That's fair enough, but I still wouldn't say two conflicting positions are both good. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Easy. Mother cleans daughters room as she sees she's very busy/under stress (mother - good intention).

Daughter (consequentialist - angry because she now doesn't know where her dissertation is and the deadline is in 2 hrs).

Both had good reasons to do/say what they said.

Resolution is outside the argument: daughter emails situation to professor, (s)he extends her deadline giving her time to find the dissertation.

Now that the consequence is gone, daughter can agree with the mothers good intentions. Now that the mother fully appreciates all the possible consequences, she can agree that perhaps good intentions are not enough by themselves. They both learn about the axis of morality.

Therefore deontology and consequentialism are not a paradox. Or at the very least the paradox can be removed by a third person outside of the direct conflict.

If the measurement is done only by machines, with no humans involved, the same results occur — universeness

Um... How do we know it occurs when machines do it?Who read (observed) the machine result. Haha.

If no humans are involved how on earth can you make that conclusion.

Machines, like all measuring tools don't act as the observer in isolation, they are only an extension of the observers ability to observe. If the machine was sentient, consciously aware, then the story would be different. But for that they would require their own agency/choice to tell or not tell what they measured.

Machines/devices/tools can measure things we cannot measure with say, the naked eye, but a machine is only useful if it can make those observations that our senses are not sensitive enough to detect, detectable to those senses.

So having a machine do the hard graft work of measuring doesn't exclude need for the observer.

It's simple. If an observer "knows" of a single state through observing it. And uncertainty (a waveform of possibility) is the case when the observer doesn't "know"/hasn't observed it.

Collapse of the uncertainty into one point of certainty stands as the logical process that occurs between the two.

Whether they observe with their eye, or through a machines screen, or through a machines measurement of another machines measurement of another's etc the length of travel of the information from object to subject makes no difference, the collapse is the same outcome.

We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics.
— Benj96
So give an account of your bank balance using relativity and quantum physics... — Banno

Very well.

QM: If I don't observe my bank balance for years meanwhile spending and earning at largely variable rates each. (ie if I add a huge amount of uncertainty into the system.)

I can justify any belief between having next to no money or even being in negative equity, or possibly having a huge lump sum. As I cannot recall/calculate in my mind the original sum or all the debits and credits. And can't rely on my own subjective sense of penny-wisdom at a given time.

This is the waveform of potential states of my bank balance.
I collapse the waveform when I observe the bank balance again.

I now have a certain/particular/discrete number. Whether I'm jumping with glee or panicking that I just bought a $4 dollar coffee is dependent on that waveform collapsing. If I don't look, then I'm neither happy nor said assuming thr sun stays someone in the mid range.
It's schrodingers cat/heisenbergs uncertainty principle and waveform-particle Duality in the context of my bank balance.

Shall I go on with a relativistic account also?
Or can we agree that the three domains of physics can be applied to any interaction between an observer and their environment, the limititations of which being which of the three domains of physics you apply.

It is more academic than of practical consequence.

I don't know if you're a consequentialist or deontologist, but my position would be that whichever group you fall into, you are no more right than the other group is. You just have different preferences. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Agreed. However I don't ascribe fully to either consequantialism or deontological ethics. I regard both as important and required in balanced consideration to make something effectively moral.

Consequantialism retrospectively determines the morality of an action by its outcome. It lives in hindsight. And doesn't value initial intention only the effect.

But as we know from miscommunication. The most wholesome acts can be twisted and corrupted by a game of "chinese whispers" . Leading to a bad outcome.

Consequentialism would state that the initial good doer is responsible for the product of how everyone else chose to interpret them or use it as a device for their own intentions. It doesn't consider existence of culpability between the original act and the final outcome.

On the other side, deontology rests on anticipation/ foresight.
It assumes one must be able to predict all possible variables between the initial intention/action and the outcome. In essence judging or factoring in the culpability of any intermediaries (whether that be processes, or people acts etc). An exercise almost tantamount to prophecy.

For me, consequences are important, initial intention is important, and the level of reasoning, knowledge and predictive ability - the underlying principle that determines the path from intention to consequence, yes again, is important.

So to take a side, to be a consequentialist or a deontologist, for me is absurd. Both have input into what morality is. But they don't equal the answer. They aren't moral by themselves while negating the input of the other side.

Consequentialists blame dismissing intention. Deontologist try to rationalise the best/most principled/predictive (Good) intention without taking responsibility for how it leads to a consequence.

I am strongly opposed to causing suffering irrespective of whether it is morally wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

So am I. I don't wish to cause suffering. So what exactly are we arguing/discussing?

Probably because people with the same kind of views tend to gravitate towards each other — I like sushi

I agree.

