It is ok to prevent the harm of someone else if their negative ethics is being violated by a third-party. The autonomy of the person has already been violated. Violating non-aggression is not bad if one's autonomy is going to be or has already been violated from another's aggression. — schopenhauer1

Not very sound principles then, are they? We’re back to square one. If following one principle causes another principle to be violated, then one or both principles are flawed.

I'd like to add that a possible justification for negative ethics is its association with autonomy. By violating a principle, autonomy is being violated. By forcing or harming someone, it not respecting their autonomy. — schopenhauer1

And now you’ve added a third principle - or is this your underlying principle? Is autonomy for you a fundamental right? This would explain your stance a bit better: non-existence being the only way to respect ideal autonomy in every sense.

For all we know, we may be in the same situation. Although we are more aware than that vegetable-like person, a lot of things escape us, and we could always make an effort to be more aware. Who knows what you might have done to the delivery boy last time you ordered something. — Congau

Agreed. It’s almost impossible to be aware if you don’t interact, though.

In negative ethics we have indeed the right to make demands. I have the right to demand that you don’t murder your next door neighbor, even though I don’t know you nor your neighbor. I don’t have the means to prevent you or punish you, but the abstract right to demand is not dependent on that. If I caught you when you were about to commit the murder, I would have the right to stop you, don’t you agree?
You couldn’t say: “I’m a free person so you have no right to stop me or demand that I refrain from murdering.”
However, since you are a free person, I can’t demand that you do what is recommended by positive ethics. I can’t demand that you give money to charity for example.[/quote]

Well, I could say that, actually. I wouldn’t be attempting murder if I didn’t believe I had some right to be undeterred in this particular situation.

I get that you believe you have a moral right to apply force in preventing me from murdering someone, and that most people would probably agree with you. But if negative ethics includes both ‘don’t harm others’ and ‘don’t use force’, then wouldn’t you need to allow one to be violated in order to uphold the other in this situation? So how do you decide which one is more important to uphold?

It is manifest in the way we perceive and/or understand it. Why would energy be potential? Because it is assigned a certain degree of probable capacity for work. Therefore, the potential of any energy is manifest with respect to activities and the conditions they take place in. — BrianW

Like ‘God’ is manifest in the way we perceive and understand it? Or with respect to the activities and conditions of the universe? I’m trying to understand what evidence you have of actual energy that isn’t doing any work.

I recognise that my perspective is unconventional, and I don’t expect it to be intuitively understood in this way. But the more I apply this conceptualisation to experience, the more sense it makes.

Don’t get me wrong - I realise that potential energy is real. We perceive it and understand it as a prediction in relation to a capacity for work. Manifest as energy, however, as an event, it is a reduction - a collapsed wave, if you will. There is more to what we refer to as ‘potential energy’ than what it manifests as, more than its relation to any specific activity or conditions. It’s real because it has a value aspect and a meaning aspect, but its temporal and spatial aspects are undefined. It cannot exist as actual energy except in the past: the energy in an activity was potential energy. But it’s not anymore.

The way I see it, the existence of potential energy points to an aspect of reality with which we interact that is beyond time, enabling us to accurately structure predictions in relation to the manifestation of energy. I can see that activities and conditions are caused, but how is energy caused? The language around energy and ‘doing work’ disguises the reality that energy is not exactly caused, but rather manifests from its own potential in relation to the potential of interacting events.

‘Survival is unnecessary’ - is this statement true or false according to Reason?
— Possibility

Obviously that would depend.

Do you think it is true? If you think it is true, does that entail that it is true? If not, why not? — Bartricks

Well, it doesn’t matter what I think, does it? It only matters what appeals to Reason. You’ve already made it clear that I’m unable to determine this.

So what does Reason tell you about the truth of this statement? And what does its truth depend on (apart from an appeal to Reason, of course)?

Which is easier, evolving creativity or creating evolution?

