- These are the rules. The only rules. I don’t want to hear about your beliefs.
- Arguing with people about whose beliefs are right is a douche bag thing to do.
- You must take time off for yourself. You are not getting any younger.
- If you piss off mom or dad, you are going to have a bad day.
- If you kill people, we will hunt you down and kill you.
- If you fuck around on the spouse, you are going to wish you where dead.
- If you steal shit, we will either hunt you down and kill you or put you in a cage.
- If you lie, we will figure it out and treat you like shit for the rest of your life.
- If people that are not your spouse even look good, refer to rule 6.
- If other people’s shit looks good to you, refer to rules 5 and 7.
Are we getting the picture yet?
So it is just mob mentality inside a mad man's head with some secular christianity throw in? All right.
ReplyDeleteHow Godels theorem, some people like consistency some like completeness make someone an atheist again?
So are you lashing out at pretty much universal values present in most religions or are you just pissed that there is no need for a god to get there.
DeleteAnd BTW, read the post referring to Gödel a little closer. Or are you just one of these childish shit heads that thinks the question of a god existing could be in principle be answered?
Existence exists is the mark of a know nothing philosopher (I'm looking at you Descartes). Do you have something more than that?
DeleteWhy would some notion of existence change anything? If you are looking for answers from what other people have said, you are just young and naïve. Slamming somebody you don't like just shows the absolutist tendencies you have.
DeleteI think therefore I am? Iamthatiam say jewish god in the bible YHWE. Kant said that there's no being in that phrase, throwing out the scholastics too with their first cause and greatest being of all too.
DeleteNobody gives a fuck if you are. Only a child mind, would think that the fact they think has any relevance to the question.
DeleteBut Descartes was after certainty, something that he was absolutely certain about. Are you denying certainty at all? With certainty it doesn't matter if someone cares about. The mind of god of course cares about everything or something. Spinoza said god has nothing to do with humans affairs, no philosopher ever said it.
DeleteCertainty only exists in pure mathematics where there are precise definitions of the universe of discourse. Descartes like lots of other idiots took inappropriate ideas and applied them to the wrong universe of discourse and got his ass handed to him
DeleteTalking about the mind of god is just positing a justification for your position without any proof.
Maybe you should look at the truth table for a logical implication. If your assumption is false, it doesn't matter what nonsense you conclude. It will always look correct.
Hmmm, thx. I want to look at the biconditional. And the negation of the biconditional pls. What do you think it means?
DeleteWhy do you think it's a simple dichotomy? Why does the cardinality of the set have to be two? Are you just trying to hold on to the 18th century idea of an excluded middle?
DeleteIf something is only if it is and it is not only if it is not. The negation means it is only it is not. Thats -6th century, but it goes to the heart of being. I think i can prove things 'are' from that or something.
DeleteLOL once again. So you like to play games with the copular verb. But you forget that complements are not always binary. Maybe you should study divisors of zero in the world of matrix multiplication :-)
DeleteI can get that if something is false then everything is true. That doens't hold for the bi-conditional the joke is on you.
DeleteSo the two conditionals can't be logical implementations with a false assumption. So are just picking the "SPECIAL" binary operation you like and ignoring the ones that don't support your position.
DeleteCan you make a sense of that?
DeleteMake sense of WHAT? Your choice to not follow the rules of formal logic to come to your conclusions.
DeleteSomething that is necessary and suffient for it's own existence.
DeleteHave you never considered that something may not need a necessary or sufficient reason to exist?
DeleteAnd what would that be?
DeleteHow about an idiotic belief in a sky daddy needed to rape a poor Jewish girl to be incarnated as a human so he could die to forgive them of sins they never committed.
DeleteThe original sin was commited by your parents.
DeleteSo are you saying you ARE a theist?
DeleteIt's the perception that there's something BAD in the world that is then attributed to sins.
DeleteThere's the experience lack or desire or suffering in existence that one didn't brought upon himself.
That everything is actually good and all right is a famous religious position too.
Wake up. ANY position involving some morality that you want to push on others IS a religious position.
DeleteYou only need sins to justify doing what you would normally call "bad" to others. The only people that need sins are the ones that want to pretend they are moral people while actually doing things that by their own definition are immoral.
The original is upon oneself that's where it is different from regular sins.