All I know is we are all stupid and we will all die. — I like sushi

Not sure if everyone is equally as stupid as one another. I think some people are more clued in, and adaptable thus. Is intelligence not the ability to survive against the odds through recognising and adapting to life-threatening processes (climate change for example) that others persist in ignoring?

Interesting response eh? Or is it just more drivel in the ever widening cesspool of disconnected human interactions just before humans become other-than-human? — I like sushi

It is certainly interesting for sure. I'm not sure disconnected, uncooperative humans can create anything "other-than human". At most they can created a squabble about what it already is/means to be human.

I think we must overcome this tension between us in order to create things beyond ourselves.

By analyzing the relative quantum values of the fundamental particles it may be possible to determine by a kind of triangulation what the process pattern beneath the "board" is that produces the fundamental particles of consistent order thru time to form from an infinite sea of chaotic and constantly fluctuating in time energy. The underlying primordial chaos is "pan-symmetric" but localized fluctuations break local symmetry which produce said particles. This is similar in concept to how a "rouge wave" would form in the ocean. The way in which this symmetry breaks is kind of the goal of my investigations into this subject.

The actual details of my model are a bit involved to get into here, but i hope you found some of this ultra-simplified description interesting or useful in any case. — punos

Nah I get it. I'm on board. Based on how my own logic follows ideas I can totally see where you coming from. To me it's sensible and on the right track. So perhaps if I can follow it, maybe anyone can?

In that case ask yourself, how ought I make it sensible to a large amount of people? Could you for example explain this to a young child? Is it so logical that it is basic? Simple.

My advice is go with it. Follow your reasoning to an end, whatever that may be, and then perhaps question why it ended where it I did, and re-evaluate just enough to progress it pass that point.

You seem like a very considerate and intelligent person. That for me is all it takes to push boundaries. You just need confidence in yourself

Oh thank you :-) but i don't have a degree in any of this, but i do think about it a lot, and i have my own ideas about things that depart somewhat from the orthodoxy in the field. — punos

Hey Einstein didn't have a degree in physics when he came up with his ideas. He worked as a clerk in a patent office in Switzerland.

All great and innovative ideas at the frontier of understanding depart from orthodoxy (what is commonly assumed). Until it isn't. A paradigm shift.

Never underestimate the power of free thought. If it feels right intuitively, pursue and expand upon that logic and show it to the world. Maybe its believed. Maybe it isn't. But change doesn't come about from settling for what is commonly assumed to be known.

Discounting those that don't want to be here, or are indifferent to being here, the fact we are still here would at best mean we prefer to be here. Why would it be good for us to get what we prefer? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Those that truly don't want to be here are in the active process of suicide. A state that doesn't last very long as it is either successful or failed and they are either incapacitated or incarcerated in a pysche ward.

Those that are indifferent to being here don't participate in these discussions as they don't care, they're apathetic.

For the rest, we are here because we hold onto hope that things can be good. We are not hopeless. And so continue living.

As for why it would be good for us to get what we prefer, when we are talking about being alive verse being dead, we have already gotten what we prefer by virtue of still being alive.

The dead have no say. They don't have a choice to get what they prefer as they don't exist as a living "I".

So the question of why it's" good to get what we prefer" is redundant - already answered by the fact that we are alive.
We prefer to live and so we do. The question is self resolving by the fact we continue to Exist.

When we think being alive isn't good then we either become suicidal or an antinatalist - blaming everyone else for existence.

But when we enjoy living. And think its good, our justifications come from maintaining our right to live. And thus harm (increasing the likelihood of death) is bad. And through empathy/comparison we can understand that others also wish to live and, as we are, ought to also be allowed to. So harm to others is also bad.

It's the basic logic that emerges from one's own existence.

Photons interact with all fermions except for neutral leptons or neutrinos. I'm still trying to work out what that might mean. — punos

And I'm sure you will elucidate an explanation for that in time. I myself am not as well versed on those particular specifics of quantum mechanics. So you're more educated interpretations for sure take the floor on such subjects..

I'm happy to hear what you come up with, how you apply meaning to those things and weave them into the big, cohesive, connected picture.

but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it. — I like sushi

Interesting. I wonder why that is.

there must be an actual system in place that determines actual morality, — Leftist

There is such a system. Demonstration. Trial and error and the lasting impacts of that outcome on you (guilt, shame, pride, contentment) whatever the case.

What morality is can be learned through experience. Thats why we have to tell children to share not steal, and wait their turn not push to the front.

It's pretty basic. We can convolute it as much as we want with terminology, jargon and esoteric language but at the end of the day morality deals with the simple question "do you think you're more valuable/important/better than others?"

In other words "do you think you're the center of the universe and everyone else ought revolve around your whims?"

