Justification is simply a matter of an individual feeling that they have good reasons to believe something — Terrapin Station

How exactly do you mean this? Surely people can feel like they have good reasons even if they do not, such as concerns empirical claims at least?

Alright, I understand.

Depends on the act. I don't feel it's the same for everything. Most lying I don't have a problem with. I primarily think that lying is only a problem re contractual fraud. — Terrapin Station

So how do you decide which things?
Also, Not having a problem with and not being moral/immoral are two different things. Are you saying you only think lying is wrong in the case of contractual fraud?

Often we don't get to chose between good and bad, We only get to chose between bad and worse. The worse does not make the bad good, it is still bad. Just the lesser of evils. — Rank Amateur

I agree, but I think that principal would be misapplied in the case of a lie vs allowing a murder. Lie isnt the lesser of evils, but the only moral act.

Well then - where exactly is the line between moral and immoral lying ? Is it always depended on the purpose? Is there some universally accepted list of acceptable reasons to lie for ?? — Rank Amateur

I would say the line is in the moral reasoning, in the purpose of the lie. I view a lie like a tool, to be used for morally or immorally. An analogy might be a gun or a knife, not evil or immoral in itself but in how its used.

I couldn't more strongly disagree with that. I believe that everyone lies, and that they do so rather frequently. I also believe that a significant percentage of lies are neutral if not positive. — Terrapin Station

Not directed at me but Im curious why you mention that everyone lies. Is that meant to be a good reason to lie?
Also, doesnt your positive/neutral/negative (presumably negative as well, you didnt mention negative) stance imply a scale for acts, meaning that in principal the acts themselves are neither moral or immoral? Is that your intent?
I ask because my own take is that actions themselves are neither immoral nor moral, that morality only comes into play with context and intent, with the moral reasoning of the instance. Ive never thought of it as a scale, but it seems similar to what I have in mind.

Suppose a murderer is at your door and asks you where your friend is. Your friend is hiding in your house, but the murderer is going to kill him. Should you tell the truth? — Happiness

I think the moral act is to save your friends life. First, why is lying immoral? In this case, a lie is exactly the moral thing to do. If you follow Kantian ethics as you have laid out, this will certainly lead to horrors easily equal to the acts of evil men, and for what? To uphold a principal? Is human life worth a principal of not lying?
Imagine Nazi Germany, where someone is hiding Jews from extermination in thier hidden basement. A Nazi officer asks them if they are hiding Jews, they say no. The Jews live.
You want to call the lie immoral? Id say its the exact opposite. That is the problem with uncompromising principals, they will inevitably lead to tragedy and suffering.

We know there's empirical proof/ evidence or empirical ways to arrive at proof/evidence. But, is there anything like a theoretical proof/evidence? What would that be? — BrianW

I think that the best “proof” theory can achieve is verification of its reliability. So if you have a theory and you apply it rigorously and it shows itself to be reliably correct, thats about as firm a proof the theory can get.
I suppose what Im saying is there is no proof without interaction with the physical world, to confirm the theories validity.

How about:
Reality has a structure to it, and math is useful in understanding parts of it.
I agree our mathmatical models are no guarantee for understanding, but human created mathmatics do more than come close, they vary from exact descriptions to less accurate descriptions.

Right/wrong are human concepts not universal. The right or wrongness of a situation is determined by the creatures involved.IQ is equal to logic, the more logically one can examine a situation the higher the IQ of that creature. — Nathaniel

Not true, IQ tests measure more than logic. Knowledge, for starters. Congnition, comprehension, pattern recognition...and ya, logic.

Laplace's original formulation concerned physical law and matter and that is what I am addressing. Mathematical truth is not physically determined by any physical state in the universe. I am not talking here about applied mathematics, I am talking about pure number theory. It is what it is, eternally. That is what is important. Eternal mathematical truth determines what happens, not any physical state. — EnPassant

Ok, in that case Im sorry to say you have posited nothing here at all. Certainly nothing interesting.
You defined the premiss as being outside the physical state of the universe and conclude that a specific equation based on that premiss is outside the physical state of the universe. You can’t have it both ways, either you bring in the choice part and at least some part is dependent on physical states or you do not. Using the argument quoted, you have chosen the latter. Thats fine, but then you arent really saying much at all here.

