I don't think the five senses have evolved so much to help us "understand" the world as to allow us to survive and procreate in the world — prothero

Understanding processes how they work is a vital part of survival skills. Their precision with correspondence to reality is key. More precision, better survival.

And what rational analysis pertaining to this process can be expected from individuals which, as you say, are indoctrinated in a framework to enforce it? — Tzeentch

Human-created and human-delivered rational analysis is the process one can expect from individuals that have been indocctrianted in a framework that enforces the process.

Is there any reason that the individual should be content with being a slave to the evolutionary process? — Tzeentch

It is not a master-save relationship. I would brush up on learning the evolutionary process if I were you and wished to understand natural processes of evolution.

5.3k
LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

You seem not to have noticed in your urgency to win, that we do not even disagree. — unenlightened

I am sorry. So the first quote in this post, where I quoted you, was made in jest, as a parody? How would I know that? Because I certainly disagree with the conlcusion of the first quote. I assert that that argument is not valid. So... you wrote it as a parody?

Indeed, my post was non-committal, but personally, I agree with you.

I don't know if you play or watch sports or games. Each one of these has its own logic and language. I'm a prisoners of COVID but I'm allowed to watch movies on the internet, and yes, each movie is its own imagined world. I'm not the romantic hero making love nor the spy who is impervious to the perils of the world, but for a short time I live in their world, their world is somewhat real to me, I speak their language, and use their improbable logic. Does music have any meaning to you? If yes, what is it? — magritte

We already established that your defintiion of metaphysics is individual, and its name stands for anything imaginary, conceptual, or fictional.

Those imitry which you describe and call worlds are not worlds. There is an insinuation in our minds that they are different worlds, but they are not. And they are definitely not incompatible with each other.

Next you will define what a world is (a real thing or a phantasm), and pretty soon, if we keep pushing you, you'll declare that every word in the English langauge will mean each other and every other as well as their own meanings.

So this is it. You wash out the boundaries between distinct concepts, and you are convinced that that's an accepted, and acceptable practice.

Should you be right, we'd still be sitting in trees, wondering if rocks are edible.

I just came out of a conversation with Metaphysical Undercover. I think it was him, but I mix up usernames in my head, so if it wasn't him, many apologies to him. But the idea is more important than who it was. He defined metaphysics in his own individual way, too.

I think the two of you will get together and duke it out.

It is surprising, and a huge coincidence, that two users on this site have come up at the same time, well, on the same day, with ideas that are dissimilar, but their root is the same, and the logic in both instances involves 1. changing the language and 2. taking possession of the word "metaphysics."

Kant was doing himself, and his self is a container for his last name. So technically he was not a virgin, as penetration in a--oh, boy,--metaphysical way was achieved.

All unenlightened philosophers have Gods.
Unenlightened is an unenlightened philosopher.
There unenlightened's god exists. — unenlightened

Obiously you are hugely unenlightened. :-)

But don't let my destroying your arguments deter you.

All unenlightened philosophers have gods -- not a true, not a false statement. It requires further proof. All unenlgihtened philosophers believe in gods is also not a necessarily true statement. But your first premise involves the claim that a god or more gods exist. Therefore your premise contains your conclusion. Therefore your proof is not a proof.

If only you knew how easy proofs are.

Your second premise is wrong. Nico is only a unicorn if he or she exists. But flying spaghetty monsters don't exist, and there are no unicorn fossils either. It is not enough to be logically correct; for the conclusion to be true, the logic has to be right, and all the premises must be true.

You failed to have all your premises to be true.

If only you knew how easy proofs are.

So, in saying anything, you have already committed yourself to some metaphysical world, or more likely a number of inconsistent worlds of your own. — magritte

This is interesting. Could you please cite in normal language what inconsistent worlds i contain within that I am committed to? I may not even start an argument, but I do want to see real examples of it. Thanks.

I would guess that most of our discussions at TPF are disagreements about metaphysical beliefs. — magritte

True, true. Each to his own. And then we duke it out.

So, in saying anything, you have already committed yourself to some metaphysical world, — magritte

as per your definition. Some would define me as married, by their definition, and the government definition is that I am not married. In the understanding of your defintion, I am committed. But some others include mysticism in their defintion of metaphysical reality; in that sense I am not committed.

is an imagined but logically coherent
hypothesized philosophical world for the purpose of generating deductive consequences. — magritte

thanks for clarifying your defintion of "metaphysical reality". I accept it as yours; but please do understand that this is not a definition by consensus; it is instead a definition of your own.