If so, you had better offer a damn fine reason why. Otherwise make space and tolerate other people's choices and beliefs. Don't harm them just because they don't match yours.

2.5k
When might time come to a halt? A photon moving at light speed experiences no passage of time due to complete dilation, and a hypothetical environment in which there are absolutely no physical changes. So, complete stillness and complete speed = no time. Forget seasonal changes that suggest "circular" time or any such geometrical analogies. — jgill

That's because a photon travelling at the speed of light is pure potential energy. It is change itself. The ability to do work on its surroundings. Its surroundings then must be material, slower and not travelling at the speed of light, and thus experiencing time, and having duration as solid substantial interacting/changing things.

Pure change can change/act upon everything else except itself. It is a constant - the speed of light.

The minute it acts on itself it is no longer change but rather the changed, not pure potential, less potent, and subject to other things that limit its potency - time/space etc.

I think this is what Einstein equation E=mc2 signifies.
Energy is matter when it is worked upon, and energy when it's doing the work. The ability to span the whole spectrum between the two is the ultimate potential.

or spiral — punos

Like a helix? Like the fundamental code at the basis of our living existence. Lol.

I think evolution mimics the form of its underlying rules, as fractals do.
Like the golden ratio which can be seen in dna, in how a sunflower arranges its seeds, the shape of a conch shell, how a galaxy is shaped etc. All products of times continuing emergence of cycles built on cycles - Or - as you said, a spiral - a revolution that is not the exact same as the one that came before it.

I imagine time as one fundamental cycle of an Inconceivably large magnitude, one you could easily assume will never repeat and is thus linear.

This cycle contains smaller more rapidly changing, more highly energetic and chaotic cycles all rotating against one another like cogs in a machine. But not only do they rotate statically against eachother but they themselves revolve on the circumference of a larger cycle so that constantly new emergent phenomena appear as they interact with one another and different cycles they have et encountered yet.

Plate tectonics (convection currents) and the cycle of ice meteors repeatedly hitting the earth gave rise to a new phenomenon: oceans and land.

The ocean as a new emergent phenomenon then sets up its own cycle - with land and the moons orbit (tides) and with the equator (hot) and poles (cold) - ocean currents - again convection, and so on and so forth. The complexity of the system constantly increasing - more ways to be chaotic and orderly simultaneously.

The beauty of the geometry of a circle is it is the union of the finite/discrete - a line of determined length, and the infinite and irrational - pi (a number that goes on forever and never repeats but statistically would contain all possible sequences that could ever exist).

A circle then is infinite on its circumference as it has no start or end, but a discrete finite point at its center.

Any justification you give for it being bad, such as "it causes suffering" would beg another question "why is suffering bad", if you keep asking the question of the previous answer, eventually all you'll have is "because I feel it is bad". — Down The Rabbit Hole

Oh please. Literally every answer begs another question. All of them. How then is that a useful basis for your argument against

Why is the sky blue, because of light scattering, why does light scatter, because of different air densities, why do they happen, why does the atmosphere work that way, why does light happen, how fast does it move, why does it go at that speed, etc etc and on and on and on.

Kids do this "why" stage of constantly begging questions.

So if every question has an answer or multiple possible answers - some of which may be more correct or absurd than others, and they also have their own string of questions.
Then where ought we start?

We start with what we are most certain of. Ones ability to come to harm and die. That's as fundamental and core to us as evolution and survival instinct.

We justify that this is bad by the very fact that we are still alive.

It is justified, quite obviously in fact, by the person who hasn't committed suicide because they fundamentally think death is worse than surviving.
The assertion that harm is bad and leads to death is demonstrated by the continued existence of the person who wrote it.

There's your justification in a sphere of endless begging the question and answer.

"Why is life good? Because we are still here."

You can then argue as to why life is good, and what harm is, and how to deal with harm to preserve the goodness of life and avoid murdering others or committing suicide. One can develop a solid intention which is self justifying.

Benj, that coins work does not imply a new form of physics but a need for a different description. It's group intentionality that makes money work. See Institutional Facts: John R. Searle — Banno

We have those different descriptions. Relativity and quantum physics. They work on premises not the same as materialist/mechanistic physics. (newtonian).

I'm not arguing that why money works requires a new form of physics, I'm using it to highlight the importance of what the other two domains of physics represent - that those things newtonian physics standardises as constant -time and space for example, Are not always the case, they change as observers are brought into the picture.

So, the immaterial (the mind/observation) does influence the external physical environments behaviour and vice versa.
Dualistic behaviour.

Best approach is just to say that what is physical is what is dealt with by physics, which includes time. — Banno

What is physical is not just dealt with by physics though is it? What is physical - the reality we live in and its true nature whatever that may be, is reckoned with by every living person through several disciplines.

