Whats the ethical point I appear to be making?

What part of "Not morally prescriptive in any way" don't you understand?

Did you not see the quotes? I think that's pretty clear to anyone acting in good faith - anyone reading will see that.

You're making yourself look silly at this point.

My paper describes a framework that is 100% DESCRIPTIVE and 100% DEDUCTIVE. — James Dean Conroy

Not morally prescriptive in any way. — James Dean Conroy

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. — James Dean Conroy

Hasn't that been clarified many times already?

The axiom is ontological: without life, there is no value. No “ought” implied, no hidden ethics.

That’s been clear from the start. If you're still pretending otherwise, it's no longer a misunderstanding - it’s bad faith.

You’ve also avoided engaging with the first axiom. Why is that?

Banno, you're not misunderstanding - you're misrepresenting.

I never said we ought to value life. I said that value only exists because of life and that if it doesnt value itself it dies. That’s a structural observation, not a moral instruction - others here see that clearly and I've reiterated it numerous times

“Life builds” > “growth is what is valued” means: life favours what sustains it. That’s not a command, it’s a description of how living systems function. You can pretend that’s trivial, but if it really were, you wouldn’t be working this hard to dodge it.

This isn’t about “ought.” It’s about where value comes from at all. You’re conflating basic ontology with moral philosophy- and honestly, I think you know you’re doing it.

You can't say that you are only using "is" and yet insist that the message is about what we ought do. — Banno

As if I insisted anything like that. I'm saying if life doesn't value itself - it doesn't survive - you know full well thats not a prescription.

There is no ought here - you can try to force it as much as you like. This was clear in the initial post and the second comment - you're flogging a dead horse.

You're also avoiding my question re the first axiom.

At this point, it’s starting to feel like you’re not really playing the game.

I really do want to help :(

Great, we'll build on this - hopefully the others will come back on this point. Let's go through together if we can.

Sorry, I'm not being ignorant. I've had a busy day. Working...

Honestly Dawnstorm, I tried very hard in the other thread.

I see there's a disconnect here...

Let me try one last time, using a picture as an analogy.

You keep describing the things you see in the painting.
But I’m talking about the canvas they're painted on.

And just to return to where we agree, I think we're all in agreement with axiom 1, right?

1. Life is, therefore value exists.

Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value. — James Dean Conroy

Let’s get back to basics, since the confusion seems to persist.

You like syllogisms, great. So let’s lay one out cleanly, without any morally loaded terms that can be misconstrued:

Premise 1: Systems that persist must select for conditions that support their persistence.
Premise 2: Life is a system that persists through adaptive selection.
Conclusion: Therefore, life must select for what supports its persistence.

That’s the heart of the argument. It’s not moral, it’s mechanical.

Now, if you swap "select for what supports its persistence" with "regard as positive" (i.e. good in the structural sense), then you can see where "life = good" comes from, not as a moral judgment, but as a systemic entailment.

This is not an argument that "life ought to persist."
It’s that only those forms of life that implicitly affirm their own persistence can and do persist.

Any system that doesn’t operate in this way selects itself out. That’s not "ought." That’s physics and evolution.

Thanks for the engagement - I was hoping you guys would apply yourselves and you've not shied away.

That said, I’ve already anticipated these misinterpretations in my earlier comment, so let's set the record straight once more. The framework I’m presenting is descriptive, not prescriptive. There’s no ought here - it’s about the way life must operate to persist. This isn’t a moral claim, and it’s not about Hume’s Guillotine or any sort of ethical objectivism.

These misreading were preemptively accounted for in my second post:

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 ) — James Dean Conroy

The distinction you're missing is that the "Good" here is not about moral value, it’s about positive value in a structural sense. Life operates as if it’s "Good" (represents positive value) because it has to, it’s how life continues. Plants, for example, judge sunlight as Good because it sustains them.

The framework is entirely about structural facts, not about personal moral opinions.

So, lets consider the specific points raised in light of this:

The argument in the OP seems to rely on the part-syllogism: There cannot be values without life; therefore life is valuable.