Reality follows patters which we can infer through scientific observation and measurement.

However the math that we humans have invented to approximate it is not reality. — hks

I think you are confusing our description of reality with reality. It is true that math is made up by humans, or a game we play or however you want to put it but its also true that seperate from that “game”, there are actual numbers of things and more and less of things etc
Math, or perhaps more properly advanced math/physics, becomes this “game” as it creates models and such (that work, thats important) but I don’t think becuase of that you can make the claim you are. There is room for both things to be true.
Also, to say something that is part of reality “isnt reality” seems confusing. Are you making a distinction between reality and something that exists in reality when you use the term “reality”. Seems like you are saying the two are separate rather than one encompassing the other, is that right?

Okay, and that matter of fact hinges on? — Terrapin Station

I prefer engagement, otherwise I could just be reading so Im gonna pass.

But you just said that neither ball is more objectively well-suited to rolling. So if the principles are the same . . . ? The goal here isn't to score points, it's to explain something to you. — Terrapin Station

I understand that, Im not trying to keep score, my laughter was meant to be light-hearted not rude.
What I said was that none of the traits are “rolling” traits, according to your own definition. They might be bowling traits, or giant boulder trap traits but as I said I agree that these are not mind independent. They require a subject with a goal for the rolling ball. To get a strike or kill Indiana Jones. Absent of these mind dependent traits, there is still a matter of fact of how well suited a ball is or is not to “moving by turning over and over on an axis”.
What is it that you think you are explaining to me? I feel like I understand what you are saying. We can leave it there or you can tell me why my argument is incorrect but focusing on the semantics of our various examples isnt doing that.

Lol, ball analogy not working out? The principals are the same, switching to hammers or other examples won’t change that.
Your turn, have you any responses to my actual arguements above? I don’t know that we necessarily disagree on much, but as far as I can tell my points above stand.

No, none of those traits (thats what you meant by “option”?) are traits that are strictly “rolling”
Traits, and thats not my opinion its yours. (Your definition of rolling excluded them).

You miss the point Im afriad. It doesnt matter how rolling is defined, thats why I asked you fir yours, to show that my argument doesnt require a specific definition. You arent engaging with much of what im saying, do you intend to at some point?
Anyway, You are right I had said I would do it your way.
My answer: rolling via less force, further, with less friction, more distance etc are NOT better suited traits for rolling becuase none of those things are encompassed in the definition of rolling.
Now what?

Ok, well your definition of rolling doesnt include anything about force or further or friction etc etc, so it seems like a poorly worded question now that you have provided how you want to mean “rolling”. As I explained (tried ), my answer will simply be an accounting of what the best traits are for what “rolling” means. I suspect you will not find that satisfactory, but Im not trying to dodge here. I feel like ive provided an argument that makes your question irrelevant.

Hence me asking why is rolling via less force, further, with less friction, more distance etc. "more well-suited to rolling" versus rolling via more force, less distance, etc.? What's the answer to that? — Terrapin Station

I was hoping it would be obvious from my last comment that your question is ignoring an important distinction.
Lets do it your way though. I will happily answer your question but I need to know what you mean by “rolling”. Whatever your answer is, there will be a scale of well suited to less well suited traits. Something that cannot roll for example, cannot sensibly be said to be well suited to rolling.

Okay, so the next question is, why is rolling via less force, further, with less friction, more distance etc. "more well-suited to rolling"? You're claiming that's objectively the case. What makes rolling via less force, etc. the "well-suited" rolling versus rolling via more force, less distance, etc.? — Terrapin Station

I edited that last post a bit fyi.
Well this is the overlap. I think it is precisely where a human being would make a mistake un assigning an objective trait, by inserting some human end like knocking down pins on a bowling lane. One could just as easily invent a game where bumpy ball is better suited, strengthening your own point. The traits valued are subjective.
However, “rolling” is something that happens objectively, and however you define the term “rolling” there are going to be traits better suited to it and traits not as well suited.

Say that you have two ball-like objects.