To say things that exist are only those that physics deals with means no other human discipline reveals anything physically true about reality. And has no merit. Which I think is overly physics biased.

If we are to explain how the universe works we can't ignore everything that occurs within it that has not or can not be addressed by physics.

We have to understand the perception of time (a product of consciousness) as well as physical time. For example. And reconcile how those both exist empirically to an observer

I am not at all convinced that many meat-eaters care to hunt? — I like sushi

Neither am I. And that's the kernel that vegans hang their argument on. That we treat animals as objects and don't care for the fact that they're living things in need of empathy.

We avoid/deny as much as possible the fact that they have to be killed by letting it be done out of sight out of mind on a mass production scale. And then collect our pretty little meat parcels at the shop.

We don't have to see the fear in their eyes when we slaughter them, we just enjoy the spoils thoughtlessly and that luxury is putting incredible strain on the sustainability of the ecosystem and global climate.

I'm not sure if that is a very balanced approach to what food means to us.

Hunting is a luxury for privileged citizens of the rich countries and a daily chore for a few natives in remote jungles that haven't been bulldozed yet. It's not an option available to the vast majority of humans. — Vera Mont

You're right it isn't available to the majority. But what if at a butcher you had a holding pen. And had to kill the animal yourself. The butcher would then prepare the meat for you to take home.
That way one takes person responsibility for eating meat and all that ought to be recognised when doing so. The animals life namely. And it is accesible and doesn't require all the hunting gear and travel to remote locations.

It's basically making the abbatoire accesible to the public and insisting that "look... If you want to eat it, reckon with your taste for it and do the deed. Otherwise here's some delicious vegetables and nuts etc if that seems more appetising."

This would be sure to reduce the sheer volume of meat we consume and the pressure we place on the environment to feed 8 billion apex predators whilst not denying people the right to eat what they want.

I'm not suggesting hunting in the typical sense. But doing what a hunter does. Kill their food.

Instead of interactions with other people outside your skin, i'm saying that the same pattern (fractally) is occurring within you. The interactions between the left and right hemispheres of your brain. — punos

Yes I agree. I think it is a battlefront between opposition that occurs on multiple levels (fractals). Both within us down to our most basic instincts and outward beyond us in society at large.
War and peace, external conflicts, internal conflicts. Etc

Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".

What is wrong with that moral claim?
— Benj96

Quantity over quality. Similar to mistaking sound for substance. ie. "I would prefer to destroy the least amount of schools as opposed to the most amount of brothels because destroying buildings is generally considered immoral therefore it is the moral choice to make", etc. — Outlander

I mentioned both the quality and quantity quite clearly and simply in the statement.

The quality is "least harm/or most" good" and the quantity is "greatest number of people".

I'm not mistaking anything in that moral claim as I never claimed the specific means to bring it about. I didn't speak of implimentation. Only the end goal (the ideal).

I simply stated an intention. Which by itself, in isolation, yet un-acted upon, can't commit any error (unintended harm trying to act it out in reality).

So it's a solid starting point and ironically it describes the end goal simultaneously.

So I'll repeat my question: what's wrong with simply saying in essence:

"I don't want to harm people."

Is that an unacceptable statement to make?

And what say you of the characteristics of those that deem such a notion as unacceptable and try to argue it away? Is that moral of them? Is any argument with the statement not a way to rationalise why you should or do harm people?

"The experience of suffering is inherently a logical reason not to continue it."
I attribute this argument to Benj69.
This is another "X being stated to be a moral truth, seeming arbitrarily, without justification". This is hedonism. I explain my reasons against it in the OP and in "The community creates moral truths". The experience of pain might seem like it has inherent bad in it, that it makes it worse for you to exist as you and therefore makes it worse for you to exist at all, but that is merely an illusion created by evolution. — Leftist

Well, suffering in modération can lead to post-traumatic growth. People coin it "character building", improved resilience. Which is a good thing. Especially when he who suffered reflects on it brightly as something that was a good life lesson or that helped develop skills.

But there is also suffering that is too overwhelming (pure sadistic torture) which is so damaging that post traumatic growth or positive stress response is unlikely. The type that leads to a broken person, or suicide or murder. And that is a truly harmful harm.

I think these two very different forms of harm are being conflated from the OP onward.

I would say that suffering/harm is impossible to abolish and is neccesary as an opposite to peace/pleasure. Otherwise neither exist or have relative meaning. What is good without bad?

So no, hedonism is not what I'm suggesting. Suffering exists for a reason.

However the existence of suffering doesn't mean we cannot strive for an ideal because we know that the system will always be flawed. And those flaws grow when not actively suppressed (striving for more ideal conditions).

