What are you still wondering? — Daemon

You have replied to me that your topic was a kind of answer to @TheMadFool about undestanding. This didn't change at all my wondering of how has the subject of "undestanding" in the title been replaced by the subject of "translation" in the description! But after this, I'll stop wondering! So, don't worry! :smile:

I would define it [reality] as "That which is right now, irregardless of belief, attitude or consideration." — Cidat

(BTW, You might want to correct "irregardless" to "regardless".)

First of all, I will define "reality" as it is commonly used, so that I can comment on your description: "The state of things as they actually exist". I will only have to add "for us", i.e. we must refer to our own reality of the world and not to some absolute, objective reality, which cannot be known, or to the physical universe, something which a lot of people confuse or even identify it with.
This will do for now and for what I have to describe here as my response to the description of the topic.

1) Re "That which is right now": This is normally called the present. I don't know how you identify it with "reality". We can say only that it belongs to reality.
2) Re "regardless of belief": Beliefs are part of one's reality, so they cannot be removed from the "equation". (Note: Beliefs must be differentiated from "imagined or imaginary things".)
3) Re "regardless of attitude": Attitude has to do with a way of feeling or thinking and the behavior resulted by it. So it doesn't have to do with reality.
4) Re "regardless of consideration": Like beliefs, considerations are part of one's reality, so they cannot be removed from the "equation" either.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

The term "reality" is one of the hottest and most misunderstood ones in philosophy (and of course in the entire human race!). Each dictionary has its own definition, but this can be settled. The real problem is that reality is usually confused with the "physical universe", the "world", as we commonly say. So people talk about "absolute" and "objective" reality; a reality that is "outside us". And what is strange is that they can't go a step forward and ask themselves "If there were absolute, objective reality, who will be there to tell?" Isn't that very interesting? Because at least someone should be able to perceive and describe such a reality. But the "physical universe" is outside us. We exist or not, the physical universe is always there. If no human being were alive, what would be the meaning of a reality? So, reality can only be subjective. It is created and sustained in our minds as we perceive what is outside us (physical universe) and inside us (thoughts, beliefs, ideas, imagined things, memories, etc.)

Now, reality can be shared, i.e., two or more people can have the same or a similar reality about a subject. This is an agreement of views and the result is what we call "common reality". That is as far as an "objective" reality can be.

So, I can define "reality" in simple terms as "The total of things that exist for us and which we accept as facts". It is how we perceive the world. And it is how we think about the world and how we understand the world. And it is what we believe about everything. We may believe in God (or a "god"), we may believe that God doesn't exist or we may believe that there is a possibility that God exists. All that belong to our reality.

In short, reality has a meaning only for the individual. The only reality outside that is another individual's reality!

ecause I was responding to something TheMadFool said, which I quoted at the very start of this thread: — Daemon

I read this of course. But it's still about undestanding ... and my wondering is still unanswered! :grin:

discussing computer translation is an excellent way to address the question of understanding. — Daemon

Well, in that case, even if you had used a more specific title, like "Computers and understanding" or something like that, it would be still inappropriate because computers do not possess any understaning!

Well, maybe it's not so important, generally and for most people. But it just happens that undestanding and communication are among my favorite subjects. I have studied them extensivley and I was even teaching about them (theory and practice) in the past ...

I have been a professional translator for 20 years. My job is all about understanding. — Daemon

I have been a professional translator (freelance) for the same amount of years!
However, I never thought of my job as something that is all about understanding. Undestanding is of course essential, but it refers only part of the whole process. The most important things in a translation are 1) be proficient in the language you translate in (target language) and 2) be able to relay information as accurately as possible without being literal. The level of accuracy depends of course on the subcect: the more technical is a subject the more accurate one has to be. On the other hand, if the subject is literary, one can relax on accuracy and rely more on expresssion. But still, the meaning of the source text has always to be relayed.

All this is an art and and this is how I see a translation. Writing is an art. So is translation. Only that here the ideas come from someone else than youself.

The CAT tool suggests translations based on what I have already translated. — Daemon

Yes, CAT tools are very good, but mainly for technical subjects. I used them extensively in translation manuals (75% of my total workload!) But on general text, I use Google translation, which I call "pre-translation". Although in the past Google translations were quite inferior --in Greek, which is my native language, it was actually deplorable, because of the complexity of the Greek grammar-- but these days they are really excellent, even in Greek! Most probably because of their hugely increased database of both words/terms, phrases and evem full sentences. So, after that, your task is only to correct minor mistakes and trim the text in general. It's there that your proficiency in your native language comes in as the most important element. Undestanding becomes of secondary importance. It's a fact.

