what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence. — Constance

Here's another thing he did not speak clearly about. This section has two meanings, and from the context (that has been given here) does not clarify his intended meaning.

Now, this does not lead to a self-contradiction by W. He says that things that can be said can be said clearly; but not necessarily. They can be said in a obscure way, too.

If you want to take the question with a quasi-positivistic attitude or stance, then sure it is the wrong question, or a poorly phrased one. But if you don't approach it in this manner, then you can say things about it. — Manuel

Okay, so you want to assign a different meaning to "value" which is not actually value, but something different.

In order to have an intelligent discussion about it, then YOU must tell US what your new, improved meaning of the word "value" is, by which we must measure life.

You simply said, "if you don't approach it in this manner". So what is the manner I should approach it in?

Clearly, you asked an open-ended question, where the parameters themselves are not clear. Value can be anything of a metric? Or not even that much constraint?

I actually see the point in your question: it is a good general discussion-generator. Everyone talks about something that comes to their mind, and if they talk about completely incongruent things to each other's topics, then it's okay too. Yes, there is that kind of philosophy as well as the kind that concerns itself with proofs, truths and convergence. The stream of consciousness, with no goalposts, no aim, no common ground.

Carry on. Please ignore my post.

I understand your unwillingness to prove things that are not easy to prove. I have been there, done that, mostly in cybernetics and astrophysics.

But this is a philosophy site. We toy with ideas, and if someone has a claim, we like that person to defend their claim, otherwise the discussion is futile.

I could say that my brain is green, and it can detect flying space ships that are twenty parts per billion in the air because they are also green and they contain therefore bits of my salami sandwich. Would you believe me? If I said, "It's my memory and my recollection and my opinion, and I am not willing to part with it, or defend it," then where do you think that discussion will take us to?

I thank you for candidly stating your opinion formed on the basis of memories, and I commend you for saying it is not something you can defend before reasonable scrutiny. (You did not say it this way but this is how I take what you said.)

I read the line and the entire post that contained it.

I think the claim that happiness is a function of the over-mind is an opinion. You must prove that it is a fact, that happiness is not a function of the front cortex, but of the "over-mind". I accept your use of the word, it is clear and precise. I just don't think feelings such as happiness, anger, sadness, grief, etc. are functions of the over-mind. You have to prove that to us. If you think it's kindergarten stuff, please provide references contained in the applicable literature and not take them from hearsay or from imagination.

If you stated it, you claim it is a fact.

You're right, I have to read your argument more carefully. Be back to on that after I read your claim more carefully. (Maybe.)

You may be right. How do you suppose you can support your argument? Do you measure happiness or consciousness in other beings? Do you have an objective tool to do this? If not, then your argument is worth as much as mine. Precisely. "Yes it does." "No it does not." Who is right and who is wrong, without a measuring tool?

But I insist that happiness is a feeling, and all feelings are only felt by conscious beings. A rock can't be happy; but a tiger, a tape worm and god can. I think (can't prove it) that the feeling of happiness is not separable form a conscious mind that feels it.

You may think otherwise. Fine, that's your prerogative. There are no facts here, only opinions. And in proper argumenting opinions are not supposed to be presented as facts.

Of course, what we can talk about is therefore only what can be said clearly. Really? Do you think this is right? — Constance

He did not say this. He said, "what we can say can be said clearly". Big difference.

But he is wrong. You can say things that can't be said clearly. A clear example of it is talking to a blind man about colours. The speaker can say it; to the listener it will never be clear.

It is clear to the speaker though. Is that sufficient to say that W was wright? No, because he did not identify the respect in which the said thing was clear: to the speaker, or to the listener.

Bad, bad, mistake by Wittgenstein. Apparently he was not very clear when he said what he wanted to say.

You realize that you sound completely like Galileo's critics in the church in his time. They said something similar to this quote: "Your argument makes perfect sense logically, Galileo/God Must Be Atheist, but we reject it because the scriptures say otherwise."

I wonder if you, Questio, think, accordingly, that the Earth is flat. If you tell me that you do, then I accept your counter-argument. If you think the Earth is not flat, then I rest my case.