You can choose to/accidentally add suffering to the world or work out a way to avoid doing so as much as possible.

The suffering can be minimised but it isn't ever going to disappear.

So I am not claiming what the exact moral truth is. Im claiming that I'm simply aware that it does exist in some ill-defined capacity as the simple feeling of good/pleasantness/peace.

My intention therefore is not to act on what I think the moral truth is. It is to simply point a finger in its vague direction and say "hey have you ever felt safe, happy and at peace?" and if the answer to that is Yes, then my next statement would be "It is my intention that all people are able to feel this feeling we both agree that we have felt before, as much as is naturally possible and healthy for them to feel."

And if they ask how would you do that? I would say I'm not sure. As I only have the intention. A moral one. But not the reasoning or knowledge to realise it. It is a good starting point though.

But I would recommend that we ought to probably reason the knowledge of what it is as a collective so we may bring it about on the most sensible and safest way possible.

"X is moral because it is my intention to cause or not cause X"
I attribute this argument to Benj69.
Does mere intention make it so something should, or shouldn't, be done? Does it make it a fact that nobody - or just you - should or should not do those things? — Leftist

No mere intention doesn't make any following act automatically justifiable. Obviously.

Intention is about the end goal - an ideal - not how to get there. How to get there, the journey, is the realm of rigorous reasoning and a broad scope of considerations and then development of a best practice to cautiously proceed.

And revision of said practice when required (if it is seen to do more harm than good by other interlocutors). In essence never assuming the means to get to an ideal equals the ideal. As that would be dangerous.

I understand what you mean in that we know ourselves through our interactions with others. We find our own identity through its relativity to the identity of others and vice versa.

We construct our own conscious perception by ascertaining those beliefs of others that we agree with and those which we disgree with. This places us firmly in a relative state to others.

For example if I agree with a Liberals point of view I disagree with a Conservatives one. But less binary than that I fall somehwere on the spectrum between pure Liberal and pure Conservative.

And I can decide to review my conscious awareness and adjust it toward more liberal or conservative when given a persuasive argument to adopt such a new position.

In essence we learn of ourselves by bouncing ideas off others and hearing their arguments - either accepting them. Or rejecting them.

Pro-tio: Making up your own, idosyncratic terms / definitions almost always confuses more than it clarifies the issue. — 180 Proof

It may confuse, yes indeed, but I guess that is simply a failure of mine to impart what I mean clearly and concisely.

All I can do is reconsider, and try to narrow down exactly what it is I wish to describe and try to formalise it in an approachable manner.

If I have not done so, if I have failed, then I suppose I owe an apology. Such is the difficulty of outlining one's terms exactly as meant.

If you wish to continue establishing what we both think in respect to one another we can try. It may fail or succeed but that is no less one of the challenges faced by the philosopher.

heaven's forbid grandmas should give advice about raising children — Athena

Well they managed to raise their own daughters and sons. So if a mother thinks she turned out okay some of that is at the very least a credit to their own parenting. A grandmother is a tried and tested testament to parenting.

Dont get me wrong I undertand that a daughter wants to prove her own worth as a mother. That's natural.

But I think it would be foolish not to take heade at least in part from her own mothers concerns. Raising children is a group effort. Especially when everyone's intentions are wholesome and with the childs best wishes at heart. You may have your differences for sure. But of course you have similarities too which ought not be dismissed.

. I am hoping men will become better husbands and fathers. — Athena

Yes absolutely it's the right hope to have. And I agree industrialisation and demands on men these days make it seem exceedingly difficult to Juggle family responsibilities and work ethic simultaneously. Employers need to respect down time. A concept that is not conducive to pure capitalism.

Our women have the freedom of barbarians and I do not mean that as a compliment. — Athena

Well I think it's a wonderful thing that mothers can now participate as true bread winners for the family, it must be incredibly empowering, almost on a par with the husband if not in some cases exceedingly so depending on their respective professions. But someone has to take care of the childers.

Its a fine balance indeed. I would personally be happy for a wife to succeed in her career while I raise the children. And I think that dynamic is increasing. A long awaited one.

Now that is a true philosophical statement. I love it! :heart: I have to go to work. I will ponder what you said and look forward to getting back to you. — Athena

I look forward to it also Athena :) all the best at work and we shall chat soon again!

Like the word 'game', there's no one criteria for what constitutes a game — Isaac

For me a game is something that doesn't have actual real life consequences. It is a roleplay. In that way harm can be exercised without realising actual persisting real life complications. One can thus learn from a game the consequences of their actions without those actions being relevant to real life. Its a simulation in essence.

