however there are no apparent mental things — Kenosha Kid

A materialist would not say that humans have any mental things attached if "mental thing" is to mean some other different kind of substance from physical thing. If it means a particular pattern of physical thing then maybe.

But the question was: What does each position allow you to say that doesn't fit with the other position? Because I can't think of anything.

Look up "unsupervised learning" if you want to actually learn something. Otherwise happy trolling.

A materialist believes that there are material things with no minds — Kenosha Kid

I can take this two ways. Either you mean there is 2 different kinds of "stuff", material stuff and mental stuff, or I could just take "mind" to mean a certain pattern of material things. I'd say the first interpretation, that there are 2 different kinds of stuff, mental stuff and physical stuff, and objects are made up of a combination of the stuff is already idealistic. Already not what a materialist would say. To a materialist, there is nothing but physical stuff.

To me, when materialists speak about minds they are speaking of patterns. "Consciousness" is a pattern. "Anger" is a pattern. Etc. So even God, can be seen as some sort of pattern or other (you know the whole "God is everything" kinds of cliches).

This in turn allows for a kind of coincidence of human mind and human matter, such that we can argue for the primacy of the mental — Kenosha Kid

Again, I think if you say that there are 2 different kinds of stuff, mental stuff and physical stuff, you're already not a materialist.

I don't see the difference between transcendental and epistemic idealism as they're put. And I don't see what's much idealistic about them. At least that excerpt about epistemic idealism didn't seem much different from a materialist would say. There is physical stuff, and we interpret said physical stuff, and there is no point at which we can be 100% sure of our interpretations. I don't see the need to propose 2 different kinds of stuff for the above sentence to be applicable. Because to a materialist, "we" are also physical stuff.

You know there is forms of AI that learn through unsupervised learning right? When one of those tells you something is it giving you knowledge of something or awareness of something? The whole point about these forms of AI is that they are not designed, but can still predict and relay information to us.

So you can't offer a proof. Thanks for letting me know.

Ok so all you have here is a "proof" that some mind X told all of humanity to be reasonable (except you demonstrably). And the proof is flawed in 2 ways. It assumes it's one mind for no reason. And it does not address how such an imperative couldn've been issued without anyone remembering it.

You then go on to use your toilet paper proof and add to it that this mind X is a triple omni God. And yet you cannot show why this is when asked.

Cheers. Time to get that ignore list browser extension.

None of the ones you've provided. But I know you reach the conclusion that the mind issuing imperatives of reason is omnipotent. Now. Show the proof for that conclusion. Continue from premise 5 to show that this mind possesses omnipotence.

Address the point.

EVEN IF we give that a certain mind X has issued the command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, you have no way to go from that to omnipotence. If you do, show it.

As a simple example: If someone had a large enough speaker, they could tell everyone in the world to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Would that make the speaker owner omnipotent? No. Not at all. — khaled

I have provided a proof that Reason is God. — Bartricks

False. All you've provided on this thread is this:

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is an existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason. — Bartricks

You have provided proof that there is a mind X that told us to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Note, it is false for reasons outlined above, in addition to others outlined by Creativesoul, namely that you have no proof it's a single mind but let's assume it is. Now. Prove this mind is that of God. Let's start with omnipotence. Show that the mind that told you not to believe something to be true and false at the same time is omnipotent.

Having one gives one some awareness - in your case, scant and very foggy awareness - of reasons to do and believe things, including imperatives to do and believe things. — Bartricks

Ah careful. Reasons to believe things =/= Imperatives to believe things. As I already said, faculties don't give imperatives. This is the part that's beyond dispute. Does your sense of sight itself tell you to do something? No that's ridiculous.

Is that what your reason tells you - does your reason give you the impression that it is an imperative of Reason that if you are aware of an imperative, you must remember someone having issued the imperative to you? — Bartricks

Yes. Precisely. If someone commanded me to do something I must remember someone having commanded me to do something. Or else I have no evidence that someone commanded me to do something. This isn't a very revolutionary idea. I struggle to see how you can not understand. I may not remember who the someone was, but I must remember being ordered to do something by someone, in order to have evidence that I'm being ordered to do something by someone....

