whatever the "self" is — Nils Loc

Yes, we'd need a standard definition for "self".

whether you have any counter-arguments — Mijin

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality. — Copernicus

Please now clarify — Mijin

Yes, it has practical benefits.

But no, I don't care.

performative contradiction. — Banno

It's not.

"I'm sure everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.
"I'm unsure if everything is unsure" = Everything is unsure.

there is no relation. — Banno

If you meant from the aspect of causality (butterfly effect), then sure, we're related. But if you meant uniformity like electrons, then you're missing the point.

Fried eggs, therefore, are a leap of faith. Cool. — Banno

I hope you remember the spoon scene in The Matrix.

So the true reality is that true reality is unknown... — Banno

Exactly. It doesn't deny, only skepticizes.

I'm pointing out your part in the conspiracy. — Banno

How am I related to the chicken?

You're now plainly trolling with irrelevant and illogical counterarguments.

still just a guess. — Outlander

Everything is a leap of faith. True reality is forever unknown. But detected patterns often show uniformity.

What's the relevance of that? — Banno

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform.

Same with human selfishness.

Individual observation isn't needed to find natural law. Something we call sampling.

?

You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving — Outlander

Look.

You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours — Outlander

the core problem in Copernicus's threads is the failure to acknowledge the other. — Banno

Just like I don't measure everything in the universe but know that (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b². — Copernicus

Is it to replenish the water supply? Is he exercising? Is it to mix the poison so as to kill the town's population? Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

All serving the self. I can't see where not.

Practical tool, yes. Means to learn about reality? No. Not the TRUE reality.

Like I said, I'm a theoretical person with little concern for practicality.

You captured it yourself. My view towards selfishness. Hence I said bravo.

a father that sacrifices because he wants the best for his children — Mijin

Serving his desire and agency to protect his children.

Outside of threads like this — Mijin

Yes. My point was that words can have dumb meaning.

therefore all actions are selfish. — Banno

Yes.

Yes.

And I believe you grasped what I meant here.

That’s just evidence of AI learning on it’s own. — Punshhh

If that learning on its own goes beyond calculated prediction.

Are you sure about that, it’s not a given? — Punshhh

Yes, that's debatable.

Meanwhile back in the real world — Mijin

...people call mass "weight".

How do you understand the distinction between distance and spacing of objects if not the different areas they appear relative to each other in your conscious visual experience? — Harry Hindu

Goodness... Do you even understand what a metaphor is? This is hopeless at this point.

The very feelings you speak of IS your consciousness — Harry Hindu

Yes, thematic. I don't say this 5 cm area of my consciousness is 31 degrees Celsius hot, so to speak. That's what I said. You can't dissect it like you would your wrist nerves.

seems like you completely missed my point.

Aquinas would say that principles are not like commands shouted by a superior - they are expressions of reason itself. — Colo Millz

I see principles as constitutional amendments.

The job of philosophy is to codify morals (doctrinate) with propositional arguments and then come to a conclusion (finalized principle).

The job of the state is to put that into the constitution.

Justice should be governed by principles, not populism or logic (empirical or personal).

Perhaps I follow a particular sub-branch of the ideology, like anarchism within libertarianism.

Since Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae I–II, q.18, a.4.

Morality depends on what the will chooses as an end. — Colo Millz

Whatever that may be, it's not categorical morality (adherence to rigid principles).

If the soldiers don't intend to follow orders there's not much point being in the army. — Colo Millz

Tell that to your fellow militants. I'm a colonel and you're a sergeant and I shout "attention", you must comply. Same with principles and actions.

intention matters — Mww

Not in categorical morality, sorry.

You seem to be saying that indirect access is what provides truth where direct access does not, which is counter-intuitive. — Harry Hindu

What I said was that we can't mentally feel and touch our consciousness to dissect it for understanding. Only a thematic comprehension.

partially — Mijin

sure — Copernicus

what you described is situational (contextual) morality, which leaves room for due diligence, conscience, and judgement call.

Categorical morality is textual. Whatever is doctrinized must be followed. Much like the chain of command in the military.

Deontological moral doctrine, which can be considered synonymous with categorical morality — Mww

...follows principles (accepted doctrines) and principles only. Intent, approval don't matter.

A categorical moralist is a robotic person who's programmed to execute principled actions only and forfeits any free will that may sabotage the execution.

Fair enough. — Ludwig V

Yes.

such as?

persons mind — Outlander

Mind isn't the whole of the person. Body can't be sidelined. Agency requires both (not necessarily in synergy; can be done independently).

Anxiety or nervousness that makes one stand out and otherwise miss out of social opportunities doesn't seem "for [one's] own good." — Outlander

It is. It reduces the stress and helps you relax.

stuttering — Outlander

Your bodily functions (whatever causes stutter) execute full agency (even if against your mind, i.e., your willingness to talk smoothly).

selfishness requires intent — Outlander

Why? Intent is mental. Function is physical. Both constitute the self.

OP about how fire is bad if touched by most organisms? — Outlander

That's a fact supported by everyone, unlike my OP, which is still being debated.

is conscious and not just a mimic — Punshhh

If it shows signs of cognitive behaviour beyond its programmed capacity.

consciousness is emergent in colonies of cells and not, itself present in individual cells. — Punshhh

Of course not. Bacteria lacks consciousness.

But how can that be agency, if unconscious or otherwise a non-consciously formed arrangement the human mind forms automatically with no say or input from the "self" or conscious mind? — Outlander

You are pressing the switch in your sound, awaken mind.

Is that not an example of a truly "intent-less" act? Like nail-biting or some other nervous habit? Sure, you can realize "whoa, wait a minute I'm biting my nails" and stop at your leisure, but it was still initiated without a conscious agent behind it. — Outlander

Reflexive actions are done biologically for your own good. They're self-serving.

Agency requires awareness and intent, whereas the prevailing understanding of the human mind is that the unconscious can never be made conscious. So riddle me that. — Outlander

Your entirety is your self. Whether mind (agency) or body (reaction).

That still doesn't comport or explain an intrinsic, large part of your theory, which seems to suggest every other person's brain on Earth who lives, ever lived, or ever will live, somehow must respond and behave the exact way yours does. — Outlander

Natural law, not personal experience.

usefulness — Mijin

Usefulness is practicality.

If you're satisfied with practical benefits then sure. I'm not. I'm a theoretical person. To me, the truth is more important than functionality.

intention — Colo Millz

Since when did categorical morality depend on intentions?