Like monopoly. Family members can Bury one another in debt, crucify them financially, without actually losing the family house. It teaches a lesson in capitalism in a safe environment of knowing the game is not reality and that there isn't really anything truly at stake.

Games are useful as practise and honing practical skills that are actually useful in real life affairs.

I'd call that domestic abuse, and awful parenting. — Tzeentch

I would call it preservation of one's/a groups welfare when faced with someone insidiously caustic. If a member of my familys only source of pleasure and validation is to harm others then they are not welcome any longer.

Of course I would try to persuade them to consider others feelings and be more open to difference of opinion. But if they are incapable and have demonstrated purely individualistic intent then they ought to truly be individual right? Fend for themselves as that is all they care about in the end.

They may always rejoin the family unit if they offer an agenda that isnt wholly self serving.

If I am the father of such a family. I must protect everyones interests to the best of my ability. And if one person is being wholly ruinous to everyone else's esteem perhaps they need time alone to reflect on what their siblings/family.mean to them, and if they really think its right to inflict suffering on others just so they can have some form of self esteem.

I wouldn't hesitate to rid of pure malevolent nastiness. Whoever may propagate it.

I do. It'll bloody hurt. — Isaac

Exactly. The experience of suffering is inherently a logical reason not to continue it. Harm is a reason not to harm. If you have empathy that is.

If you're a sociopathic person that doesn't give two hoots whether others are harmed in your ambition to get what you want, then it wouldnt serve as a reason not to harm. But that only highlights the perversely selfish nature of such a person.

There are no correct moral claims — Leftist

There definitely is.

Moral claim: "I wish to cause the least harm to the greatest number of people possible".

What is wrong with that moral claim?

To say that moral claims can be true is to say that there are inherently true moral claims, claims that by definition are not supported by external evidence — Leftist

There are inherently moral claims. Morality is about avoiding suffering. Torture is not conducive to avoiding harm.

What external evidence does one need to wish to not harm others? Ones intention to not cause harm is a self sufficient premise not to do so.

Therefore, you have no logical reason to stop me from hammering a toothpick under your fingernail. — Leftist

The logical reason is that it hurts. It is unpleasant and makes me weep in suffering. And as I wouldnt wish it on anyone esle I can justify that it is not right because it ought not be done to anyone.

What would you call a household where everybody does what the head figure wants out of fear of getting beaten?

And what would your reaction be if the head figure excused themselves by saying the beatings are only a last resort for when the fear isn't sufficient to force obedience? — Tzeentch

How about if we rephrase it as what would you call a household where everybody does what the head figure wants or face being exiled, told to leave and make their own way without any support?

The head excuses themselves by saying that exile is only a last resort if one's desire to cooperate isn't sufficient enough to maintain a cohesive collective.

My issue is that if anarchy is to take down government (the ruler) what does an anarchist suggest replacing it with? The anarchist themselves? Is that not ye another ruler.

When a power is overthrown is it not replaced with yet another? Some people like to leave decision making to others and will tow the line so to speak. They want to be sheep. If people want to be sheep who ought to shepard them and how can they do so without admitting they are a ruler?

The "dualism" referred to in the OP and (mostly) discussed throughout this thread is substance dualism. I assumed that is also what you meant by "dualism". If I was mistaken and you are a property dualist instead, then my criticism doesn't apply. At best, as far as I can tell, you are conflating substance with property — 180 Proof

Ah yes the heavy burden of definitions is upon us once again. So easy to assume I'm explaining how I define something comprehensively verses what one interprets that is (based on their own definition readily at hand). Leading to all sorts of mismeanings and twistings of communication.

If only language was a bit less ambiguous.

Well for me substance is similar to material. Substance is that which "substantiates" physical things. Properties on the other hand are that which substances can do, behave like, impart.

As in color is a property imparted by substances to a perceiver.

So I guess my dualism doesn't argue for the immaterial having "substance". In fact its the very opposite. It doesn't have a tangible, physical presence except through symbols/symbolically.

The dualism i suppose is that substance and property are two sides of the same coin - existence. For something to exist it must have a property and/or a substance.

My properties (as a sentient being with substance) is to have an imagination of immaterial things. I can impart that immateriality using a substance - by that I mean communicating it through a medium (a substance) to another sentient being.

If I write a novel idea (something previously immaterial - within only my private mind, inaccesible) onto paper with ink (both substances), the representation/symbols (words and sentences) of my immaterial idea can be communicated (perhaps Imprecisely) to another mind.

In that way the immaterial and material piggyback on one another.

If I were to write "i think that force is equal to pressure multiplied by area" this can be taken as a concept (immaterial idea) suggesting a possible material existent outside of personal bias. It can be tested and is found consistent and so is taken to be material (independent/actual) when once it was just an idea, a concept (immaterial).