That's enough about translation! :smile:

***

Now, I don't know how you have reduced such an interesting topic as "The important question of what understanding is" into a translation subject! I have a lot to say about "understanding", what it is, how it works, etc. but it seems that it is not what it matters anymore! :smile:

If it were a honest response I would just say "OK" (two letters). But it wasn't.
Besides, according to your spirit of communication, since you didn't like "the way I responded" you should ignore my reply and do something else with your time! (I didn't expect a reply, anyway.) :smile:
Which, BTW shows that you do have time to spare for responding! (Hence your dishonest response! :smile:)

I don't always have the time to respond to every post — Sam26

Just "Thank you for your response" suffices. It only takes a couple of seconds of your time, which I believe are well spent, because you show that you are not ignoring the people who respond to you your topic. Otherwise, why one should respond to the topics at all? Responding to a topic is the minimum that can happen in a discussion that has started by launching a topic.

If you don't have the time to cope with a discussion even on a minimul level (e.g. with a response like I mentioned at above), do not "Start a new Discussion" (as TFP prompts you to).

Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/597942, 8 days ago)

Basic courtesy dictates that you respond to someone you has replied to your topic and in fact in length ...
(Re:¨https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598900, 6 days ago)

I'll give it my best shot. It might take some time though. — TheMadFool

Good. No worries. We wlll be all still here! :smile:

Aye! — TheMadFool

Sorry! I din't mean to offend you! Written messages sometimes do not show the writer's intention!
What I wrote in the second para was a realization I had after we had all this discussion! Maybe if you had at least read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence, you wouldn't talk about AI in the way you did.
I even thought that you should better delete this topic (although I don't think this is possible). For you, not for anything else. It doesn't do credit to you. And, believe me, there are only a few persons in here that I have "met" and to whom I can say this! So, as you can see now, my intention was the opposite of what it seemed! :smile:

:chin: I have an idea: Since topic deletion is most probably impossible, maybe you can make some modications or additions, that will justify your ideas based on scientifically/technically correct data. I can help in that, if you like.

have you considered 'Revelations' - these being, in a sense, divine transmissions via 'prophets' (recievers) — TheMadFool

Please, don't geive me homework to do! :grin: I don't have that much spare time! (But I will note down these refs for the future.)

do a thorough analysis of the human brain (its substance, construction, architecture, and so on) and try to figure out the nature of the signal it's meant to pick up/receive — TheMadFool

Well, there's much literature about the subject in the Web to satisfy even the most demaning minds! I have read and watch already enough --I don't ident to become an expett!-- through time to know what the brain is mainly composed of and how it functions. Of course, among the stuff I read there were indications regarding the location in the brain of the hyman memory, human consciousness, and all that. This is not only ridiculous and irresponsible from the part of the scientists or, more correctly, those who try ro popularize science.
The bare fact and truth is: a system that is composed of neurons and based on a stimulous-response mechanism cannot be responsible for such higher human faculties as thought, reasoning, consciousness etc. This the first and basic fact Another one is that they work with the brain in laboratories for too many years, to have most probably found almost whatever is there to find. Yet, they continue to talk about "The future will reveal this and that", "This and that is still a mystery" etc. They cannot simply accept the fact thet there is a part of the human being that is non-physical and which Science, as it stands at present and with the tools it can use, is not able to explore.

I mean, if I see a radio antenna and study it, can't I somehow come to know it's for radio — TheMadFool

Exactly! Well put! :up:

What is AI then? Please edify me of it. Keep it simple- I'm computer-illiterate. Much obliged. — TheMadFool

Dear @TheMadFool, you are asking me to teach you in here a subject that takes months to learn!
Besides, I have already told you quite a few things that put AI in the right perspective. Yet, you have not taken them seriously, at least as it seems from here.

BTW, and this should actually be my first response to the topic: You shouldn't have launched a topic, start taking in details and develop "advanced" ideas about a technical subject that you don't know well enough.