At present the arrow of truth seems to be pointing toward the former, evolving creativity. The surest evidence I can think of is us - evolved creative beings who have difficulty creating evolution. — TheMadFool

I think you might be limiting your thinking here by looking at it as either/or. We are evolved beings who are most aware of the underlying creative impetus in the universe. The ‘creativity’ I have is simply a capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity to be aware of, connect to and collaborate with unrealised capacity, etc.

Evolution, at base, IS this creative impetus. ‘Natural selection’ impacts only on life: those systems that are open to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration beyond a vague awareness of that, there and then. But the process is actually more fundamental. It is a limiting process defined by its opposition to this creative impetus in each interaction: by ignorance, isolation and exclusion. At a more fundamental level, this negation defines the periodic table, the planets, etc. But at the level of life, it defines the diversity of that life, setting limitations on what survives.

Agreed but no art is more complex than the artist him/herself. That's what I mean. — TheMadFool

Ok, I agree with this, but I maintain that your argument as stated doesn’t follow.

There is a difference between creativity and evolution but if one subscribes to Darwin's theory, the former evolved from the latter. We now ask which is a better tool in terms of ability to produce "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful", creativity or what has been termed blind evolution which is self-explanatory?

We have the following to go with:

1. The evident fact of simplicity evolving by what is a random process into complexity

2. Evolved human creativity and intelligence, arguably the dream team in the area of "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful"

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity.

It's akin to a blind man with zero skills creating a masterpiece while at the same time a man with 20/20 vision, trained in the arts, fails to even produce something that can be considered a poor counterfeit.

Of course there could be other reasons for this state of affairs like time and incomplete knowledge and so this argument is applicable only to the present. — TheMadFool

I think I see where you’re going now. Personally, I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence.

Darwin’s theory, for me, is not a motivating but a limiting process on a more fundamental creative impetus that exists beyond space, time, value or meaning. It only requires a vague awareness of interaction to begin. But it’s language that limits our capacity to approach a shared understanding of this more than anything.

No it is not circular. As a young child I lived in a very cold house (ice on the inside of the windows). We had no central heating, just an open fireplace in the living room. I constantly had a cold in the winter. However it didn't bothered me all that much because I thought that this was perfectly normal. Now I live in a centrally heated home but whenever I am anywhere where it is cold I feel miserable. Knowledge has a huge influence on perception. — ovdtogt

That’s not knowledge, that’s an expectation of control. You’re now so accustomed to having the temperature where you want it, that a situation where it’s your body that needs to make the adjustment is perceived by you as suffering. It’s a discomfort or lack of control that you don’t feel you should have to deal with. It doesn’t matter what the weather’s like - the temperature should just be 21C, because that’s where you want it.

As I said - humans suffer when think they know better than reality.

‘Survival is unnecessary’ - is this statement true or false according to Reason?

That’s an unusual way to approach it, but it looks like you’ve reached a similar understanding: nothing is conclusive, unless we deliberately stop accepting new information and declare it to be. In which case it is limited.

So we should recognise that our limited information renders the structure of our knowledge inconclusive. When we are aware of the prediction error this causes, we are called to make an effort (find energy) to revise the information we do have, accepting new information and discarding structures that are no longer relevant. We need to interact and relate more with what we cannot comprehend, rather than defining the terms of existence and then striving to avoid the prediction error. The first step to doing science is recognising the gaps and inconsistencies in our knowledge. Sometimes we need to be prepared to take structures apart and rebuild them to accommodate new information. For me, gaps are less painful than inconsistencies - but then, I’m not a scientist.

The way I see it, there is no conclusive ‘everything’. The amount of relevant information about a system is finite, yet there is always more information to be gained about the system.

Humans suffer more because they know they suffer. — ovdtogt

That’s circular. Humans suffer because their predicted conceptualisation of the world doesn’t match the information from their interactions with sensed reality, and they prefer to interact with their existing predictions than make the effort to revise their concepts.