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

It is a bit complicated. The best way to express the value of human life can be approximated by:

Limit of (cos(x-2)/x^sin(x-e)/(x^i ))(as x approaches zero)

It is precise to four significant digits. I am sorry I could not be more exactingly precise than that.

000000000000000

Seriously speaking:

"What is the value of human life?" is the wrong question. It is comparable to "what is the value of God", or "what is the value of time".

The conscious mind braincells are easily shown to be located in the prefrontal lobes which is the bulge in the head just above the eyes. — Ken Edwards

Now close your eyes and open your mouth wide, and try to figure out if there is any awkwardness in this opinion.

Jokes aside: if the patient can live happily after a removal of the front cortex, which is a fact that you claim, then he is happy; happiness is a function of the conscious. Therefore the conscious has not been removed with the frontal lobe. Therefore the front cortex does not house the conscious.

Do you notice an awkwardness in your thinking? — Ken Edwards

Yes. All the time. Whether I follow your instructions or not.

I can go to my kitchen. That doesn't mean I am in my kitchen. I can create something too heavy for me to lift. That doesn't mean I have. And so on. — Bartricks

The potency is there. The capacity to do so. The ability to do so.

Yes, god can create a stone that he can't lift. Can he? Let's suppose that he can. Then CAN he lift it? No, he can't. He fails at the CAN LIFT part.

Therefore he fails the test at the "can" state. He does not heave to actually go and try and do it.

If, on the other hand, god CAN'T create a stone (whether he actually tries or not) that he couldn't lift, that is, he can only create stones he can lift, then he fails the CAN CREATE part.

Either way, whether he actually tries in real time, or just supposes to do so, he necessarily fails in one or the other of the "CAN DO"-s.

And we agreed that omnipotence is a potency to "do". The capacity, the ability, to "do". Not restricted to any actual act, but encompassing the ability, the potency, the capacity.

Any failure at the ability to "do" will render the quality omnipotence invalid. The example puts to task those thoughts, that god can do the CREATING and the LIFTING. And that proves that there is no omnipotence as such.

I find no unintelligibility about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting.

It is not unintelligible to create a self-contradiction with the two. If twelve-year-olds are completely capable of understanding the proposition and seeing that it leads to a self-contradiction, then it is not impossible to expect normal adults to see the same thing.

I think you are hiding behind a rhetoric of devout god-worshippers, who can't admit that there is no such thing as irrefutable contradiction in the scriptures.

I don't see how you not being able to lift a rock is logically impossible. — DoppyTheElv

People here haven't heard what my grade 6 classmates back then 50-60 years ago were saying:

If god is omnipotent, he can create a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it.

But if he can't lift it, he ain't omnipotent.

If he can lift it, he failed in creating something so heavy that he can't lift it.

This is the argument. This is not to prove that god is not omnipotent; it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible.

So you tell this to religious friends, and they reply, "God will not want to do something (that disproves his omnipotence) that he does not want to do, and that is part of his omnipotence."

So I don't do what I don't want to do. It makes me equal to god, in this aspect of the common (if such a thing exists) conception of what god's qualities entail.

I did not spell out the whole argument, because I figured that people on a philosophy forum would be fully familiar with it, it being such a basic one. Well, I was wrong: people grossly misunderstood me, because I MISCOMMUNICATED. I admit I ought to have written out the whole argument -- but who would think that 10 or so people on a philosophy forum are unfamiliar with this argument.

At any rate, I only blame myself for this miscommunication, because I ought to have written out the entire argument in the OP.

the chain does not need a starting point. The proof does not state it, but it assumes that everyone will agree that it has a starting point necessarily. Well, it does not.

This is a conceptual ability to see with your mind's eye if an inifinite chain can exist. My uncle can't see that. He often argues with me, and says, "But Little Grasshopper, everything started all at once and there was nothing before it" or something similar. I always respond, "That is not necessarily true", and he starts again. I asked him respectfully to shut his flippin' clapper, because he don't know sheet. I did not say that, I told him this is a hurdle of differences in our respective ability to conceptualize, and therefore kindly not to bring this up ever again. Which he understood, and kindly has obliged.