I don't like your wording though. "Does your reason give you the impression that it is an imperative of reason" if all you mean is "Does it reasonably seem to you that" then sure. But it just seems like a very long winded way of saying it.

Does your reason NOT tell you this? Give one example of an imperative that was issued to you that you don't remember having been issued to you. Stupid question. If you're to have any reason it was issued to you, you must at least remember it...

Now, to your mind this means that we have to be aware that they are imperatives of God and must remember encountering God and God telling us them. — Bartricks

Not exactly "encountering and telling" but any sort of contact. Please give an example of an imperative from some mind A to mind B that mind B receives without any sensory input. You can't. Because it makes no sense. For something to be an imperative someone must convey to someone to do something. No such conveying has taken place between your mind and the mind of God. It has always been between you and your teacher, or you and your parent, telling you to behave this or that way. Not contact with God. Anyone would remember that.

That is, like I say, as stupid as thinking that if someone demonstrates that water is made of tiny molecules, then you can refute them by just saying "no, water is NOT made of tiny molecules — Bartricks

A terrible example considering that everything I observe is consistent with water being tiny molecules so I would have no argument to refute the claim. However what you're claiming is different. You're claiming that there is a mind X that issued a command to all humans to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. First off, I disagree such a mind exists from a historical perspective, it just has NOT been the case that such a mind has made any contact with me or anyone I know.

But you don't seem to understand that this is a serious critique. You seem to be fine with having "Imperatives" that aren't actually issued from one mind to another by means of some input. You are somehow fine with "faculties" issuing imperatives. Just a result of hazy stupid definitons. And you can't give a single example of an imperative issued from one mind to another without some means of input. Because it makes no sense.

But fine, let's take that to be true. Let's say there IS in fact a mind X that told everyone not to believe something to be true and false at the same time (despite the fact that no one remembers this AND that you need some form of contact for an imperative to be issued so we SHOULD remember it). And let's take it that this mind is NOT a particular human such as a teacher or parent. Ok, what makes that mind X omnipotent. Please explain.

You skirted away from it last time but as I said: EVEN IF we give that a certain mind X has issued the command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, you have no way to go from that to omnipotence. If you do, show it.

As a simple example: If someone had a large enough speaker, they could tell everyone in the world to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Would that make the speaker owner omnipotent? No. Not at all.

The evidence that imperatives of Reason are imperatives of God is.....the argument. The proof. — Bartricks

So far we can grant that mind X exists. No where have you shown that that mind X is a triple omni God. Even in the argument you quoted above you didn't show it, you just stopped at "proving" that mind X exists.

I take it you accept that this is indeed an imperative of Reason and thus you accept that premise 1 is true. — Bartricks

I'm asking for clarifications so far.

You have a faculty of reason - in your case an extremely ropey one - and it is via that faculty that you gain an awareness of these imperatives. — Bartricks

Ah so I didn't hear them or take the input in through any sensory channels but my faculty of reason detected a command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time.... somehow.

Can you name any other "command issuing faculties" that we have? Does your faculty of sight tell you to stare at pretty girls/guys? Doubtful. Faculties don't issue imperatives. That can't be right. Try again.

You can't just brush it up to "We have a faculty that detected it". When talking about imperatives, every imperative must be a command, by someone, to someone, to do something. That's the definiton, you need those 3 components at least an issuer, a receiver, and an order. That command is heard, seen, or heck, telepathically communicated if you like. Point is you must receive some input. I'm asking if you have memory of receiving such an input. You don't seem to. I don't either. Neither did most people receive input by a divine being to act a certain way.

You do not have to know that it is God who is issuing them — Bartricks

Right but I must at least remember getting issued them. Again, for something to be an imperative it must have been issued by someone and received by another. However the only times I've ever been told to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time were all issued by non-omnipotent perfectly ordinary people. So I don't see the need to suggest that these imperatives were somehow issued by some divine entity.