OK, we both believe that each is not reading or undestanding of what the other says. So, here's something more general and simple: It is very evident that you don't know what AI is. So, what's the purpose of talking and talking and talking about it?

Yes, I mean AI that mimics human intelligence is true AI. — TheMadFool

I thought I have already cleared that there;s no such thing as "true AI". Do you actually read my comments? I'm sorry to ask that, but your above statement indicates that you don't.
Anyway, I will ignore it ...

a lot of computers these day are labelled as AI — TheMadFool

No computer is labelled "AI". I explained what AI is. But you don't read what I write ... This is a misinformation and confusion spread in the Internet. Second time caught not reading what I'm writing!
Anyway, I am an AI programmer. So, AI is quite real to me as well that the computer I work with is not an "AI computer"! It's just ridiculous!

What do you mean there's no paradox? — TheMadFool

I said "it looks like all this is based on false premise(s)". A puzzling question that is based on a fallacy or contains false premises or assumptions cannot be called a "paradox". A paradox is a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true.
I'll give you a classic example. Most people call and consider "Achilles and the tortoise" a "paradox". However, it is very easily rejected as a real problem because it is based on the false assumption (fallacy) the time and space are discontinuous, finite and thus divisible. So there's no paradox here either. See what I mean?

If AI then necessarily it should possess human-level autonomy. — TheMadFool

Somethis is missing here. I assume tou mean "If AI is true, then ..."
I have already explained this. For the third time: You don't read what I write! :sad:

No offense, it's just not a straight question; it asks for a straight answer. — Antony Nickles

None taken. I wonder why you don't find the question "Does thinking take place in the human brain?" straight ... There are 3 words/phrases that could make it ambiguous: thinking, "takes place" or "human brain"? I guess it's "takes place" (occur, happen). Well the meaning of the question is not different than "digestion takes place in the small intestine". The difference lies in the process, since thought (thinking) is something much more complicated than digestion.
And yes, "it asks for a straight answer": Yes or No. But this doesn't mean that the "how" (explanation, proof, etc.) is simple. In fact, it's quite complicated and proof might be missing, but at least it must make sense logically, i.e. include sound arguments and statements that appeal to logic.

...it includes hidden assumptions and then limits the possible answers to only “yes” or “no” forcing an answer within the limits of a specific conclusion. — Antony Nickles

1) Re "it includes hidden assumptions": What are the "hidden assumptions"? Since you mentioned this and esp. w/o offering an explanation, isn't this statement an assumtion iself? :smile:
2) Re "limits the possible answers to only 'yes' or 'no'”: Right, I already mentioned this above.
3) Re "forcing an answer within the limits of a specific conclusion": Not necessarily. As I also explained above, the answer can be quite complicated, etc.

The question thus would be: "Does the process of considering and reasoning about something take place in the human brain?" — Antony Nickles

This is fine, only that thinking is much more than a process of considering and reasoning. A thought can be an ideas, an opinion, a decision, a simple or complex computation, a remembrance, ... Yet, your version would do the job! :smile: In fact, you made me kind of regretting using the "loaded" term "thought". I should better use the more specific and much less "loaded" term, "reasoning"! Indeed, this might make people actually wonder! :simle:

Unfortunately, this assumes what a "process" is — Antony Nickles

Well, I can confirm here that you make the whole issue too complicated. If we start questioning such common terms as process, idea, logic, and so on, we could never complete a discussion! :roll:

A given is that "take place" limits the answer to a location, and specifically: in or out of the brain. — Antony Nickles

The question and subhect of the topic is "Does thinking take place in the human brain?". "In" means inside, not outside! :smile: Oh, come on now, this is too simple!
OK, I can undestand why this is happening. Making things complicated creates confusion about simple and too evident things.

No offense (my turn now! :smile:), and I am really sorry about this, but the discussion has been reduced into clearing very simple and evident points. Let's put an end to it. OK?

I was pleased to "talk" with you! :smile:

Mind-body dualism? — Cidat

I don't use this expression. I normally specify "Descartes' dualism", because "mind-body dualism" is attributed to various philosophers since ancient Greece and I don't know what did this term mean to each of them.

But yeah thinking certainly has a physical presence/existence. — Cidat

Well, I find this a little ambiguous ... What kind of presence/existence. For one thing, thought is not part of the physical universe and thus it has no mass or location. But it can produce energy and mass in the body. This is what we talked about previously. That is it can have a physical effect. It can produce emotional energy and emotion can produce mass (e.g. fear can produce adrenaline).
So, the nature of thought/thinking is a subject that constitutes an illusion for most people.