You said find a proof for the existence of something, and I gave a proof not complying with that.

All healthy Humans have a nose.
Alfred is a healthy human.
Therefore Alfred's nose exists.

There.

Neither of the premises contain the conclusion,yet the two together, after manipulatin or understanding by applying logic, prove the existence of something.

If you can find a valid proof of the existence of any damn thing that does not include its conclusions in its premises — unenlightened

All humans like bananas.
Paul is a human.
Therefore Paul likes bananas.

Here, each premise (either one of them) does not contain the conclusion.
Together, with the combining force of reason, form a conclusion.

Let god exists
Therefore god exists

Is an argumen in which the premise contains the conclusion.

In my argument above neither of the two separate premise hold the conclusion.

This is a noteworthy difference.

--------------------

If you insist in saying that my argument also contained the conclusion in the premises, you are not taking into consideration that they only do that via a process of logic. Without logic neither contains the conclusion.

If you say "let god exist, therefore god exists", the premise does not need logic or anything else to state the conclusion.

This is a noteworthy difference.

We hear this often, but I wonder what it means, at least in the context of a belief in natural rights. Does it mean there are natural duties as well as natural rights?
— Ciceronianus the White

This is an excellent question. So is the question, what does "natural" mean in these expressions. — god must be atheist

I wish you'd visit my post there. (Just click on any part of my portion of the quote above here. It will take you there.)

The fact that self-interest isn't a virtue doesn't mean one cannot be self-interested. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, but it excludes the possibility of being virtuous. You have already placed a lot of stake on being virtuous. Being non-virtuous is being immoral... maybe. You argue that not being viruous is not immoral, it is just simply not outstanding moral might.

I actually agree. My objections were made in haste and they were not correct. Carry on.

What did you expect? — unenlightened

Less transparency. Support from facts other than just stating the conclusion in the premis. Support form things independent from the idea of god that still support the existence of god.

I can build a counter argument, and see what you say abou it. This is how it goes:

God does not exist. Therefore god does not exist.

The is above is structured the same way as your proof. The premise contains the conclusion.

How come your proof is not congruent with my proof? They are both logically sound, and they both satisfy the criteria you set for a proof. Yet one is complete opposite of the other.

Your proof is not superior to mine, and mine is not superior to yours.

What to do make of this? I think what i make is that both are unsound as proofs. The logic is right, but the premise can't be accepted readily, since it is NOT proven at the state when they are a part of the premise.

I am simply going off Pavlov's hierarchy of needs here. Seek and ye shall find stuff. — Dymora

Seeking and finding is different from experiencing and developing. Inner search?

Enlightenment has a specific meaning: to have a great revelation to a truth one hasn't seen before.

If you keep seeking the great revelation in the sense of a search, that is, looking for it, you won't find it.

Enlightenment comes from within, and in my life it always came as unexpected insight. It is always a fun experience.

When I say this, I don't believe there is one ultimate and all-encompassing enlightenment. Enlightenment comes and sometiimes even contradicts earlier versions of its own self.

So to seek englightenment I believe one has to ponder the quesions in life that he is interested in, and keep an eye open in the real world to see hints that may help him establish a truthful analysis of his earched topic.

Seeking enlightenment as in actually going around the house and lookng under the raffia bases and on top of the fridge are actual waste of time.

I believe that music appreciation (along with appreciation of all other art forms) is the result of a mutation. It proved to be supremely helpful in survival, for it aided social cohesion and the submitting of the individuals' selfish will for sacrifice for the common good. This includes of course primarily music's role in mysticism and in relgion. Also in war songs and war cries. "We are the champions" at hockey finals is a permutation of this effect.

The ability to like music was a lucky mutation. We still reap the benefit of it, even if not religious.

Panpsychism may be popular, but nowhere near the popularity of the Spice Girls or of Justin Bieber.

Humans have more than five senses with the aid of machinery. We translate the machine-sensed ultra-human sensations into human sensations, and we interpret them, and bob is our uncle.

Seeing in complete darkness is one. Accelertion sensing machines is another example. The sensing of voltage and current and resistance in electronic circuits. The sensing of gamma radiation. The sensing of many things I am too stupid to know about. The sensing of magnetic fields.