1) contingent things exist. — BARAA

I have no understanding of what you could possibly mean. Contingent means "pending on the outcome of independent events". This 1) is incomprehensible and therefore a false assumption or premis.

First off, let me start by defining a term that I will be using. By "human" robots, I mean human bodies that are flesh and bones and exactly the same as us body wise, but devoid of any consciousness whatsoever.

What do you guys think about "human" robots going around being amongst us, doing things for us that are hard for us "real" humans to accomplish, such as learning about nature and reality and inventions? — elucid

why would they be better at anything, if they are the same as us?

The significance of this is that probabilties are an admission that we have multiple outcomes for no apparent cause. — Gary Enfield

This is the faulty logic, or rather, the incorrect observation, or incorrect interpretation of theory, that you use as a premis for your thesis.

If this were true, I would both be a man and a woman, as well as a tree branch, a 35.3 cubic foot space and Zimbabwe's national debt. My leg would be all: a leg, an arm, a kidney, a stone in the park, and a carburetor. Maybe even a Louis IVX prophylactic as well.

But my leg is my leg, and not all those other things.

There are no multiple outcomes of any causational event. There is just one effect of each causational event.

You can figure out the rest of how this mistake renders your theory wrong.

How else do you justify that you engage in conceptual thought if not by using scribbles and sounds? — Harry Hindu

That's just it, HarryHindu. You equate the two: conceptual thought and dots a scribbles. That is, if I may make this observation, your mistake in your reasoning. Whereas here you clearly stated "... by using scribbles and sounds".

I don't suppose you see my point, or that you ever will. Using something. Do I make that something into the thing that I am using it to create it?

A few examples: Pyramids, highways, railroads and buildings: People were used to build them. Are railroads (the actual rails) people, money, design or execution? No, they are railroads. Yet according to you, how you use dots and scribbles, the dots and scribbles are the concept themselves. Well, no. You are making a huge mistake by being unable to separate the two.

I am getting angry. This is by no way to affect you, as I believe and hope that I have kept my tone civil. But I can't hold back much longer. Please forgive me, but I must terminate my debate with you, on extended doctor's orders. This is a reflection on you, and on my condition. Please forgive me, but this is it for this topic. I ran out of patience.

There are two perfect questions. Distinct and uniqe.
1. What has been the stupidest question anyone has ever asked you?
2. Do you want to make out after this?

If a priori truths don't need justification, then what were you trying to show with visual scribbles on the screen? — Harry Hindu

you are absolutely right. I don't see any point in your objection. If you insist on equating conceptual thought to dots and scribbles, and you deny that meaning transcends physical signs that convey it, then I especially see no point in your objection.

There are a lot of people on the forum who are introspective, immersed in deep thought or else soaring with the eagles in pinnacles of sacrosanct truths such as "Socrates was never wrong" and their immediate social environment encouraged them to take philosophy, or join a philosophy forum, seeing they never said anything comprehensible to the common person, so the common person figured that the place of these geniuses is on a philosophy forum with other geniuses.

This site is well moderated. But try some of the other philosophy sites, and your hair will stand on end.

Why do a priori truths not need justification (observation), but a posterior truths do? It seems to me that there is still an observation taking place or else how do you distinguish the a priori from a posterior truths? — Harry Hindu

A priori proofs or truths don't need justification by observation, but they do need a sentient being with powers of reason, which in our experience comes about with learning about the sensed world.

1. Peter is both Peter and not Peter.
2, Peter married Mary.

1 is obviously false. In any set of circumstances. No matter in what physical realms we place this sentence, it's always false. It cannot be but false. Granted, people need to know that Peter is a proper noun, and what the rules and syntax of grammar are, and how their semantics make up a meaning. That part depends on sentient learning, but once it's integrated into a sentient mind, the rest follows.

2 can only be known to be true if you actually gain factual knowledge about this. It is not true in all possible worlds. In communities where no man Peter alive ever married a female Mary it's not true.