DeleteGet it through your head. There ARE no sins original, regular or any other kind committed by you or anyone else.
DeleteThey are just a manifestation of your own personal insecurity and not wanting to take responsibility for your actions.
They are just excuses. You want to be excused for your immoral acts.
It's like the problem of evil, why there's evil or apparent evil in the world? That existence itself appears to entail badness.
DeleteWhat I mean by original sin is that existence appear to be bad. Sure that besides vice, people who talk about sins are trying trying to find scapegoats for immoral behaviours, or pretend they can influence natural forces magically to gain social control.
The only problem of evil is that there is none and a groups of self righteous idiots go around claiming it exists. Kind of like claiming a god exists.
DeleteMaybe they should wake up and read their own Bible. When you judge others the others come to the conclusion that you are the one that needs to be killed.
The problem of evil is one of the counter arguments for the existence of a god. I think careless reproduction including that without reproduction humans and other animals wouldn't endure for long, coupled with the fact that previous generations didn't created a better ground for developement and solution for afflictions, given that the original sin would just fall into an interpretation of the current state of 'human' condition.
DeleteWhat counter argument for a god? You need to have a good argument that a god exists before there is any need for a counter argument.
DeletePrevious generations where not there to make a better world for you. You are there because evolution chose a venereal disease as the mechanism of reproduction.
You have yet to show how in a world without any sins, the concept of some original sin makes any sense.
It was maybe Olvidio and others in Rome that pushed the argument of evil harder?
DeleteThe idea is that if there was a creator of the world evil would not exist. A god that allows evil to exist is not omnipotent and therefore is not a god. An omnipotent omnibenevolent god would not allow evil to exist.
As long as humans have something to do with potency and benevolence the world should be better. The failure of that is a failure of humans.
A world without sense is nonsensical to a sensible mind, to be sensible is nonsense? DO you have a test to sanity? I think I have a test to absolutely agreable sanity.
Why the hell does a creator have to be good or bad?
DeleteIt sounds like you are just anthropomorphizing to make a creator that is modeled in the way you want him to be. You are making him conveniently in a way where you are one of the "good" guys.
LOL, I bet you are the only one that completely passes your sanity test :-)
People tend to think that when someone creates something they would know what they are doing.
DeleteI think anthropomophization is part of the nonsense as a creator that has to intervene in his creation didn't know what he was doing and is not a god.
I don't know if I would pass the test it is empirical, there's no moralistic judgements if someone would pass it or not, the effects of it being in place are of more interest.
The test is just allowing euthanasia to whoever may want it for whatever reasons. Let's see who can live well under those conditions. If you cannot you may be doing something wrong and maybe you would want to check that euthanasia option for a change.
You must not interact with creative people very much. I experience people creating things every day without even having a clue what they are doing.
DeleteYou really need to learn what anthropomorphize actually means. There are plenty of things that create other things and there's nothing even remotely human involved.
You really need to learn what it means for a test to be empirical. For that matter you really need to learn what moralistic judgments are.
Your test is no where near empirical and it's all based on a moral judgment you are making.
You are right about creation. Just because it appears to be doens't meant that it is so.
DeleteI'm not making moralistic judgements because I'm not making moral judgements on whatever anyone chooses to do.
The question is wheter people can agree on whatever they are doing without exploitation. It's an empirical test on the very basis of morality, for there to be any morality this system must be in place to guarantee it is so.
If you claim something is good or bad, right or wrong, agreeable or disagreeable, you are making a moralistic value judgement.
DeleteWhy is people agreeing any different than people disagreeing?
Don't you get that EVERY act you perform involving someone else IS an act of exploitation by you?
You don't seem to get what the word "empirical" means. It sounds like you are just trying to beef up your argument with better sounding words.
Didn't your mom ever tell you there are no guarantees in this world?
Dichotomies are bound by context. Life and death are an empirical dichotomy.
DeleteSo what exactly does a statement like your get you?
DeleteEverything is bound by context. You should learn about formal languages.
Is it really so surprising a conceptual dichotomy would be experienced in an empirical way.
You REALLY need to study structural realism.
There are systems that can't be supported when there are alternatives to it, that means that there are systems that can only exist without alternatives.
DeleteYou cannot just leap from "supported" to "exists".
DeleteWhat exactly is the exclusionary principle that causes the alternatives to not exist just because this "magical" system exists and somehow pushes the rest out of existence.