Revision is change: the experience amounts to:

Pain: the recognition that energy is required within the system that hasn’t been budgeted for

Lack/loss: the recognition that previously integrated information must be discarded as no longer relevant, or that the information within the system is incomplete

Humiliation: the recognition that the system needs what is beyond the system

Suffering is a refusal to recognise these. Humans suffer more because they think they know better than reality.

How a dog 'sees' the world with his nose is beyond our comprehension. — ovdtogt

No it isn’t. It’s only beyond yours at this moment.

To find simplicity in complex 'reality' is the essence of 'knowledge'. We are looking for building blocks not for buildings. Try to find a definition of life in 1 sentence and work your way up from there. — ovdtogt

I did - I adjusted yours.

I think you would first need a physical structure, similar to an exoskeleton (porous rock or calcium deposits?) in which a certain (natural) chemical process takes place. Possibly a process that makes lipids which in turn creates a substitute skin. Do you know of a chemical process capable of making lipid from inorganic compounds? — ovdtogt

Skin comes later. First you need to have a system that moves of its own accord - that responds as a whole to internal chemical reactions.

It is just that because their sense of smell and hearing is so vastly more acute than ours we will never understand it's 'world view' apart that it wants to eat, shit, sleep and fuck like we do. — ovdtogt

Hmm, do you spend ANY time with dogs at all? I’m only asking because that is a particularly limited understanding of what a dog wants, and the distinction between dogs and humans.

I am more concerned with the difference in it's perception of 'reality'. Our truths are more or less 'predetermined by the ability and dis-ability of our senses. — ovdtogt

Well, if that were the case, then I have NO idea how we cure or prevent diseases or infection...

You keep assuming that I don’t listen to reason at all. I’m not sure you realise that it’s possible to listen to reason AND to have a broader perspective of reality.

Because you and I share the same machinery I have far less of a problem comprehending how you operate. Society is built on the fact that as humans we are capable of empathizing with other humans. — ovdtogt

Society is built on an assumption that you and I ‘operate’ the same way. On a basic level, that may be fairly accurate. On a more basic level, we also ‘operate’ the same way as dogs do in many respects. That’s not a bad place to start in comprehending how a dog views reality.

But at the higher level of subjective experience, value and meaning, you cannot just presume to comprehend how I operate simply because we’re both human. You would need to speculate, predict and test. And you would need to care about the differences you find.

Many people have taken the trouble to care about the differences between how a dog views reality and how a human does. The more we interact with them, the more refined our comprehension becomes.

life: a replicating chemical reaction. Is this an accurate or even useful definition of life? — ovdtogt

The short version: No.

Life defined as a replicating chemical reaction is an oversimplification. It isn’t accurate, and as a definition of life it doesn’t distinguish an understanding of life from other replicating chemical reactions - like a star - so it isn’t very useful.

I think we could define life more accurately, at its most basic, as a self-replicating system of various chemical reactions.

And if so are we able to speculate how such a self replicating system could come into existence? — ovdtogt

The short version: of course we are.

If you want me to speculate here, it’ll take more than two sentences. I think there is a way of looking at how chemical reactions can be informed by other chemical reactions over a duration, which points to a capacity for life. But an impetus that would underly both the chemical reactions and the resultant replicating system is the clincher.

Even comprehending how a dog views 'reality' will just remain an educated guess. — ovdtogt

As will you comprehending how I experience reality.

well I'm not so sure that concludes anything. — ep3265

Well I’m not sure I claimed it did.

If a non-human observed something out of our comprehension, there's absolutely no way of telling and we would never even realize it. — ep3265

That’s a little defeatist, isn’t it? How do you think we developed a way to comprehend what other humans experience and observe? Do you think that’s conclusive?

I’ll keep that in mind - my reply to your recent OP would have been an overkill, then. :grimace:

I think this forum would benefit from a 2 sentence maximum rule. — ovdtogt

That would count me out - I’m rarely brief.

You really haven’t taken notice of anything I’ve said, have you?

I guess some people can’t be helped...