Those who say to you that your idea is stupid, are stupid. They may call me stupid because I called them stupid for calling you stupid.

You be the judge.

LET God = the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life.

IF you exist the most important thing, person, idea, or principle in your life exists.

You exist.

THEREFORE God exists. — unenlightened

Let god exist. Therefore god exists.

seeking enlightenment inhibits enlightenment — The Opposite

This gets my vote. :100:

It seems quite clear to me that morality is simply a concept that is encoded into our neurons and influences the way we process information. — Restitutor

This pretty well describes the consensus of atheist ethicists. I am not an academic or a trained philosopher. Therefore please take this call by me with a grain of salt. But I noticed this is the basic attitude of explaining any and all human behaviour-- the basis is always evolutionary, that is, whatever traits the species has in pervasive distribution, must have been a survival tool at one point that gave special advantage to our species.

The ultimate utopia is God's heaven -- many religionists bellieve that.

The ultimate utopia is the worker's paradise as Marx, Engels and Lenin envisioned it -- according to Marxists-Leninists.

The ultimate utopia is reaching Nirvana, which is not exactly heaven, it is more like the concept of Self-Actualiziation as mentioned (but not described) by Maslow.

The ultimate utopia is Socrates' world of the ideals.

The ultimate uto-pia is port. (Oporto wine, an after-dinner drink, because in my original language "uto" means "that comes after", and "pia" is slang for alcoholic beverage of the hard liquor type.

Sorry, I just dropped the other shoe in answer to the OP. If physicists understood the underlying metaphysics of modern philosophy they would raise exactly this argument. — magritte

For me this has settled the debate. If someone brings up metaphysics in any rational argument, to me, AND I ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF, it signifies that they know absolutely nothing about the subject matter.

That is so because meatphysics is not a coherent, interrelated topic of thought. Its origins were strarted and it got its name from a chapter in one of Aristotle's book, the chapter named "Metaphysics" which literally means "After Physics", and it was named that due to the facs that 1. it came immediately after the chapter in the same book, which chapter was named "Physics" and 2. it contains disparate, to each other unrelated relationships between things.

So to speak of metaphysics as if it were a coherent phylosophical underlining in the Aristotlean sense is nonsense.

To speak of metaphysics in the modern, different sense, means that the author is drawing a connection between the observed, real supernatural and the naturally occurring. The problem with that is that a person is at liberty to believe in metaphysical reality, but he or she should not promote it as a fact or as an accepted consensus, because it is not.

If you drop an apple, nobody will argue you that it will fall down. That's physics.

If you swear up-and-down that your uncle saw ghosts, or that there is a common consciousness, a spirit, an all-encompassing qualia in the world, you are always going to encounter some resistence, as your claim will always be anecdotal and no relevant experiment has ever been performed to support the theories of modern metaphysics.

So as soon as someone says that word in a discussion of hard sciences, that person lost his or her credibility for me, AND I ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF. You, whoever you are, are welcome to believe the claims of metaphysical reality.

Just remember: you can have any opinion, but you can't have any fact. There is a saying that says that much better, but I haven't memorized it yet. You can bend opinions but you can't bend facts. Unless you are Pfizer or Bayerische Motor Werke.

At the moment, as often happens, we're off on a discussion without having any idea what the discussion is actually about. — tim wood

You gotta love this forum.

Well if it turns out that we 'really" do not have free will, then the moment that is announced by scientists we will say "ah well" and move on, continue to do what we are doing. — FreeEmotion

Not precisely. Because the legal system is one factor that affects future events.

The law says "killers will be punished if caught". This is a factor in causing future events. Many people would kill if this case was not part of social rule.

Of course one could say, "yes, but people still kill. So the effect is not a hundred percent predictive; therefore there is a cause that alters the behaviour, which cause is the free will."

The counter-argument to that would be, "yes, there are other causes, and they are NOT borne by free will; they are borne by circumstances, by events in the past." If a man beats his wife and child, and though provides for them, the woman may consider whethere the infuence of the law overrides the influence of needing to stop the suffering. Depending on the INTENSITY of the two, and depending on a myriad of other factors, the woman will come to a decision, but the decision is based on the effects that influence it; there is no component inlfuence, that is without a cause.

The proof for that is that an influence that is not effecting the outcome is irrelavant.