This two and fro between immaterial (imagination/ideas/concepts) and the material world (what we use to interact with one another) is what I mean by my Duality. Both exist. To say the mind doesn't exist without the body and the rest of physical things (pure materialism) would be logically incoherent based on empiricism.

And likewise to say only the mind exists (without the consistent properties and substance of the material world) woukd be equally incoherent.

So we must then conclude that immaterial and material things exist and they can interact with one another. The immaterial can describe the material world accurately (science) and the material is approaching a stage where it can ever more accurately describe the immaterial (the mind - neuroscience).

via false dichotomy due to reification fallacy of binary-opposition semantics — 180 Proof

How is it a false dichotomy and a reification fallacy simultaneously? That's a contradiction.

Reification fallacy is the inappropriate concretising of abstractions. Right? Saying the imaginary is real.

And you say this leads to false dichotomy - meaning a separation between two supposed opposites that doesn't actually exist.

If they don't actually exist as opposites, and there's only really one thing, where does the reification fallacy apply then? It can't apply to monism. Which in turn makes the premise to refer to it, a fallacy.

It's like the liar paradox in disguise. The following statement is true (reification fallacy). The previous statement is false (false dichotomy).

You're basically saying: they're not two they're one, due to the fact of misplaced concreteness. So is the one thing concrete or is it abstract?

If its concrete, how do we the word abstract meaningfully. And if its abstract how do we use the term concrete meaningfully.

Opposites have to exist for reification fallacy to be applied. And monism has to exist for false dichotomy to be applied. Its self proving that it's a dualistic state for either of those to ever be applied.

I think its absurd to think that only concrete things can exist and abstraction doesn't. Because if it doesn't what say you of creativity, imagination, invention, new words etc. They would have had to already exist if abstraction doesn't exist.

Can you explain to me a universe where only light exists and no darkness. Or where only sound exists and no silence?

Or perhaps it takes two to tango?

It is like a Zen Koan, set up to block the road of thought; it is a question that cannot be answered with words or thoughts, but only with one's whole life. — unenlightened

I agree. Every thought leads to a questions. Every question leads to an answer, or multiple answers (some less plausible perhaps, some more so). But those answers lead to more questions on and on and on.

Why does one choose to stop following a particular line of thinking? Where does one stop the train of thought? Where does one return to when that thought has stopped? Is the place they return to the same, or different? Did the thought influence the original starting point?

Curiosity is the steam engine of thought. Children have it in abundance, often to the annoyance of adults which don't like to admit they don't have all the answers to all of children's questions.

"Because I said so" sounds familiar to many. The end of thought.

Can thoughts ever be aware of themselves or can only the thinker create thoughts without fully knowing what they are? What is being asked?

Maybe only 2 items at a time is possible? Thinker to thought only? — TiredThinker

I don't think the thinker creates thoughts out of nothing. The thinker doesn't live in a sensory deprivation tank for their entire life unaware of any stimuli.
Thoughts are at first automatic products of sensory stimuli from the external environment: an infant is like a sponge soaking in information unselectively and so tend to be quite polarised in their behaviour (crying) or (smiling in delight) because all this sensory information they're are gathering second by second is novel and emotional - good or bad.

Later on thoughts are more complex and arranged and associated with more and more things. Meanings are then also more complex. Language and comprehension accelerates and diversifies.

I think the subconscious - those thoughts that were collected yet never addressed arise during childhood simultaneously with focus and concentration (opposite).

This dichotomy means that there are thoughts - usually negative ones or ones not well understood, ignored or not valued - that your conscious awareness has not incorporated/taken control of but exist in memory.

They are no less a part of what influences your behaviour (procrastination, jealousy, ptsd, resentments and grudges, intuitions, instincts) despite being denied attention/assumed to not exist.

So this would suggest thoughts influence one another within the thinker. They have different orders of magnitude of awareness of eachother. And if the subconscious is dominant then likely someone will act impulsively and not understand why or where that urge came from. Whilst on the other hand if the subconscious is addressed and thoroughly sifted, one becomes more aware of why they behave in the ways they do, they are less impulsive and more contemplative.

So I think, in summary: the thinker and the thought influence one another in a two way system. My thoughts influence me: my behaviours/attitudes etc. But I also influence my thoughts: by using the ones I'm aware of to reorganise, access or overwrite others with fresh ideas.

I hope this offers some food for thought. Let me know what you think and your further ideas and debate :)

If not, then why should the politicians who write their own dictates and call them "laws" be taken seriously? — AntonioP

Because politicians are under intense scrutiny, public opinion/outcry, get lambasted by the media, by the courts etc if they write down or suggest any laws that seem absolutely arbitrary or absurd.
Not only that but they have a whole team of policy reviewers, ethicists, political scientists, and a series of checks and balances to tick before any such law gets passed.