That's the only one that matters. Everything else is ego and posturing. — Bartricks

Well then, I’ll leave you to your delusions...

Now, it seems to me that you are thinking that if some people of limited cognitive abilities and/or a stubborn conviction that I am wrong about anything and everything, object to some argument I have made, then that shows that the argument is not sound, or not valid, or that I am not reasonable in rejecting or ignoring what they have said. — Bartricks

Don’t get me wrong - your argument appears to make sense from a logical perspective. But that alone does not make it true. Truth is not bound by logic, and any description of truth from a logical perspective is necessarily limited. You may be willing to assert that Reason knows exactly what truth is, but I’m not convinced. I have reason to suspect that truth extends beyond appeals to Reason. That doesn’t mean I know what truth is better than Reason does, or that I think Reason has no clue at all - only that she cannot possibly have the full picture. Nobody does, that’s the point.

Can you also explain to me what you mean by 'evidence'. For example, how can any sensation constitute evidence without an appeal being made to Reason? — Bartricks

The ‘evidence’ I was referring to is the written testimony of others who express a subjective experience of truth that extends beyond appeals to Reason. I’m not sure what ‘sensations’ you’re referring to...

So, explain to me on what grounds you think you know something, if it is not by appeal to reason.

It seems to me that you are not remotely reasonable. But of course, that's not a vice, is it, by your book?

You just know that some things are true, and furthermore if the reason of you and others seems to contradict you, that - for you - is not evidence that you are wrong.

There's a name for that: it is called 'dogmatism'. — Bartricks

I have made no assertions here - I haven’t claimed to know anything. You can cast dispersions on how ‘reasonable’ you think I am, but it only verifies the limitations of your argument.

No, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying that potential energy is not actual energy; it is. Potential energy is actual energy. However, its potentiality is relative. For example, both kinetic and potential energy are energies; but the difference is with respect to the state in which they are manifest. 'Potential' and 'kinetic' are expressions of the conditioning of the energy, and thus potential energy can translate to kinetic and vice-versa. In both cases, it is impossible to negate the aspect of them as being 'energy' even when the conditioning changes. My point is, the perspective of reality as energy is all-inclusive, because it can be applied to all components of reality. — BrianW

How is potential energy manifest?

How on earth can one reason without appealing to reason? — Bartricks

I’m glad you asked. There is a common presumption that thinking and making sense of reality (ie. reasoning) necessarily requires a purely rational or logical structuring of that reality, but in my experience I find this to be neither true nor entirely helpful. Human behaviour, for instance, cannot be effectively structured according to logic, because not everyone reasons - thinks and makes sense of reality - in precisely the same way. To structure our social reality in a purely logical way would ensure prediction error with almost every human interaction. I imagine this is what autism might feel like.

While it’s possible to formulate a logically structured reality (from the perspective you refer to as Reason herself), one cannot be certain that this structure is entirely objective - that is, inclusive of all possible perspectives of reality. It is reasonable to assume that not everyone’s perspective of reality is identical to this logical structure of reality we refer to as Reason. The only way to assert the truth of Reason’s perspective with any confidence, then, is to exclude or ignore any perspective that doesn’t conform to it.

So it’s reasonable to suggest that perhaps Reason may not be as certain as to the inclusive truth of her logically structured reality as you are. How would you know without appealing to Reason herself? And how could she inform you either way?

I barely scraped through calculus in high school, and I’m way out of practise, so I’ll admit that most of that went over my head.

But I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’, if you’ve read it...

What is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' and how have I committed it. Remember, I'm a dumbo so I not be understanding this stuff. — Bartricks

There’s no need to get passive-aggressive, I made no assumption about your intelligence, only your capacity to see reasoning as more inclusive than simply appeals to Reason.

Excuse my appeal to Wikipedia:

“No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).”