I learn from the sign in the park that someone doesn't want me to walk on the grass. — Bartricks

But in this case there was no sign. There was no sound or sight imparted by any divine mind commanding you to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Go back through memory lane and you'll find every time someone told you to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, it was always a particular person. Never some undetected God.

But regardless, let's assume I accept everything you said so far. So far we have a mind that issues (somehow without providing any detectible input) a command to all humans to not believe propositions to be true and false at the same time. Let's call this mind X. Mind showing how mind X is omnipotent for having issued a command to mankind to behave a certain way?

If a proposition is true, do not believe that it is also false. — Bartricks

And you have memory of God conveying this to you? You sure it wasn't your teacher or parent or something?

And you think the mind that issues this imperative, is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent? What happens when I issue it to someone? Do I become a triple omni God?

Mind reelaborating why the mind that issues the imperative "If a proposition is true do not believe that it is also false" is omnipotent first? Because clearly I can issue that proposition without becoming or being omnipotent. How come?

Right but Bart is claiming that God issued the imperatives of reason to each of us individually. I don't remember that happening to me. And I don't know anyone who does either. That's all I'm saying. I didn't say that there are no people who at least claim to have been told things by God, just that I'm not one of them and neither are most people I know.

Or are you asking me to provide you with the content of one? — Bartricks

If it wasn't clear already. Yes. That's what "Give an example" means by the way.

What's an example of an imperative of reason?

?

So any imperative that is issued by a single mind is an imperative of reason? So “Do a backflip after eating 2 Burger King whoppers” is an imperative of reason? I’m pretty sure I’m the only mind so far who has issued it since it’s so ridiculous and specific. Guess that makes it an imperative of reason…

But just to be clear, imperatives of reason have nothing to do with reason (law of non contradiction, etc) and everything to do with the number of minds issuing an imperative? If that that number is 1 it is an imperative “of reason” otherwise it’s just a good ol command.

And additionally, that which issues the imperatives of reason is later found to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Guess since I just issued one I’m all 3 then! Wow I can feel the power already!

Cmon Bart. You can do better than that. Can you at least give an example of an imperative of reason?

Not challenging a premise. Just asking you what “imperatives of reason” are. I know what imperatives are. I know what laws of reason are. Idk what that word salad is.

So, you are using your personal lack of remembrance as an argument for the non-occurence of an event witnessed by others? — Apollodorus

“Witnessed by others”? Who? Who here claimed that God came down and told them “be reasonable”? Just Bart. Makes me think he’s just crazy.

Did God come down and tell you to be reasonable?

And no, I’m using my lack of remembrance as an argument for the non occurrence of an event that Bart claims happened to me. I don’t remember God telling me to be reasonable. In fact I don’t remember God telling me anything. And I would remember if he did. Just another area where Bart’s system is confused. When exactly did God tell all of us to be reasonable? No one seems to remember it.

4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source — Bartricks

Why single? But you and creative are trying to figure that bit out so I won’t double down on this for now.

The problem is what is an “imperative of reason”? Reason isn’t a set of imperatives. “Eat your dinner” that’s an imperative, a command. “A cannot be true and false in the same sense at the same time” is not an imperative. It doesn’t tell anyone to do anything. It’s called a law of reason. And it’s not so much issued by minds as discovered by them (but that’s a whole other topic).

“Follow the laws of reason” (colloquially, “be reasonable”) now that’s an imperative, one I suggest to you at that. I don’t remember God telling me that one though. I think I’d remember if God commanded me to do something. Hell, I remember different people telling me to follow or thwart the “imperative to follow reason” at different times. People. Not God.

No space — T Clark

Well “space” means “there is nothing there”. So I’d think what you want to imagine is just a world with all objects taken out of it, plenty of space, but not much else. I don’t see much difficulty in that.

Now if you’re trying to imagine a world without space, idk if that makes sense or not but what’s the point of doing so?

But I don’t get the point of the second thought experiment at all. Ok, I’m isolated in a classroom and I must have drank way too much because I start saying things about describing the whole world using nothing but the contents of the room. Is it supposed to indicate that this is possible somehow? Or what exactly?