One is so round, so smooth, with so little friction, that we can just tap it lightly and it will roll for a mile.

The other is so bumpy, with so much friction, that it takes a tremendous amount of effort to roll at all. It will roll, but it takes a lot of force to barely get one revolution out of it.

Which one is more "well-suited" to roll? — Terrapin Station

The one that has the most traits that are well suited to rolling. In your example it sounds like the smooth, mile rolling one. These traits are mind independent. They exist and are condusive to rolling regardless of why the ball is rolled, or what any mind thinks of as good rolling traits. Maybe the person rolling the ball is an idiot, and thinks that the bumpy one is the better roller. It doesnt matter what he thinks.
Same with the hammer and the dead fish. Regardless of any subjective opinion or belief or any other subjective thing the hammer will hammer the nail better than the dead fish. Even if you take two hammers and its impossible to tell which is better suited at hammering, it would only strengthen my claim. There is a fact of the matter about which hammer is better, or ball, or hammer to dead fish or whatever else...traits suited for things are that way whether humans know, or care or whatever subjective phenomenon you have in mind. Thats objective as you are using it here, is it not? Its worth repeating that I dont think we are dealing with mutually exclusive concepts here, it seems to me that there is overlap. Figuring out where the boundries are require me to convince you of this bit of mind independence first. Did it work? Do you think that the traits themselves that things possess are mind independent? If so, then the interactions between or of these mind independent things can likewise be mind independent, even though they wont always be so such as in the case of a person making a mistake about whether or not a trait of an object is in fact mind independent.

There is no such distinction in Determinism. Its all happening within the physical realm, the way the mind works, the way logic is informed, the basis fir rationality etc etc, its all bound together by causality and thus falls under Determinism, “physical” Determinism is a distinction you yourself are making to service your argument, but it ignores the other foundations of Determinism. Specifically, you don’t have an answer for the causal chain within which your equation exists, and I dont see how you can question Determinism without directly addressing that fundamental part of Determinism. Restricting Determinism to direct physical objects is a straw man.

I see, using “good” differently. I had in mind something like “well suited”. Eventually we can discuss the morality issue, I was intending to make this point first and should have chosen my words more carefully.
That is, unless you are no more satisfied with “well suited” than with morally good....?

I don't either. Rather it's the complete lack of evidence of any other relevant phenomena that means that the preferences are all that's going on. — Terrapin Station

Sorry, were you the person I was talking to about the hammer?
I think you are right in noticing preference is often soley present, but I think there are also instances where there is objective utility as well. A ball is objectively good at rolling, as opposed to a box. Whether a preference for rolling exists or not, whether a mind is there to categorise/notice or not, the ball still rolls and the box does not.
It doesnt seem like your view here is accepting there are exceptions to your observation about the presence of preference.

In what way is the “choice” the numbers make not moored to the equation itself and thus determined in precisely the same way as other deterministic processes? The outcome will always be based on a causal chain, whether the person initiating the process knows the outcome or not. There are weak points to determinism where free will is concerned but I don’t think this is one of them, its covered by determinism.

At each step of your process there is determism. When you’re choosing the square root of 11, what to put on your list etc etc
The “choice itself” is an illusion. It is the result of determinate factors, not some sort of causal vacuum. You are no more making a choice when those numbers play out than you are when you “choose” to continue falling after jumping off a cliff.

Why is revenge excessive? If you punch me in the face, and I seek revenge by saying “you sir, are an asshole”, then its not excessive.
Revenge doesnt mean excessive punishment, I think you are adding that.

The choice to follow the digits is determined, so the paradigm is still in effect. Its pretty inescapable.

Why does revenge have to be “even more” than justice? Isnt the difference between revenge and justice a matter of motivation? In fact, I would say that justice and revenge could both be served at the same time. A satisfaction that a person suffered what they inflicted upon you AND justice being served in a broader sense.

I agree, the traits you describe are dynamic, they play off of each other but in the end its a loop, its locked in. I think you are right it does put our agency into question. But, as we just discussed our agency actually encompasses some of that, thoughts and feeling informed by biology and interaction with environment etc etc, so as far as free will goes I think that if agency includes all that then there is room for us to be making choices. I think at the very least awareness plays a key role, it seems to me that it holds a unique place, by itself it can completely change the course of a choice.