I want to murder my husband. There is a supernova in a galaxy 5 billion lightyears away, and there is a solution to the general terms of the second degree one unknown equation.

Chances are they are not affecting my decision, because they are irrelevant. So their effect is negligible.

If someone successfully argues, however, that there may be connections between the solution of the equation and my murdering my husband, then it is an effect, and that will satisfy the claim that only those effects will determine my action to murder my husband, that are not irrelevant.

Free will requires predictability to be meaningful, and predictability is dependent on [a degree of] determinism. But absolute determinism (the clockwork universe, down to and including individual decisions and fleeting thoughts) lacks truth-value — Mariner

This is so true. To me it proves, though, that there is no such thing as a will independent of influences already started in the past.

The crunch of the proof comes from "predictability". That is a human concept, designed by, and for, humans. What we can't predict for sure, we can predict with a probability. If the probability of an event is greater than zero but less then one, then there are alternative events.

But in nature, as well as in human lives,there are no true alternatives. If there were, there would be more than one reality, running parallel with itself, in whcih each running parallel reality would represent the events that are probable.

However, that is not the case, as there is only one reality.

The human mind can't possibly compute in all events the probability that is 1 (or 100 percent likely) of enay event. And yet, that is the probability of anything happening, as everything happens only in one version, there are no alternatives according to probability.

Therefore probability and likelyhood are human concepts, to help make humans a predicion, which has multiple outcomes; this only affects human predictions of the future, not natural events as they unfold in the future.

Truth value in nature does not occur, as falshood of a predicted event is impossible. If all factors are calculated in, then each prediction has a 100 percent probability, so a probability that has a larger than zero but less then one hundred percent chance of happening, and then NOT happening, does not occur. If it occurred, then we'd have alternative realities, which we don't. Therefore no truth value can be false, therefore all truth values are true, therefore it is nonsensical to spealk of truth value when everythign is guaranteed to be true.

We hear this often, but I wonder what it means, at least in the context of a belief in natural rights. Does it mean there are natural duties as well as natural rights? — Ciceronianus the White

This is an excellent question. So is the question, what does "natural" mean in these expressions.

To me "natural" means, on one hand, nature given, on the other hand, independent of human activity, as at one point human activity was sharply delineated form nature's activity.

In the second sense, there is no natural human characteristics, and activities.
In the first sense, I think natural human rights and ~duties are those that are

1. Inescapable by any and all humans and
2. pervasive across the species.

So what could be defined as natural human rights and ~duties in this sense?

Please feel free to alter my defintions, we already agreed there are no perfect definitions and perfect words for the occasion of any kind.

Can the need to eat food and water be a rigth and a duty? Eating and drinking serve life. Without them life dies.

With the same token, washroom duties and rights.

But is the word "right" right here? or duty? they imply a moral component. Is eating or drinking moral? The act itself, not what you eat.

So I tend to agree with Ciceronianus the White when he questions whether rights exist at all outside of legal contex or political context.

I wish someone here could come up with the example of a right that is truly natural... a right that is born with every person and stays with the person until death, AND which is granted by Mother Nature, not by god or by other humans.

Well, as per our national chief medical officer, as long as you wear a mask while having sex, then it's ok to have sex during the pandemic — Book273

I think we must petition the med officer that during masturbation as well we ought to wear masks, and socially distance ourselves from ourselves.

This ought to be the only way allowed to autoerotical satisfaction.

I am magnetic, in this sense, that I find myself attracted to the opposite, but I do celebrate sexual diversity.

To deny a block of people sexual joy and ensuing happiness just because they are different is cruel.

The cat is either dead or alive. Not both. Never both. Our inability to know the answer does not eliminate the possibility of an answer. If I look in the box and discern the status of the cat, but don’t tell you whether it’s alive or dead does that mean your lack of empirical evidence makes it alive and dead and the same time? No. This is the problem with Quantum Theory. The notion that what we personally perceive has a fundamental impact on reality itself. If a tree falls in the woods and you didn’t witness it then it doesn’t make a sound. However, if you are there then it does make a sound, unless your deaf. It both makes a sound and doesn’t make a sound. A perception so ridiculous it amazes me to no end how people still take scientists seriously and not question everything they utter. — JackBRotten

A bit of a Strawman, but hey, I can get tired of telling people what is wrong with their arguments.

