the argument, you were reinforcing it by deferring to another member’s view. That can slide into bias when it replaces independent evaluation.

That’s the broader pattern I’m trying to highlight here: a kind of gravitational pull around certain high-status voices that shapes what's “allowed” to count as credible thought. And when that happens, even well-meaning agreement can end up reinforcing the echo chamber.

To be clear - I’m not accusing you of bad faith. But I do think it’s worth being self-aware about how ideas are filtered and who gets to set the tone.

And on that note, Banno’s reply didn’t really engage with the argument, it was just a restatement of personal opinion, dressed in authority.

I read your comment which has been deleted (I don't understand why; it sounded on-topic to me). Thank you, James. I'll think about the spiritual aspects you're introducing on the basis of that axiom. I can't say I'm an expert in spiritual things. It's a difficult field for me. My first question would be: What is spirituality? Then: What's the link between spirituality and the afore-mentioned axiom that reads "life is good"?