Now perhaps most folk would agree that there cannot be values without life, and think life is valuable, and yet agree that the second does not follow from the first.

There is a gap between the "is" of "There cannot be values without life" and the "ought" of "Life is valuable.

So let's try to put the argument, as given together, and see where the problem lies. Most obviously, the interpretation above is not a syllogism, since it has only one premise. So is there a second premise, and if so, what is it?

What was called a "formal" version remains a bit unclear, but seems to be found in the following lines:
1. Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
2. Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation, and “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.

It's hard to see how (3) follows from (1) and (2) in any formal way. The idea seems to be that since life does persist, it ought to persist. But that does not follow. — Banno

That’s the critical misread - and it’s precisely what I’ve been careful to avoid from the start.

There is no 'ought' in this framework. Let me be crystal clear:
The claim is not that life ought to persist, but that life only persists by operating as if it is good. That’s not a prescription - it’s a descriptive entailment.

Let me restate the logic in deductive form, fully within descriptive, ontological terms:

Without life, there is no value - because there’s no subject to experience, measure, or generate it.
Life exists - therefore, some form of value must exist from the standpoint of life itself.
Life persists through self-affirming behaviours — behaviours which reinforce its continuation (order, adaptation, structure).

Therefore, life necessarily operates as if it is good - meaning, it selects for what sustains it (positive value) and against what threatens it (negative value).

This is not “life is good therefore it should persist.”
It’s: If life did not regard itself as good, it would not persist.
It would self-negate.

So this is a factual, structural claim - a Darwinian axiom, really. Life only exists because it builds and affirms. That's what life is, in systemic terms. No morality needed.

That’s why I say: No “is-ought.” Just is.

TLDR:

The analysis is misreading the intended scope of the framework. It's descriptive.

The white paper presents a long historical arc and 26 citations, I'm adding a new section to the end of that titled "contemporary thinkers". The last thing I want is accusations of plagiarism.

And just to mention to you personally Josh. I appreciate your position, your credentials and the scrutiny you can bring. Thank you for the engagement. Hold me to the flame.

It's probably worth mentioning that I became aware of his work after I'd finished the first draft of my framework. I am going to update it to cite him, but it's in peer review, I'll wait for the first revision they undoubtedly will seek of that to include it and the others I mentioned.

I see you're active on Academia.edu, you can find the others I mentioned there.

No and I'm not aware of that.

I was purely referencing his Life-Value-Onto-Axiology.

I do think "Life is Good" is probably more portable, though...

Couldn't agree more Tom.

I welcome rigour and disagreement, as long as is it actually valid. I've had both rancour and abuse (not from you, I won't mention names)

I don't want the assertiveness I've shown or confidence in my position to be misunderstood as evangelism or unwillingness to to entertain critique.

Banno was right when he said :

there are various axioms that set up propositional logic, and so on. Without these rules there is no game — Banno

I'm just asking people to play fairly. Albeit, admittedly, assertively.

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the genuine response.

I do understand I'm upsetting the status quo here and expect resistance from the establishment...

Thanks Quk - I think we're seeing gatekeeping and mods swayed by people with large post numbers...

I'm not 'spiritually' inclined or by any means an advocate of things like homeopathy (or other things that are linked to spirituality contextually - like tarot, star signs etc) - quite the opposite in fact. I believe in what i can sense and prove - so yes lets disentangle that.

I link the meaning we can derive from this framework to what I'd label "spiritual enrichment or spirituality". Mainly because it becomes so intuitive, the things we all see as beautiful and awe inspiring (what some people might say come from the soul or spirit) actually become the things that are meaningful and our purpose.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

No, they are perfectly synonymous. Good is what one ought to do and what one ought to do is good. How can what one ought to do be bad and how are bad things what one ought to do? — Tobias

They're not synonymous - even by definition.

Good (adj.): morally right or beneficial.
Ought (verb): used to indicate duty or correctness.