If you page back, the remark of the cat being dead and alive was made to point out that we only KNOW when we observe. You are saying the same thing, and in a way, you declare victory.

My post was about how it is not NECESSARILY true that our species is the only one that considers itself the best of the best of the best. I gave reasons and arguments. You completely ignored those, and concentrated on the cat in the box analogy, because you've had for a long time a prepared opinion on that, and you did not mind voicing it.

Whereas my post was NOT about the cat in the box... that analogy only aided my argument, and in the same vain you so carefully explained to me in your reply.

I think the belief that such rights exist has its basis in self-interest and, Ayn Rand and others notwithstanding, think that self-interest is not a virtue, and isn't a basis on which moral conduct should be determined or judged. The fact that all are entitled to such rights makes no difference as far as I'm concerned. — Ciceronianus the White

So... have you given up all your worldly possessions very much lately? This is actually a very serious question I ask. If yes, good for you, you fulfil your own definition of virtuous. If not, you have proven that you subscribe to self-interest, and as such, you declare (no, I don't declare that, because my values are different) that you are not virtuous. So in order to win an argument, you shame yourself in the service of it.

You decry certain rights as not virtuous. That is a moral call of no measurable substantiation. I accept that in your eyes they are not virtuous, but if you make the stand that they are not virtuous from any point of view, then I'll dispute that.

So you are saying that in your views, opinions you form are your opinions. That is not debatable.

This, after you avoided the question of the right to own property being equally distributed among the population, which is independent of property distributed.

Binary genders as such started first with the first digital computers. It's basically O-s and I-s. I shan't elaborate.

Can he be the cause of her suicide? Wouldn't her own weakness be the reason? Wasn't he an obstacle which she failed to overcome? — Matei

All good questions. When a person shoots someone else down, he can argue. "I did not kill the person. The bullet did." Who is to blame? the person who pulled the trigger? The original cause why the shot person died could be many things. Pulling trigger. cardiac arrest due to bullet wound. the reason the person wanted him dead. The manufacturer of weapons. The national collective conscious that equates liberty with gun toting. The inventor of the gun. The inventor of gun powder.

You see, if any one (not more but one)_ of these contributions did not happen, the shooting could not have happened. Even the ejaculation of the grandfather of the person who invented handguns could be blamed.

So you know how philosophers handle this conondrum? By not handling it at all. Staying waaaay clear of its sight.

At the moment, it [masturbation] is one of the few liberties we have left. — Jack Cummins

I don't look at it as liberty. I look at it as your duty that you pay to your country and people. It is the yoke you bear for your family; you protect them, fight for them and for their welfare by your ceremonial discharge. It is certainly healthier than smoking. (Please... no cheap puns.) A husband and wife, in holy matrimony, and in God's own service, will make their marriage last a lifetime by employing the services of imaginary lovers.

"Spare the rod and spoil the child."

We must join and sing hozannah to the Lord, for masturbation is not only a duty, but a gift from the gods. It is one of the most egalitarian widespread movements that join people regardless of race, creed, nationality, height, financial standing, flexibility, organ donor status, sex, gender, gender identity, confusion, misplaced sex organs, sexual changelings, and god only knows what else.

I wasn't there. I don't condone violence, but there may have been causes why the husband became abusive. I did not read the book.

Again, violence is not a moral issue, it is a deplorable act, especially when committed against an otherwise defenseless person. In my country (Canada) legal action can be taken. I don't know the situation in Romania.

I don't know how to answer your question. He may have been the cause of her suicide, but was it morally caused? I don't even think it was legally caused. If abuse that leads to suicide is a cause for action, then half the police force and many jail guards could become prison inmates themselves.

I think I don't know how to answer your question.

I hope I was very helpful.

We perceive our “superiority”, “rationality”, and “ greater intelligence”. — JackBRotten

I.... am not so sure about that. A finch or a warbler or a gold fish could think the same of its own kind, and declare that humans behave colorfully, dangerously, but above all inconsequentially. They don't understand our actions, therefore they declare them as stupid. In that aspect fish are remerkably like people.

I am not stating this as a fact, because I am not a fish or porcupine; but this opinion is just as valid as yours. This is a case when both opinions are equally valid, despite being mutually exclusive. "The cat in the box is both dead and alive."-- until you get empirical evidence to prove it either way.