It's a question on how much people that influence a system are willing to take part on it.
DeleteYou don't get out of your category error by claiming some kind of group of "bad" guys.
DeleteThere are no bad guys. It's a teleological stuff where we go towards what we decide to go, supposing there is a goal it just takes the friction out of picture. It makes more easy for anyone who claims they have an attainable goal to try to achieve it.
DeleteWhy would you want someone who doesn't share your view to take part with you because you can exploit their biological needs?
DeleteHow does a purpose take the friction out of anything? How would it make a claimed goal easier to obtain?
DeleteWhy would I not want to exploit somebody especially if they had a different view?
Or should we keep just with Tarski truth level, a language cannot containt truth within itself. Spinoza said that truth is just an story, you get a thought picture from the senses, and truth is only in the language saying something about what that is. Hell, Kant said that existence is not a property of objects, i think he was right about that.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to mixing your ideas without actually understanding what they are about. Your most telling word was "should". If you don't get the problem with the prescriptivist view you are taking you completely miss the point.
Delete'Is' 'or' gap from David Hume, there's no 'should' from a descripitivist point of view, I asked should just to ask if you accept Tarski famous view of truth.
DeleteYou still don't get it. I don't accept any definition of truth. Every definition contains within it a prescriptive view of how things "should" be. They are only useful to those people that can't think for themselves and want to brow beat others into a position that is favorable to the chump that proposes "their truth".
DeleteTruth is a religious concept all right. Jesus is truth, i get it. Tarski is still relevant though.
DeleteTruth is NOT a religious concept. Good and bad are religious concepts. People tend to try to sell truth as a justification for what they hold as good or bad.
DeleteBut how is Tarski's definition relevant?
Truth is the logical bla bla definition or religion. Good and bad as perspective I've nothing against because the burden of proof that leads to completion is for idiots to prove, except for obvious reasons as procreation creates good and evil distinctions. Tarski said that any language cannot have truth distinctions embed within it. WTF how didn't you knew that?
DeleteTruth is not a logical definition of religion. There is no burden of proof here and pretending there is one is just a way to knock the religions you don't like.
DeleteWTF does procreation have to do with good and evil other that to put more opinions in the world?
And don't you get that Tarski is just side stepping the question with a belief that discounts the beliefs of others?
Wait, I meant to say there's truth only in logic or religion.
DeleteNow good and bad, I can get that it is subjective what else? All of it can be tracked to nature. What naturally someone is supposed to do is saw as good to such being within limits. To eat for example, there's a natural difference of eating fruits or dirt.
Tarski was just talking about how truth in may function in languages. That it cannot be inside it only matter to people that would that such standarts or religious nuts.
Truth exists is logic. People pretend it exists in religion to attempt lend credibility to their wacky ideas.
DeleteTracked to nature in WHAT way? Have you got some magic machine that lets you look inside their head to examine what they are thinking?
Jumping outside to nutritional values is a non sequitur because you haven't shown how one thing follows from the other.
Tarski was attempting to push philosophy on to a mathematical basis and totally failed because philosophy is not a mathematic endeavor.
You are the one trying to use his work to justify your position.
Math is language, truth outside of it means nonsense. There's no question whether a punch in the balls is better that not without it. Balls are not meant to punch.
DeleteWow so you don't understand the difference between formal and natural languages.
DeleteIf a punch in the balls will get me a million dollars, a punch in the balls would be a good thing :-)
Money is the objectfication of value. That means the abstraction of bad. No news there, for the evolutionary 'no no' agreement too.
DeleteSo WTF is objectification? You sound like a SJW try to justify your position based on how good it makes you fee.
DeleteWhy the fuck would an abstraction be good or bad? Maybe you should study what an abstraction actually is. I would suggest Church's work on the Lambda Calculus.
Yo, value is subjective. Money represents bro.
DeleteIf you pay attention to the empiricists, everything is by definition subjective. So what the fuck is objectification? Pretending your subjective beliefs are real :-)
DeleteYou said that before, I may agree with it. It is something 'in the world' that you can take, smell, and stuff, the greenies or gold, that take that role think of mines for gods sake, I'm talking of diggin mountains.