Going by this metaphor, you’re also maintaining that one cannot always go left. And at the same time that every time one goes right they could have gone left. Since left and right are the only options, and it’s always possible to go left instead of right, then it’s possible to always go left. Which goes against the first premise that you cannot always go left.

It’s a very simple contradiction. I wouldn’t go so far as to talk to my food to confirm it but I think any sentient being would’ve seen it by now.

I never implied "go right and left" which in our case would mean to believe in something based on faith AND reason. That makes no sense. But leave it up to you to not understand a point made against your position regardless of the degree to which it is formalized and carefully articulated.

Anyone else besides me find a contradiction in this? — tim wood

I think Bart is the only one who doesn’t. And most people are too tired to point it out.

Let’s examine that.

if every belief has to be arrived at via reasoned reflection, then we will be on an infinite regress. — Bartricks

Which is to say “we cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection”. Let the set of all beliefs be U, and the ones we arrived at by reflection R. Additionally let the set of beliefs you arrive at by faith be F.

1- Not all x in U are R.

But although to believe something on faith is not to have reasoned to it — Bartricks

Thus:

2- For all x if x is not R, and is U, then it is F. (In other words, if it’s an unreasoned belief it’s faith)

For what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

3- For all x if x is F, it can also be R.

Combine 2 and 3 and you get: It is possible that all U are R. Which is a direct contradiction of the first premise.

Or to dumb it down a bit:

If every belief is either reasoned to, or believed on faith, and every faith can be reasoned to, then every belief can be reasoned to. Which contradicts your first statement.

if every belief has to be arrived at via reasoned reflection, then we will be on an infinite regress. — Bartricks

what one can know by faith one can, in principle, uncover by reason too. — Bartricks

“We cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection but beliefs we have arrived at not by reasoned reflection (but by faith) can be arrived at by reasoned reflection”.

Maybe some reasoned reflection is due.

Sigh. Here we go again.

Here is my argument for the truth of the first premise. Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? — Bartricks

Told? No. But I do know something. That the clouds make a "There's a pie in your the oven" shape. Or can we not agree on that either?

But I think that can't be correct, for just imagine that putting the pie in the oven somehow did actually cause the clouds to form into those shapes. Imagine, if you like, that the steam coming out of your oven as the pie cooks is what forms into those shapes and that this wouldn't have happened had there been no pie in your oven. Well, it seems just as clear in this case that you did not acquire knowledge that there was a pie in your oven — Bartricks

It very clearly seems you did. So, if we know that B is necessary for A, and we see A, then we do not know that B is the case?

And knowledge can apparently only come from some agent telling you something? Yikes.

That is, the pie was not using the clouds as a means of communicating its location to you. — Bartricks

Right. When was that ever suggested? What's being asked is whether or not you can know that a pie is in the oven given that a necessary consequent of the pie being in the oven is observed. The answer is yes. No one is trying to say that pies are talking to you (though you do have a history of talking to your food so I understand your confusion)

It seems to me that what's preventing you from acquiring knowledge in this sort of case is that you have acquired a true belief from an 'apparent' representation, not a real one. — Bartricks

You don't get better than that. By definition. You cannot perceive something beyond the "apparent representations". Because "apparent representations" are by definition all you can perceive. If something being apparent automatically guarantees that it may not be knowledge then that applies to everything.

Really? This from someone who thinks you can reject an argument if the one making the argument is a Christian! You really sure you know about the workings of reason? — Bartricks

Really? What does that even mean? Is your degree (should you have one) in something with 'studies' in the title? — Bartricks

You cannot seriously tell me you're not trolling. You don't see the irony? C'mon those were literally in the same comment, a paragraph apart.

But aside from that basis, they could never agree that moral laws do not depend on consequences or desires. You have an obligation to do X or Y precisely because of the consequences of X and Y.

moral law does not depend for its rational authority upon one having any particular desire or end. — Bartricks

But even this is something that utilitarians and particularists can agree on. — Bartricks

Utilitarians agree that moral laws do not depend on our desires or the consequences of our actions? That’s a new one…

Well clearly not because you can’t make a computer out of rocks. I honestly don’t get the comic. Is the guy acting as the CPU or something?