You attempt to protect the generalisation ‘truth is an appeal only to Reason’ from counterexamples (such as that truth extends beyond reason) by changing it to ‘all reasonable people would agree that truth is an appeal only to Reason’, which excludes claims by anyone who (by your definition of ‘reasonable person’) fails to appeal only to Reason, or to make a formal argument. This is the circular reasoning that everyone else is trying to point out to you. You have modified the subject of your assertion (what truth is) to exclude any and all reasonable claims of truth that extend beyond your definition of Reason, without reference to a specific objective rule; ie. those who appeal to anything beyond Reason are not part of the group known as ‘reasonable persons’, and thus disagreeing with the assertion that ‘truth is an appeal only to reason’ is not disagreeing with the assertion that ‘all reasonable people would agree that truth is an appeal only to Reason’ - and so, in your mind, your argument is flawless.

My counter argument (and I may not have made this clear enough for you) has been to point out that if my subjective experience of truth extends beyond appeals to Reason, and includes empirical evidence that other subjective experiences of truth do the same, then it is reasonable to at least consider the possibility that an appeal to Reason is insufficient for an inclusive and objective understanding of what truth is.

Your response has been to exclude me from the group known as ‘reasonable persons’, because I didn’t use the formal language of argument - which necessarily reduces any meaning of truth to an appeal only to Reason - in order to make my case.

Have I made a false assumption? No. I have assumed this: I have assumed that all reasonable people will agree that they have acquired the true theory of truth when it is clear to the reason of all of them that the theory in question is asserted by Reason. Is that assumption false? Well, you've said precisely nothing - nothing - to challenge it. You don't seem even to be aware of it. But it is true, is it not? I mean, what more could a reasonable person want before they will be assured of the truth of a thesis?

I have also assumed this: that if all reasonable people will be satisfied that they have acquired the true theory of truth when and only when it seems clear to them all that Reason asserts it to be true, then - other things being equal - it is reasonable to suppose that this is what truth itself consists of. That is, that truth itself is composed of Reason's assertions, given that this and this alone is what assures us we have it. — Bartricks

Well, if you really need me to reduce my level of reasoning to yours...how about we start with the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy? There are a number of reasonable posters here who object (and have made reasonable objections) to your assumptions. Appealing to Reason as you see it is not the same as being reasonable. So are you the only one here who is being ‘truly’ reasonable?

Life requires an agency capable of discovering the most efficient processes to perpetuate itself with the ability to choose these processes in order to do so.

In fact it could be said that if nature is truly efficient it would favor directed evolution which necessitates an agent with intelligence AND free will rather than just leave everything to the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool

We're in a catch 22 situation. The ability to choose - free will - combined with intelligence would favor life but then there would be no choice but to follow the most efficient processes.

Perhaps we could frame the issue in terms of intelligence alone not being adequate because then there would be nothing to make a choice to follow the most efficient processes to perpetuate itself. There is a need for the ability to choose (free will) even if in the broader context these choices are limited by NE. — TheMadFool

This a very interesting discussion. I’d like to throw in a suggestion:

Perhaps we could frame the issue in terms of will as part of the directed evolution itself. Rather than simply the ability to ‘choose’ the most efficient processes, what directs evolution even prior to life is an impetus to discover or at least prefer what it perceives (in its limited awareness) as the most efficient processes for a sustainable existence. This develops as an underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration - although an individual will has always been in a position to alternatively ignore, isolate and exclude with every interaction, depending on its limited awareness of what constitutes ‘sustainable existence’.

Address the argument I gave. You're not humble if, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that a proposition is true, you continue to take seriously that it is false.

That's what religious people are like. You show them that the evidence indicates their god does not exist. They then pretend they're the reasonable ones if they continue to take seriously that the god does exist.

No, they're not being reasonable - they're just ignoring evidence.

Now, perhaps their god does exist - perhaps there's excellent evidence their god exists.

the point, though, is that a reasonable person does not ignore evidence and keep playing the 'but let's be reasonable and accept the possibility the view is false". That ain't being reasonable, sonny boy, not when evidence has been given that it is true.