DeleteYou can dig anything you want, that doesn't mean it is "in the world". Once again, can you stop jumping between the real world and subject world for just a little bit to see why your arguments fall on their face?
DeleteThere's no 'world' Im talking of human behavior.
DeleteYou seem to have a theist's understanding of the words universe and world. You jump inside and outside whenever it supports your position and ignore the difference when it tends to undermine what you are trying to push.
DeleteThat's just human.
DeleteNo theism is not just human. The existence of just one atheist proves your assertion is wrong.
DeleteShow me an atheist then.
DeleteYou have been arguing with one for several hours now.
DeleteBeliefs are human hehe. Show me one non-beliver.
DeleteNobody said there where people with no belief. Belief is a perfectly understandable heuristic mechanism to deal with the complexities of life.
DeleteAn atheist simply doesn't accept YOUR beliefs.
Which bt your morality is no one. Since no one has the same morality.
DeleteTalking about them being the same morality is meaningless. It's not like you can weigh one against the other in any objective way.
DeleteAny value judgment about a morality is filtered through the morality of the one making the judgment. It's biased and dishonest thing by it's very definition.
That one cannot prove an adjective may have something to do with it? People talk of good and evil as if it were objective when it is not? That's just trying to force something that can easily be denied.
DeleteYou need to study epistemic and ontic structural realism. Try the Harvard Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
DeleteStructuralism was a thing like 70 years ago. Scientism and Platonism make up to those realisms? I see adjectives as people saying 'I like\don't like' it, there's no information besides their opnion. Useless nonsense unless you are taking polls.
DeleteLOL. Structural Realism wasn't invented until around 1980. Some of it's best work was done after 2000. There is even some excellent work I know of as late as 2011. And the work continues now.
DeleteYou just can't resist dismissing what other people think by calling it "useless" and "nonsense". If what they think is so unimportant how is what you think important?
I'll check structural realism.
DeleteI'm dismissing people saying what is good and evil as people who pretend they personal opnion is more than it is. And it is an opnion that cannot add any more information on the matter without a bigger sample.
You REALLY need to think about the difference between morality and politics. Sure people are going to try to manipulate you if you don't know the difference. But bigger sample sizes are not influencing anybody.
DeleteIdeally no one can talk about your own interests except for yourself.
DeleteThe problem is that you can be sucked out of your own interests. The solution is that in the dillution of democracy itself those mistakes would be diminished. And democracy today is not really picking up to that with corporations owning politicians and stuff.
Exactly how would I get "sucked out of my own interests"?
DeleteThe same kinds of mistakes are going to be made no matter what kind of system you put in place.
Why the hell don't you become a corporation if they are the ones that get all the cool stuff?
And of course as Rousseau said before myself: 'Force does not constitute Right'. To kill is to act by force, no question about that. The question my friend is what constitutes Right. It's a surprise that you are unable to understand that nukeem'll is not a feasible solution to terror-threats.
ReplyDeleteWow, you REALLY miss the point. WTF is wrong with killing somebody that is threatening you? If they are dead, they won't threaten you again. Or is that too basic for you?
DeleteDuh, man rejects savage lawlesness by gathering togheter to the benefits of the collective humanhood.
DeleteThe question that you cannot answers of course is that Right cannot be given by parents to their children.
No one can subject themselves to law and claim that their children are subjected to their too. The benefits of community must be benefiting.
Why are you rejecting the wisdom given to you by your parents? They where only trying to help you. Only an idiot would expect their children to walk in lock step with them. Only a week minded kiddie would think they parent's views cannot be given to the kid.
DeleteFreedom is inalianable, no one can that your rights away from you, it's that simple. That someone could choose to make himself a slave (which is never possible as to crush oneselfs counsciousness could only equal to death) it would never pop out to anothers counsciousness where s/he has no right to.
DeleteQuoting pseudo legal documents doesn't support your position either. It's an appeal to law fallacy.
DeleteMaybe you should pull your head out of your idealistic ass and look around. Your appeal to popular beliefs doesn't help you either.
Would you please stop jumping between the material world and the subjective world? Consciousness can never be crushed. Nor does any alternative consciousness exist.
Stop drinking the new age cool aid.
Of course it can't be crushed, I meant the body that is what have the autonomy. We talk about the alienation of counsciouness to talk about many people. Keep the zen coming up, it has nothing to do with your parents.