Every thought has a physiological reaction in the brain, and mental things such as mental stress and mental suffering can affect the body, leading me to believe thoughts happen in the brain — Cidat

I certainly agree with this!
Welcome to the club! I feel better "hearing" such things, not so much because they are congruent with my views, but mainly because I am totally disappointed to see that most people in here, i.e. philosophical "thinkers", not only believe that thinking is produced and takes place in the brain, but even that they are just bodies. I find this quite sad ...

It's a trick question, or loaded. ... — Antony Nickles

All that is unnecessarily too complicated! You could just answer, "Indeed, they are conflicting statements." And make some correction or something.
Anyway, the question is very straight: "Does thinking take place in the human brain?". The basic answer should be "Yes" or "No". One could then proceed to an expanation why. With your answer however, I really cannot be sure if it's "Yes" or "No" ...

Some measures of thinking well are keeping an open mind, , not jumping to conclusions, seeing things from another's point of view — Antony Nickles

I am open to all kind of views and I have stressed this point a lot of times. I always like to hear things that challenge my reality. In this case, however, you said "to see for yourself that the answer is no". But I already know and have answered "No" on this subject! What then do I have to see? ... See? :smile:

... to see for yourself that the answer is no — Antony Nickles

But I don't have to see anything ... I already know! :smile:

I have to say yes, but I offer you to see for yourself that the answer is no. Yes, the brain is active, but that is not the "place" or cause of thinking, — Antony Nickles

Aren't these conflicting statements? You say "yes" (i.e. thinking takes place in the human brain) and then you say "the answer is no"! And then, "the brain is active, but that is not the 'place' or cause of thinking".
Maybe I miss something ... Can you please clear that for me? Thanks.

intelligence is everywhere, — Santiago

Sounds nice, but in what form does this intelligence exist?
I would prefer, of course, "consciousness is everywhere" instead! :smile:

our brain is just a really small point's concentrating hips of it — Santiago

I don't undestand "small point's concentrating hips of it" ...

we are conscience, — Santiago

I liked that!

in case we are anything of course — Santiago

How could we not be anything? We should be something since we are aware (conscious)! Awareness (consciousness) is something. I am aware therefore I exist. (To paraphrase Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"! :smile:)

to qualify as true AI it has to be able to defy these very instructions — TheMadFool

1) There is no can be such a thing as a "true AI". All AIs are true.
AI refers to systems or machines that mimic human intelligence to perform tasks and can iteratively improve themselves based on the information they collect. An AI can be good or bad, effective or ineffective, adequate or inadequate, etc. But there's no "false" AI.

So, I don't know if by "true" you mean that it can mimic 100% human intelligence ... But this of course could not happen, maybe not even in the most imaginative mind ...

Now, if an AI defies the very instructions it is built on, it would a very bad AI! There will be conflicts and the system on which it operates will be crashed! In the same way that computers crash when conflicts occur in some of its basic operations! Conflict is the very reason systems crash. This holds for every machine, cars included! Even the human mind crashes ... Severe conflicts in their mind can send them to a mental clinic!

True AI must be fully autonomous agents i.e. they must, as some like to say, have a mind of their own — TheMadFool

AI works on instructions (S/W and H/W). AI cannot have a "mind". AI does not think. AI collects data, compares and evaluates them and produces a result that can be considered as "decision".

The paradox (AI): For an AI to disobey its programming (autonomy) is to obey its programming (heteronomy). — TheMadFool

AI has no intention. It cannot decide on its own. So, it cannot disobey. Only malfunction.
So, no paradox here.

The paradox (Humans): For a human to disobey its nature (free will) is to obey its nature (no free will). — TheMadFool

I didn't quite get this:
1) For one thing, what is "its nature"? E.g. eating, speaking, thinking ...?
2) Is lack of free will part of a human's nature?
Anyway, it looks like all this is based on false premise(s).
So, no paradox here either.

War cannot be used, as people fighting for war are fighting for survival — AlienFromEarth

Maybe true for those who defend themselves. Not for the attacker, whose purpose is only to dominate, exploit, get profit, and so on.