I will answer your interesting objection, HarryHindu, I'm not avoiding, it, it's just not convenient for me to think right now for a few days.

Some famous dude said, "Love is the pleasant interval between meeting a beautiful girl, and realizing she looks like a haddock."

I am not plagiarizing, I just can't remember the originator's name.

You are the one who is just repeating yourself. — Garth

Yes. I keep repeating that you are repeating yourself saying that I'm repeating myself.

Agrippina's trilemma: it seems to be a reasoning, which tackles the a posteriori knowledge with a priori tools, and shows its points that way. A brilliant trilemma.

Lot of talk to refute the reason's power to defeat the values found by using reason.

There are two kinds of truths: a priori and a posteriori. The first kind is true at any time, in any part of the world, because it does not depend on empirical observation. The second kind is the truth we find in such things that can be demonstrated to be false by experiment, by observation (if any).

Reason can't defeat a truth if it's an a priori truth. And reason is part of the a priori truth.

Reason can't defend the truth of an a posteriori truth. Only observation can defeat it, and nothing can defend it in an absolute sense.

================

There is a lot of hoolabaloo on the forums in this thread because people are too lazy to observe the nature of these kinds of truths, or they are lazy to state which of the two they are talking about.

I am not an exception from making this fault in my discourses.

I like this trilemma thing. I am indebted to you, PfHorrest, for enlightening me.

I don't think it has a refutation. But it does not need a fefutation for humans to continue operating with reason.

Human experience is based on belief. Socrates pointed out first the difference between knowledge and make-belief; and he said there is knowledge, in the form of Ideals, but humans haven't reached the way to uncover them yet.

The trilemma is a way of showing how humans can't reach rational knowledge.

But we do NOT need rational knowledge. As long as we have assumptions that we say are given; in other words, there are things we accept as true, whether they are or not; we have a mode to operate, and to apply our reason.

So what if we are wrong. We are most likely wrong in our knowledge. There is no way to check that. But does false knowledge bother us any? No, instead, it eggs us on to gain more false knowledge. And the conglomeration of false knowledge gives us a world view that works for us, and we can even make predictions based on our false world views.

In this sense, the falsity is not a problem; the problem is only that we know it is falsity. In and by itself, falsity never bothered anyone any. In the middle ages they believed a set of superstitions; in the ancient times humans believed a yet different set of superstitions; in the times before that, there was yet another world of superstitions that formed human's world view.

I am quite sure we are living in yet another age of superstition, but just like the persons in the middle ages, in ancient times, and before, we are not made aware of it. We are not aware of our mistakes, we can only say that we are probably wrong, and most likely wrong in our claims of how this bloody thing, the universe, works.

I love this trilemma. It solves nothing, but it points at how we should get comfortable in our ignorance and set of false beleifs.

The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.
...
So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.
— god must be atheist

So the past is nothing, and all effects are caused by nothing. Or alternatively, we remember the past because the past is part of the present, and what is contained in the past is only our memory of events which don't exist anymore. — Garth

You just keep repeating yourself, as if you couldn't get out of the groove you feel comfortable in. There is no progression here; I refute you, you repeat what i had just refuted.

The hard problem of philosophy. How to gift someone with the ability to become flexible and accept things that are not conducive with their theories, even if it were conducive to accept them in determining the truth.

I have to think of my health. I have to think of my blood pressure. I can't lose my temper, because my doctors told me that would be the last time I ever wrote anything philosophical.

Looked up The Trilemma. It's an economic theory. That is not quite the same as philosophy.

Erm... I don't think philosophy is based on axioms. Argumenting is based on assumptions or else on premises.

Math is based on axioms, and math is a branch of philosophy. But not the entire body of philosophy is math.

I have to apologize, but I did not read the link. I fear there may be something untowardly there. I am very careful not to get a bug. A bit of a mask on my browser.

Thanks, jgill, for your good wishes for me.