I agree that 'thoughts and feelings' is a very simplistic way of putting it, but i do mean it to include logic, reason, emotion etc. Any mental function really. — LSDC

Alright, then I think what you said is perfectly reasonable.

Actions governing our feelings / thoughts in so far as our past 'experience' is determined largely by our past actions.

Even if these actions were receptive, such as seeing, hearing, being told something etc.

So while more specifically our experience governs our thoughts / feelings / beliefs, i see experience as being a product of our actions. Does that make sense? — LSDC

It seems a bit strange to say experience is s product of our actions..experience is a product of being conscious, but ya that makes sense.
So where are these queries leading to? Are the basis for something else you want to discuss?

A) a person = their thoughts, feelings, (including beliefs) and actions.

B) thoughts and feelings govern actions, and vice verca.

Probably nonsense but please tell me why. — LSDC

A) agree, but would suggest expanding a bit more. A persons thoughts and feelings are informed by some biology...lots of testosterone leads to certain thoughts, or lack of serotonin. I think these things are the person too, the chemical balances and the way we are built biologically are probably at the core of what people often think of as a “person”.

B) Again, isnt it more than thoughts and feelings? Are you using either of those words to include logic and reason? Those govern action as well.
In what way do you think actions govern thoughts and feelings? Im not sure I understand how that would be the case.

I think omniscience is redundant to omnipotence. Everything is. I’ve never really understood why any other attributes would be included in gods description.

Regardless, it shouldnt be off limits to criticise. Just like everything else.

ffensive and consciously provocative. But as such, the matter concerns individuals, speaker and auditor. Resultant violence, if any, is the proper and only concern of government. — tim wood

Well, Muhammad WAS a pedophile. Married and had sex with a 9 year old. If its the truth, it should be fair game to talk about and criticise.
I agree with you on free speech, which is under attack in the western world. A survey of young people in the US stated that somethung like 45% of them didnt care about a persons right to free speech. Ming boggling.
The european hate speech laws are nuts. If someone is a racist or something, we should let them soeak loud and proud do we know who they are. Restricting thier ability to speak thier tacist views just changes where they say it, frommwhere we can see them to where we cant. That henerally makes such views stronger not weaker. Out intne open, they will be chsllenged and educated. In the shadows, it just begets itself.

Lol, the lack of understanding is yours, entirely. I was just trying to politely withdraw because I despise wasting my time. If you can’t understand the simple point im making, only a tedious workload of explaining would suffice to enlighten you to what you would already know if you were actually listening, but you aren't. You are talking. Fair enough. Ill stop wasting my breath.
(Any snideness you detect this time is likely intentional )

Okay, but I think it's worth me continuing. — Terrapin Station

I don’t think it is, Unfortunately ive reached my limit on how much more I can break it down. (Not meant to be snide)
I understand what you are saying, but I think my own points are not getting through. Wrong, incoherent...if I have failed so miserably at expressing my view here then Im happy to just move on. There is some semantics at play and clarity we could pursue but I feel like the effort to reward ratio is fairly low.

I goofed with the quotes, ended up in reverse. I trust you can figure out the order.

The hammer and the dead fish themselves do not answer this. Again, objectively, it's not better to have one set of properties than another, for any properties. Objectively, it's not better to have what you desire rather than what you do not desire.

The reason one thing is better than another is because of your preferences, what you desire. The judgment is always subjective. The idea of it being objective is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

You mean to tell me that you cannot determine which thing is better at hammering nails, a hammer or a dead fish? Not without conceding my points you can’t...so you are refusing.
Again you rephrased what I said to create a straw man. If you argued honestly you would find it less incoherent.

It's not objectively better to have what you desire. "It's better to have what you desire" is a subjective preference. — Terrapin Station

Thats not what I said. I believe thats called a straw man.

It's not that I don't understand it. It's that you're wrong. And I'll keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong until you understand it. — Terrapin Station

Thats very generous of you, but I will pass.