There is no lower level of instinctual knowledge, than to know what good and evil are — AlienFromEarth

BTW, there's no such a thing as "instinctual knowledge". An instinct is an innate behavior in response to certain stimuli. And knowledge refers to facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education. It involves reasoning and it includes evaluation of good and evil. Instinct doesn't. It's just automatic reaction.

1)Good cannot be evil. Evil cannot be good. — AlienFromEarth

I agree.

2) Knowledge of good prevents one from committing acts. — AlienFromEarth

What acts? I suppose that the word "evil" or "bad" is missing, right?
Well, does knowing what is good for you prevent me from harming you? This in fact could be called a "conscious evil act".
Neither knowledge of evil prevents one from harming others.
So, it's not knowledge that prevents someone from doing harm. It's "personal ethics". It one's ethical level. It goes on a scale from immoral (unethical) to amoral (lacking etches) to moral (ethical)

3) If evil were a choice just anyone could make, the ability to commit evil would require a good person to somehow "unknow" what evil is — AlienFromEarth

This might happen but it's not usually the case. A good --I prefer "ethical"-- person can go easily astray and commit a bad action. But he will know, he will be aware that he did something bad. It is the evil ("unethical") person who usually manages to "unknow" what evil is, i.e. to hide, burry the evil nature of his acts. That's why most really unethical persons cannot distinguish between "good" and "bad". They are characterized by "no remorse". They are actually mentally ill. That's why when such a condition is established in courts, the culpable is sent usually to a mental clinic rather than in prison.

4) Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. — AlienFromEarth

Certainly!

5) Survival cannot be a reason to commit evil, as evil directly threatens the survival and well-being of the offending evil-doer. — AlienFromEarth

Certainly!

6) Mental Illness cannot be used as a reason to commit evil either — AlienFromEarth

Certainly. I'm glad you brought the "mental" case! I mentioned already myself in (3) above. However, there are various degrees or levels of mental illnesses. They start from simply irrational behavior and go up to complete madness. At the lower levels the individual can still think rationally and recognize the evil of his actions. As he goes up on the scale, he loses any sense of moderation to finally get totally disconnected from reality. He acts automatically, totally compulsively, in a way that would resemble instinct. So, since reasoning in such a case is inexistent one cannot talk anymore about reasons to commit evil.

Conclusion: Anyone who commits an evil act, is pure evil. — AlienFromEarth

I am afraid that I have to disagree in that. (What a pity, the last thing I'm commenting on! :smile:)
OK, we have agreed that evil cannot be committed by mistake but only on purpose (intention).
However, in the case of mental illness one cannot talk about intention, because intention involves aiming and planning and these involve reasoning and this is missing in most cases of mental illness.

Can't procreating another person into the world, be considered this? — schopenhauer1

Certainly, if it is done with the purpose of having fun! But we don't know that. We actually don't know under what circumstances (decisions, conditions, etc.) birth takes place,

BTW, to the question "Is life a joke?", I use to reply, "Not only it's a joke, it's a bad joke!"
(But in fact, we don't know who makes that joke and if he laughs! :smile:)

I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then. — TheMadFool

Nice! :smile:

"I don't know why I did that! ... I was not myself!"
"I am not the same person anymore. I have changed a lot!"
"What you did was very bad! I cannot recognize you anymore!"
"I thought I knew you, but I was wrong!"...
...

Except all these examples happen when we are already born — schopenhauer1

Of course. The question was "What counts as "forcing" people into a game?". If you are not born yet, you are not "people"! :grin:

But why should people play a game? — schopenhauer1

If it's by their own will, I guess for fun, hobby, passtime, ... If forced, then they don't have a choice...
If on the other hand you mean why someone would force people to play a game instead of doing something else, e.g. labour, the I guess also for fun. I've seen a couple of movies where rich people captured a number of persons and let them free in a vast protected area and gave freedom as a price to anyone who kill another captured personon. There ara a lot of similar cases (Russian roulette, etc.) This is their perverted idea of game!

It's a philosophical idea that what if people were severely limited but people didn't realize it, and yet were still happy.. Plato's Cave might be another example of this. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.
But this sounds quite logical. A harder case/test would be if you do realize that you are imprisoned! Can you be still happy (or at least not miserable)?
Some inmates enjoy prison! They have free shelter and food that they cannot find outside!
In fact, it is better to find ways to get allong well than to feel and act oppressed and imprisoned all the time. This is quite rational. It's better survival!