DeleteWTF is "alienation of consciousness"? You seem to constructing word salad to push some oddball ideals.
DeleteIt is the Social Contract, ever signed a contract that was not signed by you?
DeleteSocial contracts are just a way to pretend there is some justification of your wacked out beliefs.
DeleteBrute force will never amount to that, what's wrong with beliefs besides people denial? Force is there for a belief, deep down inside there's it.
DeleteWho says brute force is not part of a "Social Contract"?
DeleteIt's pretty clear you don't understand the definition of the word "force". It seems you prefer rhetoric over substance.
There's no must or should in force. There's no talk about it. There's also no duty and no right to it, no one is subjected to force when it refers to someone else.
DeleteWOW. You don't pay much attention to your own thought processes do you?
DeleteForce is a justification for force, and nothing else.
DeleteSounds like you just don't have any power and you are complaining about it. Why don't you do something to put yourself in a better position?
DeleteRight implies duty, no one has to comply to force. If there are no rights, there's way to claim rights. If force made right the concept of it would make no sense.
DeleteRights don't imply duty. That's just a means to get people to do what you want by threatening to take away their rights.
DeleteA right is something that CANNOT be taken away by. If a duty is implied and the right could be taken away by not complying with the duty, then there was no right in the first place.
So force cannot constitute right can we agree on that? There's no rules to follow towards someone that has less force, while if someone has rights there are some kind of rules.
DeleteYou are equivocating. Right and wrong are only decided by lance and sword. The Rights a person has, involve a holding back of force based on some social agreement.
DeleteYou seem to be falling into the trappings of power. When you have power you grant rights because you need those without power. Otherwise you would just kill them all.
But you are NOT going to be able to maintain that power forever. Refer to rule 5.
People are not enemy of other people naturally, social contraptions may create the state of war between people, after the issue is settled even if by force there's no more enemity to the conserved.
DeleteIt's not the people that decide to wage war those on power do. One might use force only until those who fight back surrender, when they surrender there's no right over them to use force as they didn't waged war in the first place.
What wacky plant do you live on? Humans are the single most self violent species on the planet.
DeleteWe kill each other at the drop of hat for any random reason we can come up with.
If you think the natural state of affairs is to get along, maybe you need to get out and meet more people.
That assumption comes from the fact that societies thrives better than individuals in the long scheme. (An individual can be ill disposed towards another he cannot create a state of war which requires a group of people that chose to put their will under another and renounce their natural rights towards violence)
DeleteHumans find some mutual benefits in living in society so they end giving up the natural freedom of violence and lawlesness.
It is from the lawful state that war and agression get its meaning, and under law there are rights that cannot be alianeted by force.
You should try living on the streets of a large modern American city. Nobody's renouncing there natural rights toward violence.
DeleteMaybe YOU give up natural freedoms. The rest of us don't.
So I guess the Mexican drug cartels are a lawful state then.
Maybe you should get out of your cushy middle class life style and go and experience what REAL life is all about.
It was said that people who won a war had power over the people who lost the war and had the right to put them to slavery.
DeleteThe people who were supposed to be put under slavery were not the same that decided to wage war. And between individuals nobody can declare a state of war.
Once the objectives of wherever war are settled there's no right of any person towards another, force doesn't make rights, never have, never will.
What are some kind of Karma kook?
DeleteWTF difference does it make who starts or wins a war? For that matter what difference does it make who get enslaved or not?
You seem to have some kind of delusion of grandeur that somebody is more important that somebody else.
Without the force used to win the war, there is no framework for rights to even exist in.
No, rights are created by renouncing lawlesness to the benefits of living in society.
DeleteRights are created to make possible cooperation in a society. Lawlessness is NEVER renounced. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
DeleteRights are created by a promise not to do something. The most striking thing about a promise is how easy they are to break.
Sure no one is bound by what they say, but by what they do.
DeleteSo are you trying to make some kind of profound statement about how fixed the past is?
DeleteMore like giving rights a basis that is other than promises.
DeleteWhy do they need to more than promises?
DeleteAre you simply trying to put yourself on a more sound philosophical ground?
What you are saying does not amount to it. Brute force is no argument.
DeleteSo how exactly do you measure rights? What's the scale. If you cannot define an equation to quantify the mathematical norm, any attempt to claim you have some basis is pure gibberish.