I want to read the following books:

Critique of Pure Reason by Kant
The World as Will and Representation by Schopenhauer
Either/Or by Kierkegaard
Being and Time by Heidegger

My question is, in which order should I read them? Should I read them from the beginning till the ending like fiction books or only parts? I have only read some dialogues by Plato. Would I understand these philosophers without reading anyone else? — deusidex

My advice: read them in alphabetical order. Makes referring to the content much easier that way.

. Awareness is not consciousness and at best is just one of several factors in achieving consciousness. — Gary Enfield

This just begs another can of worms to be opened: Is awareness possible without self-awareness, or conciusness? You say it is only one factor, but do you deny it's one factor that can't be lacked? I.e. do you deny that this factor, thta is, awareness, is a must-have for the conscious being to have?

A plant will turn its leaves to the sun; but this is not due to awareness, it is due to non-chlorophyll producing parts growing faster than the chlorophyll-producing ones.

For communication to be present, is there any requirement for awareness? Yes, but only if it is biological communication of abstract values. For instance, a tic may give out a signal that it is looking for a mate to produce offspring. This is a random sound, and only meaningful to other tics. Whereas the magnetic pull of a piece of iron is "calling" or "recruiting" pieces of irons, but it's not symbolic, it is not communicating abstract values. It is not biological communication.

Can a single molecule communicate? In the sense that it says something DIFFERENT from its chemical valences? I hardly think so. It can't communicate more more in chemical discourse aside from it wants to join or disjoin electron paths with another atom or molecule. Or it wants to disintegrate into component parts. "Wants" is a misnomer, of course, it is anthropomorphizing them. But aside from valent attraction and repulsion, there is not much else a molecule can do. It can't choose between two different molecules, for instance, that are equally attractive to it. ("Attractive": likely to share electron paths.) Whereas a human can choose from many-many potential partners.

So my conclusion is that recruitment of enzymes does not happen, it is a misnomer; nobody and nothing attracts enzymes, only chemical aptitude to fit the task. It is not told anything or suggested anything or asked to do anything. It only obeys laws of chemistry.

1. That which does not exist is nothing
2. The past does not exist
3. All causes occur in the past when measured in time local to their present effect
4. Therefore all causes are nothing
5. Therefore everything comes from nothing. — Garth

There is a problem with your use of the verb tenses that suggest too much logic. You look at the present giving too much strength to statics, and too little to historical dynamics. Let me explain.

The past does not exist. NOW. But it did exist.

So the causes that effect things in the present DID exist at one point or another in time. NOW they don't exist, but the effects of their CAUSING do exist now.

Therefore not all causes are nothing.

And the conclusion is wrong, since the assumptions are invalid.

Well, the Wikipedia article on homologous recombination describes enzymes as being recruited. So I guess this implies that each particular enzyme makes a free will choice as to whether or not to go into service. — Metaphysician Undercover

This assumes that the hard question of free will has a resounding "yes" as to its existence.

What about sheep? Is bleating a philosophical discussion? — SolarWind

It might be. For all I know.

What if an AI saved your life? Last I checked, the deep bond that occasionally :chin: forms between a savior and the saved is based wholly on the act, the act of saving and not on the mental/emotional abilities of the savior. Just asking. — TheMadFool

Bot does not necessarily need to do a forceful action like saving your life to make you love it. As an autistic kid, I was in close emotional ties with my winter coat, and later, in my teens, with a pair of blue jeans. This may be laughable to you, but it's not a joke. I also loved sunsets, the smell of burning leaves in the fall, the smell of the flowers in summer, and the water splashing against my knees on the beaches. I loved nature, life. I loved my school, I loved running down the hill, on top of which our school house was located, shouting "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" all the way down, on the last day of classes in grades 3 and 4. I loved the streetcars, the smell of snow, the pre-Christmas hustle-bustle in the city. I even loved the slush, the overcrowded buses, the darkness that we knew.

I don't see why I couldn't love an AI robot then. Maybe even now, if it looked like Dolly Parton or Raquel Welch.

How does a computer sense when I hit the space bar? — Kenosha Kid

It hears the space bar's screaming of pain.

Or did you mean when you walk into a bar on Pluto.