But fundamentally yea I think you can simulate a universe with conscious beings interacting.

But if you arrange the feeling of stubbing your toe with the beauty of a sunset while listening to a Bach symphony, you don't a working brain from that. — RogueAI

You (probably) need a brain to arrange any of those.

Isn't this a problem for physicalists who believe in matter/energy conversion? — RogueAI

No because your whole idea of a “mental stuff” that is different from physical stuff is rejected by physicalists in the first place.

I've never said it was fine. — BitconnectCarlos

You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification.

So what then? What's the upshot? — BitconnectCarlos

Why must there be a "so what"? This thread is simply talking about a current atrocity. What do you think the upshot is? You think everyone here is secretly siding with Hamas and threatening poor defenseless Israel?

Why do you do it with anyone? And why would it be anything personal?

Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" while also demonizing said Arabs. The form itself is insane ("The Germans did the holocaust so it's fine for us to slaughter them back") but that you compare Israel to the Arab states you keep demonizing should tell you something about Israel.

You also seem to think that anyone who condemns Israeli atrocities is fine with Arab atrocities. People don't see it as a freaking "atrocity competition" like you seem to. Saying X did something wrong doesn't make Y a saint.

Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers? — BitconnectCarlos

Why is this at the end of every comment? It's the same idea. Now it's "They didn't sentence their murderers so it's fine for us to leave some of ours too". You keep highlighting the intolerance and backwardness of many Arab countries but you can't go 2 sentences without comparing to them. What does that say about Israel?

When people say "Life is a gift" they usually just mean it's pretty good. Not that there is a ghost baby who was gifted by being allowed to live or anything like that.

Is it rightfully Israeli land from an "objective observer" standpoint? If so please explain why. And more importantly what land you think belongs to whom exactly. Is Sudan Egyptian land? Is China mongolian land? Is the US British land? What about Australia? Why or why not.

Please explain to me e.g. why an Arab massacre perpetrated against the Jews in 1941 in Iraq doesn't matter in this. Is it because Israel wasn't a state? Tell that the Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now"

Imagine if Israel started making concentration camps for Germans. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't mind that.

No, they stole our land. — BitconnectCarlos

Right. Like Sudan was stolen form Egypt since Egypt owned it 4000+ years ago so Sudan is actually rightfully Egyptian land and this justifies an invasion of Sudan and to confine Sudanese people to small portion of the country (that also happens to be split in 2).

I think an important question is what the poll would look like had it been phrased “Has this site gotten better?” Confirmation bias and all that.

I have literally posted thousands of words on this thread and you think that is my sole argument? — Andrew4Handel

It's disastrous that you even think it's an argument... "They had too many kids, kill em and their kids". Amazing honestly.

I pointed out that a man having 14 children and 2 wives in a conflict zone is not the Jews or Israelis' fault. — Andrew4Handel

And no one disagreed. That makes it ok to blow up the man, his 2 wives and his 14 children? Yikes.

Firing thousands of rockets arbitrarily into Israel is arguably worse than creating thousands of unnecessary children to suffer. — Andrew4Handel

"Thousands". Right. You know Israeli rockets kill over 100x more Palestinians than Hamas rockets do right? This is not an exaggeration these are real statistics.

You can blame other people for your own problems but not for your decision to pointlessly create children. — Andrew4Handel

So let me get this straight: Your main problem with the Palestinians isn't the terrorism (by Hamas) but that they have too many kids? And thusly, they deserve to be blown up?

Huh, guess Hamas is not so bad. After all, their rockets reduce the number of people that can have children! It's win win! Yay for murder by both sides!

But who cares just carry on creating children and blaming everyone else but the parents for their suffering. The Jews are histories biggest scapegoats and it is horrifying to see it happening here. — Andrew4Handel

Literally not a soul has blamed the Jews for the number of children that Palestinians have being higher than usual.