Now, engage with that evidence - that is, try and refute my argument. — Bartricks

I’m not ignoring the evidence - you only think I’m ignoring it, because I’m not giving it the same weight as you are. My subjective experience (which you reject as well as your own because it fails to appeal to your perspective of Reason) gives me sufficient reason to doubt that either of us have enough information to confidently assert the truth about ‘truth’ itself. My response to this awareness is to propose that we consider what is beyond reason in our understanding of truth. Your response is to exclude it or isolate it from any consideration of what truth is - thereby reducing truth to your limited perspective of Reason.

You're granting too much... even here. The 'ole chap is not even using the term "Reason" in accordance with it's original usage. — creativesoul

I’m a generous person...

What else is there other than our experience and observation of what is and isn't? — ep3265

What non-humans experience and observe.

Reason has her perspective of what is true - it’s a limited perspective, but she’s not aware of this - and she ignores and excludes new information that cannot be reduced to logical argument.
— Possibility

Flagrantly question begging. Reason constitutively determines what's true - that's what my argument appeared to demonstrate. Now, if you think otherwise engage with that argument - challenge either its validity or one of its assumptions. Don't just state a different view, as if evidence counts for nothing. — Bartricks

Wow, you can talk. ‘Truth is an appeal to Reason because I reject anything that is not an appeal to Reason. Therefore, truth can ONLY be an appeal to Reason.’

Is it reasonable for you to consider, just for a moment, the possibility that there might be more to reality than what appeals to Reason - the possibility that your perspective of reality might be limited in some way? That is, before you summarily dismiss that thought on account of it failing to appeal to Reason, of course...

But know that you're not doing philosophy when you do that. — Bartricks

According to your definition of philosophy, which is necessarily limited by your unshakeable faith in Reason.

What if happy man is man who is slave all of life and does not know better? What if culture not have words for "unfair" or "exploit"? — Spirit12

If he’s happy in his ignorance, there is nothing for you to do here. You can’t force someone to be more aware. But happiness is only a temporary experience of positive affect - it comes and goes. In those moments when he is not happy (and we all have those times) he experiences prediction error: his conceptualisation of the world does not match the reality of his experience. This is suffering only if he chooses not to integrate the reality of his experience into a revised conceptualisation of the world.

The words aren’t as essential as we might think - it’s the shared meaning that’s important. You can still help them to construct a concept of ‘exploitation’ if you understand the meaning behind concepts they do have.

Firstly, as you have already accepted, "potential *energy*" is energy. Secondly, it is only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards. And, in that work, cause and effect cannot and will not be avoided. So, to me, the principles of cause and effect and energy/vibration are all-inclusive no matter the perspective or paradigm of reality one takes into consideration.[/quote]

What you’re doing here is reducing potential energy to energy and energy to vibration, by stating that it is “only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards”. This is a common move for physicists/physicalists (not assuming either), where the ‘potential’ or ‘potentiality’ is only considered relative to the actual, rather than the other way around. This error of correlation (in my opinion) is why quantum mechanics is so difficult for many to understand outside of the calculations.

Is being in state of denial not a form of suffering? Here I observe man to be happy. I don't know though. He could be happily walking into ambush with three attackers down street. Maybe even I tell him about attackers but he choose not believe and is wilful ignorance which in this case could be seen as someone who just is not suffering yet? — Spirit12

Yes, it’s also possible for outside observers to recognise the potential for suffering prior to the suffering occurring. At the point that he chooses ignorance, he contributes to his own suffering.

If we define the universe as everything humanly capable to comprehend, and the AI is able to learn and learns everything, possibly more than human comprehension, and is able to communicate everything that it has learned to humans, then it itself should be defined as human comprehension, thus making it the universe. — ep3265

That’s a lot of IFs. Personally, I don’t define the universe as everything humans are capable of comprehending, so I won’t follow you down that rabbit hole.

This raise question, can a happy man be suffering? — Spirit12

Not according to himself. But it’s certainly possible for outside observers to assume suffering where there is none.