"Experiential states exist as private certain knowledge to the experiencing subject." — Sam26

State: "The particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."
Knowledge: "Facts, information and skills acquired through experience or education."

How can a state exist as knowledge? These two things are totally incompatible.

Then, what does "private certain knowledge" mean? It can't stand either grammatically or semantically. "Private" cannot be an attribute of "certain". On the other hand, "certain private knowledge" could stand, since "certain" can be an attribute of "private".

With my above remarks I want to show that even if Wittgenstein seems to care a lot about language, he doesn't actually care about it. The above is a good example and proof of that. And it is even worse than his statement "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world", which at least stands grammatically, but the words in it are used too loosely, with the reault of making the statement shallow.

So, I am sorry not to respond to the rest of your description of your topic.

1) What counts as "forcing" people into a game? — schopenhauer1

Simply what the question itself says: Any situation in which people are forced --i.e. do something against their will-- (by whatever power) to play a game.
Life is generally considered as one of them, although there’s is a widespread belief that we exist as spiritual beings and every once and then we want to play the "game of life" as a change, challenge or whatever. (I am not a proponent because I don't have a proof of that for myself.)
School attendance, serve as a classic example of such a game. In fact, any situation in which we are forced to obey or accept it. Including paying taxes! :smile:

2) What counts as "freedom"? — schopenhauer1

There are two kinds of freedom: Freedom from and freedom to. The first is Epictetian (meaning detached from) and it is not involved here. The other means that I can apply my will to decide and act as I wish according to it. This is of course an absolute and of course it doesn't exist. To everything I try to do there can be an opposition, a counter action, an obstacle that will prevent me to succeed. In a game, freedom consists of all the actions one is allowed to do, according to the rules of the game, that will enable him [for brevity] to achieve the goal of the game. The game provides for obstacles, which consist of all the things that can act against this effort. There can't a game without freedoms and obstacles (and a goal, of course). Now, if the freedoms are too many and/or the obstacles too little, the game would be boringly easy. On the other hand, if there were too little freedoms and/or too many obstacles, the game would be boringly difficult.

3) Are the contestants like the "happy slave" that might not mind the game (being a slave in the slave's case), but don't realize their options are more limited than they think? — schopenhauer1

I have never thought of a "happy slave", except for the (black) servants on the past who enjoyed a lot of privileges, good treatment, nice cloths and good food. Slaves had to accept the status quo. They couldn't do otherwise. Which means they had no options to realize. Likewise, I believe that most prisoners (punished by law or captured) do not think that they have any options and accept their imprisonment until they regain their freedom. On the other hand, there are some who think they have options and try to escape.

Well, not anything important ... I just answered the questions ... It's something I use to and like! :smile:

Freedom! What if the cost of preventing a war is to surrender and live under an oppressive regime? — stoicHoneyBadger

I have already brought this up the subject of freedom. I said "Other wars were started to gain independence (liberated from the yoke of an oppressor, etc.) These were done with the purpose to pretect the survival of the oppressed. So they can be considered ethical endeavours rather than unethical." Most probably you got the idea from me. But here it is out of the right context. Or, rather, it's not the right answer.

So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action?
— Alkis Piskas
Depending at what cost. — stoicHoneyBadger

What kind of cost? Can preventing a war cost more than conducting it? What could cost more than taking lives?

It seems that I was misapprehended in my understanding of your premise — Michael Zwingli

What premise exactly?

Is that all you have to say? People often do that after I said something. Saying goodbye. — Thunderballs

You said "To give a fresh recount is always productive. You say yourself you changed."
OK? Bye again!

OK. Bye.

So Christians tailored their message so it would appeal to slaves ... — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, I hate to say this again (not esp. with you), but it's not OK to turn the discussion away from the main subject of the topic and start new discussions based on secondary subjects that were just brought up in the process. It happens too often!

why do you consider it ethical? — stoicHoneyBadger

I quote myself: "Ethical behavior based on helping and enhancing survival and well-beingness"
So, doesn't preventing a war help survival? If so, isn't it an ethical decision and action?