What you describe is more "law by decree" which is what the Kings of Old did. Kings nowadays don't even have such an easy time passing any laws without the remaining government reviewing it, or public opinion.

The only people who do what you describe are fascist dictatorships. Which exist. And I think anarchy is most likely only appropriate in such a harmful/toxic governance. I believe its called revolution when the public become sick of their sh*t and turn to anarchy.

As happened in France with King Louis

. However, if you try to explain or answer why society should have to follow their laws, there will be no satisfactory answer — AntonioP

You cant find a satisfactory answer because you've used a circular definition:

"Society" is created/the product of mutually agreed laws/order. Society is about being social : Social etiquette, manners of interaction, customs, norms, commonly held practises or what we could say as "the official and unofficial laws of conduct" of how to cooperate/be civil.

Are the laws of a society enforced on them (tyrannies/dictatorships) or mutually agreed upon, amended, revised to reflect the collective conscience (democracy).

Plus, I think it's fair to say laws and ordered systems work on all levels. Your own body has laws and orders to maintain a non cancerous state, to stay healthy and not let your body systems fall into "disorder" - derangement, decay.

Would you promote anarchy against a government if you had to allow your cells to do the same to your own bodies government? Become anarchists that rebel against the immune system (law enforcers) and spread out beyond their domain to take down the system?

Also we self police regularly. We have quite a large range of freedoms in society - of what career to pursue, of what hobbies to take an interest in, of what places one may live, how many kids you'd like, what things you wish to purchase.

I think in general law is to prevent people from being harmed. Whether they do it knowingly or accidentally.

I could concede maybe that there could be some place in the world where one can go and live away from society if they so choose. But if everyone that is dissatisfied with society moves to that place they just institutionalise it into another society - because they have to live with eachother.

The only way to not be governed is to go it alone. To be a solitary hermit living out your life in absence of anyone else who have their own set of rules and behaviours that they may expect you to adhere to out of common courtesy/respect /politeness.

Luckily for them the world is big enough to do such a thing. And I'm sure hundreds of people are currently living alone or as a couple unknown and ungoverned on vast plains or in vast forests. Truly free of expectations and policing. But I'd say that is a hard life. Uncomfortable and potentially deadly. No access to modern medicine.

I vaguely feel like I might have asked this already but can't find it. Some cultures seem to believe time is circular versus linear. I don't know what that can mean. Like a cassette tape that records over itself after a certain amount of time has passed, or is it a simple emphasis on how the seasons change and each winter will be more similar to other winters than other seasons? What do they mean? — TiredThinker

I think what they mean is that if you don't standardise the passage of time. By that I mean give it an arbitrary discrete measurement - a finite unit such as a second, minute or hour etc, which can accumulate or be counted upwards on an infinite line (linear time) in chronologically recorded order,

Then,

The only other possibility to perceive time is in cycles. Rhythms, frequencies, oscillations - things that repeat themselves again and again but at different rates (orbits, seasons, tides, reproduction) and are built into larger cycles on orders of magnitude.

The irony being that all clocks that we use to measure time as linear, are based on oscillations/frequencies: sundials, hourglasses and their inversion when they run out, pendulums, the circular clock face, quartz crystal vibrations, the rate of decay of isotopes, etc. The smaller and more numerous the oscillation the more accurate it is as it is less influenced by the external environment/set up.

Hence the atomic clock. So precise in fact that it could measure the influence of gravity and speed on the passage of time.

I hope this helped/was useful.

Well, at least I can reaffirm my rejection of duality.
The credence you are giving to a notion such as 'a potential universe,' has no credence at all for me.
Similar to the idea of a 'potential car, human, unicorn or god.' Such notions just seem meaningless to me. — universeness

And yet they exist. Here on this page. And in both our minds. How is that so? They don't have to be valued to exist. If you don't value another's beliefs, reject them at will. Does that mean they cease to exist? I believe not. They are just not agreed upon as real.

I don't think "a potential universe" is all that far off from the "singularity" concept of physics. A pointless, spatially dimensionless, timeless, entity in which all energy is condensed, all possible information and interactions that could and/or ever will exist.

Pure potential. Potential everywhereness (Omnipresence), potential every energy stateness (omnipotence) and potential every interactioness/measurable occurrence (omniscience).

Not nothing. Not something. But the in-between, a state that can remain as potential, or become mass energy time and space - as required for one another to exist relativistically.

To give dimension to the dimensionless.
Yes it sounds fantastical and bizarre and almost inconceivable and mainly will dismiss it as purely absurd thus, but it's just as strange as much of the other possible rationales for the origin of existence.