Child abuse is rife among poor people
— khaled

No it is not. — Andrew4Handel

I should be more specific. Child abuse is rife among people who benefit from having many children. Farming communities and the like. This is assuming you count having too many children as abuse.

Child abuse is Rife among Arabs. Do you support this or have you lobotomised yourself? — Andrew4Handel

Neither. Child abuse is rife among poor people, Arab or not. It's not very common in the Emirates for example. Also, is your argument literally "Arabs abuse their children therefore they're the bad guys in the conflict with Israel"? Wow.

But anyways, since I keep critiquing your points and you either ignore them or you contradict yourself, then I don't think I gain anything by responding to you anymore. I can't have a conversation with someone that doesn't respond.

And what's "Child abuse"? What's an "Arab"? All fictions of course!

I don't see how any of that responds to what I said. You don't know me either, but I won't randomly start throwing my life events at you as an "argument".

My point was you keep arguing using certain concepts then immediately question them when someone else uses them. An example was "right" but that was a "misphrasing" when you said that people have a right not to be dragged into life. Sure, I don't really believe that was a misphrasing, but sure. But there are still 2 other examples.

I condemn anyone for having children. — Andrew4Handel

The axioms on which one is condemning their enemy — Andrew4Handel

And

The validity of any moral system — Andrew4Handel

I am an antinatalist. — Andrew4Handel

And I'm sure many more to come.

I'm sure if anyone started trespassing on your home you'd call the cops, despite claiming that people can't own land.

Or another example:

It's hard to not see a performative contradiction between you saying "it's all fictions, we're just pretentious animals" while at the same time explicitly and vehemently arguing for the right to exercise violence in the defense of a number of these fictions (the fiction of jewish religion, the fiction of a jewish people and the fiction of a state called Israel). — Echarmion

I am a gay person the only non Christian in my Immediate family. — Andrew4Handel

Good job. Want a medal?

You're clearly not arguing from a levelheaded position. Look, I'm sorry for the shitty life you had but you keep contradicting yourself here. Maybe take a break.

He's going to claim people don't own land now, until someone starts trespassing in his house. He has a habit of using certain concepts (rights, moral condemnation, etc) to make an argument then immediately turn around and question those same concepts he required to make his argument a second ago once anyone else uses them.

I thought you were an antinatalist? — Andrew4Handel

Not anymore.

Are you going to support the right of Arabs/Palestinians to have 14 children whilst living in a cave? — Andrew4Handel

No. Having kids you can't provide for is wrong by most traditional moral systems no?

They don't have the right to have children I misphrased by saying "we have a right" — Andrew4Handel

Ah ok, so that one was a misphrasing. The other two? You think moral systems are invalid yet advertise your AN. You think there is no basis on which to condemn yet you condemn people for having children.

If their are rights the primary one is not to exist because some other selfish narc wants children. — Andrew4Handel

Why would you think that? I would think "Not getting murdered" or something like that would come first. What's your argument that that one should be prominent?

But just to make sure we're on the same page here, this is all in the ridiculous scenario the people have rights at all right? I mean, what a ridiculous notion! But if it were the case somehow, the primary right would be not to exist because......

The lack of rights favours no one. Moral nihilism favours no one. Reality is anarchist and your position may survive or it may not. — Andrew4Handel

Sure I can agree with all that.

No one can defend their position using nature. — Andrew4Handel

I don't know. Seems pretty natural to claim humans have rights and to do everything one can to enforce those. I don't think there has ever been a society where people didn't have rights of some sort.

Anyone supporting Islam to me is a child abuser. — Andrew4Handel

I'm interested in knowing why. I don't see how you can despise christianity and islam but love judaism. They're in the same "family".

The validity of any moral system — Andrew4Handel

I am an antinatalist. — Andrew4Handel

Huh.

I condemn anyone for having children. — Andrew4Handel

The axioms on which one is condemning their enemy — Andrew4Handel

Hmm.

No animal has rights and billions die everyday. — Andrew4Handel

We have a right not to be forced into existence. — Andrew4Handel

Are you seriously not noticing any of this? That’s.... impressive. Especially the last one, the two sentences are a paragraph apart!