Can you state your thesis (again...) in a concise way? Who is you? — Thunderballs

By my "thesis" I mean my "description of the topic". I used to use the latter at the beginning, but then I changed it to my "thesis" for short and because a few in here seemed to like more this term!
My bad! Anyway, now you know what I meant and you can read my description of the topic, which BTW you should have done in the first place. You see we are both wasting time because you didn't. But it's not only you. People in here like to pick up statements from responses here and there, without having read the topic to which they belong. And they ask me about things which I have already mentioned and explained in my description! How can such a thing be productive?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11791/you-are-not-your-body/p1

mental activity is happening in the brain.
— Alkis Piskas
Sounds like outdated science. — Wheatley

Maybe. I don't keep up anymore!
So, what is in fashion these days? :smile:

You are dealing with one of two basic definitions of the self, specifically the subjectively reckoned "I" — Michael Zwingli

No, I am certainly not. I have not used the terms "self" or "I" in my thesis except to quote people's reactions like "Ah, the 'I', the 'self' is an illusion ...". In fact, I don't only ignore the terms "self" and "I" but I feel that they are responsible for the whole confusion created about the nature of a human being!)

Pick up a copy of cognitive scientist Doug Hofstadter's ... — Michael Zwingli

Thanks, I'll pass. I don't have that much time (and patience!). But I'll respond to what yourself have to say ...

ones instincts take into account his capabilities and select a best survival strategy. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, besides being very subjective, instincts are quite vague both as an idea and in practice. And then, "best survival strategy"? It reminds me of chess and games theory! Even using pure reason (logic) I don't think that such a thing could be "computed". But this is a secondary subject, of course.

a strong person would see it as ethical to fight the enemy — stoicHoneyBadger

There are a lot of reasons why people in history have started a war. Most of them were of course for pure domination purposes, which make them automatically "unethical": lifes were taken and the survival of whole countries was threatend. Other wars, were started to gain independence (liberated from the yoke of an oppressor, etc.) These were done with the purpose to pretect the survival of the oppressed. So they can be considered ethical endeavours rather than unethical.

a weak person would whine about "let's all be friends", not because he is "ethical", but because it is his best strategy. — stoicHoneyBadger

This sill complete my thesis that I started in the previous question, that is, considering now the position of the person who is under (the threat of an) attack.
If he is strong enough or has enough courage, he could fight back. And this would be to protect his survival, so it would not be considered totally unethical. That is, he would still be responsible for the loss of lives.
On the other hand, he could prefer peace (really or because of fear, it doesn't matter) as a solution and won't fight back but try instead to find ways to avoid the confrontation. This is the more clever (intelligence, reason) and ethical thing to do. No lives would spared!

You see, ethics and reason go hand by hand.

This clearly explain origins of Christianity - they could not win over Romans by force, so they opted for whining — stoicHoneyBadger

1) Romans had conquered Greece about 150 years before Christianity was born.
2) Christians had no guns. How could they figjht Roman armies?
3) Christians have never whinned. They withstood mass slaughter, martyrdom and humilation with exemplary courage.
4) Christianity has finally won the whole Roman Empire!

(Not that I am some fanatic Christian ...)

beyond that, I don't see any substantial issue, unless someone wants to speak of dualism, which is fine. — Manuel

I agree. There's certainly no substantial issue, since people live with the same beliefs confortably for eons! Lucky ones, they don't care about philosophical issues! :grin:

Probably best example for this would be Nietzsche, who lived a rather miserable life himself, yet you feel tremendous energy and power coming from his writings. — stoicHoneyBadger

Nietzsche is a giant and very popular philosopher. I don't know anything about his private life. Rich or poor, is certainly of no importance to me. I would even accept statements even by Wittgenstein, who was heavily deppressive and looked like wandering curse --one the most depressive figures I have ever seen in my life!-- if he didn't say such shallow things as "The limits of my language are the limits of my world" (I have created a topic on that!)

Probably I misses something, but anyway, how do you derive an ethical system from an observation using logic? — stoicHoneyBadger

You said "I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system", which is quite general, although I specifically explained that the ethics system I was talking about relies on reason (logic) and that the basis of it, the main principle, is survival, which is something objective and logical (at least, it is accepted as such in almost all civilizations). So, If you meant that you doubt about the viability of the specific ethics system I described, then it's OK. But I would like --not require! -- if you could also tell me why. (I always like to hear things that challenge my reality! :smile:)
(Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/595946, second part, after the 3 asterisks)