You can say something is good without saying someone ought to do it. Plenty of things are good but not obligatory. The Synthesis view builds from this: good describes alignment with life; ought arises from recognising that alignment as meaningful. They're connected, but not the same.

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

Yes, well said Quk.

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

Peace.

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.

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.

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

No! I'm quoting your pithy remark.

This is PURE COPE. :lol:

Have some integrity. Just admit you can't do logic and I'm right. And that you should do better

You got called out. You retreated.

Exactly what others have done.

I'm still ready. Who else is ready for real discourse?

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

I've shown why your initial analysis was a mischaracterisation.
If you disagree with any of that, lets discuss - rationally, like adults. I'm ready.

Here's a reminder of axiom 1:
1. Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation: Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication: All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not discovered; it is enacted by life.

If not, lets agree to move to axiom 2. If you're not onboard with axiom 2, disprove it. Lets discuss - rationally, like adults. Again, I'm ready.
Here's a reminder of axiom 2:

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement: Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation.
Explanation: From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that propagate itself. This is not moral, it's mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and innovation are selected for because they enable continuation.
Implication: What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.

And stop the childish pity remarks, if thats ok.

Or, you can concede I'm right, and that your oversight was erroneous, myopic, arrogant, and far from the spirit of discourse. And, that you'll endeavour to do better in the future.

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?

I'd love to continue this privately as well.

Yes, I mention that thread in my paper - it has 26 citations.

This isn't a new idea (It came to me through the Torah), this is the clarification and formalisation of it in its distilled form:

The Trifecta - Formal Definition of the First Three Axioms
1. Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement: Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation: Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living
subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is
the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication: All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not
]discovered; it is enacted by life.
2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement: Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and
adaptation.
Explanation: From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that
propagate itself. This is not moral, it's mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and
innovation are selected for because they enable continuation.
Implication: What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. “Good” can be structurally
defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement: For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
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.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a
descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.

Please do read the paper.

I know the feeling lol — Vivek

I've just read how you were condescended - it was the exact same people who refused to engage in my thread, thinking sophistry makes them clever.

Just here to stroke their ego.

trying to communicate this to the 'philosophers' in here - is impossible...

What's the problem here?

Why is basic logical discipline - actually analysing one axiom at a time - so difficult?

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

I've spent years pressure-testing this framework in rigorous adversarial environments, one casual Gemini chat doesn't even register.

Maybe this question has been asked. — Baden

You've just done the exact same thing I've told you is the issue and why I pasted the gemini chat.

I am missing something here?

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

Does this count as gerrymandering? I asked it to work from the top.

You're making the exact mistake I used this pasted dialogue to warn against

Better off just to debate it with members here — Baden

If only...

What is the problem here with logical analysis that people seem to be incapable of???

To be clear: Axiom 1 in Synthesis refers to life in general, not specifically human life.

At the foundation, I'm identifying life itself, any form of life, as the necessary precondition for value, meaning, or evaluation of any kind. Without life, there is no perception, no judgment, no concept of "good" or "bad."

Plants evaluate sunlight, nutrients etc - that's a value judgement.

Later in the Synthesis framework, I do separately address human life as a higher-order development. Life becoming symbolic, cultural, and technologically extensible. But the base axiom is universal to life, not limited to humanity.

The progression you describe (matter > vitality > subjectivity) absolutely exists, but Axiom 1 anchors itself strictly at the vitality stage at life as such, before subjectivity.

I don't want to sound rude, but this is already in the framework explicitly.

We need to assess it from first principles down. Not preempt with generalisations.

You miss what I'm trying to do with the comment

I'm looking for rigorous evaluation - and it isn't happening

This isn't some spare of the moment idea.

I've told you my motivations - you jumped to the conclusion that's my sole justification for the paper.

This is in peer review right now - having been worked on for 10 years

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

And no, I don't agree at all. AI has been an invaluable tool in stress testing this framework - if you read the paper you'd also know that.

I've had many different AIs play devils advocate hundreds of times with it - hence its logical robustness.