DeleteLike a group of armed people doens't make an army a group of people doens't make a governing body.
DeleteThe ethics of being bound by words was medieval, it has no place in modernity where there are rights.
The point is in making self-governing bodies where rights are felt. Force never takes that away.
A group of armed people IS and army. Just like a group of people following some set of laws is a government.
DeleteSo just don't want to be bound by any laws. Let me know how that works out for you :-)
Without the force of the government, any rights you are claiming simply don't exist.
Don't get me wrong I think that 8 refers to 5, if you lie we should kill you, but that goes back to a complete formula which just means if you don't agree with me you're dead, it's just a righteous belief ins't it?
ReplyDeleteWhat you got to understand is that people with the power to make those kind of rules wheren't in power at some point in time, period.
What your childish morality is makes no difference. Don't you get that pushing ANY morality is a deeply religious act? Those atheist 10 commandments are not a definition of what is good or bad. They are a definition of what to expect.
DeleteSo power is fleeting, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Morality can boil down to LIKE or DISLIKE!!! I hate binary shizz motherfucker.
DeleteWell at least you are going in the right direction. Maybe you should consider the lack of ability to compare moralities on any objective basis.
DeleteYou might also want to consider that binary questions are specifically designed to get you to agree with the presented alternative after you get pushed into rejecting one possibility.
So everything must boil down to oneself, isnt't it? There's no point in agreeing besides the agrement, there's no guarantee at all.
DeleteWhy do you want or even need agreement? It can be a useful tool, but then again just because some people agree doesn't make it right or wrong.
DeleteIf you want a guarantee, stick to pure mathematics. But as soon as you introduce material logics, any guarantee goes out the windows. There is a reason formal logic yields logical necessity while material logics yield logical contingencies.
I can get the distinction between analytical and empirical and why uniqueness would solve the problem for you.
DeleteOne doens't make the other though. The abstract form is still there one way or the other. And that's is just humanity working on it.
What problem would be solved? I wasn't aware there was some kind of problem with the distinction.
DeleteHumanity is not working on it. Only a few misguided idiots that think there MUST be an answer.
Like undecidability, some things don't have an answer as they should be :-)
No, it is the definition of what it is to be a human. Humanity is just the plural of human that cannot and may not be the definition. Some idiots are working on that problem. To pretend that no human makes Human, like all humans are different, is to be stepping out of the question.
DeleteSome humans know what they are and they i hope aren't misguided idiots. Someone has to be on the job, for no payback i think.
LOL. So you have a definition of what it means to be human. Thousands of years of debate and YOU have THE definitive definition.
DeleteIt sounds like the only misguided one here is you pretending that somebody is right and somebody else is wrong.
The true human is always right by definition, that's why the rest of humanity is wrong.
DeleteLOL. "true human". Been drinking that new age cool aid again I see.
DeleteSo you have invented the "true human fallacy" :-)
Define Human then, it's not the collective that is humanity, it's an individual that lames can only pretend to be.
DeleteA set of animals with a genome that varies very little. Why would you need more than that?
DeleteOr do you just have delusions of grandeur and want to sound impressive to others?
Didn't others did it to me already?
DeleteSo you bought their line of shit and you want to reciprocate :-)
DeleteThey are fucking animals, no pretending they don't fuck up more than that. What Im gonna do?
DeleteWho cares who or what they are fucking?
DeleteHow about giving them the same respect you demand for yourself? They have their beliefs and if it's OK for you to have your beliefs it's just as OK for them to have their beliefs.
This seems to be something about atheism you are not getting.
Besides the preconception against flip flopers. We do not experience genes genotipically, that is having the knowledge of a genome sentence is very different than experiencing it.
DeleteWhat's wrong with flip floppers? Don't people have the RIGHT to change their mind?
DeleteYou experience genes every day. You are experiencing them right now.
Or is it that you don't accept that YOUR genes are a very real part of your identity?
To a certain extent yes. When you are supposed to represent some beliefs no.
DeleteIt's like saying your genome is 99% equal an worm?
So you want to disconnect mental structures from physical ones while ignoring that those mental structure are and always have been just as physical as those genes.
DeleteIt sound like you are trying to build yourself up to a justification of a soul.
Don't you get that you have so much in common with a worm BECAUSE you are not all that different than a worm?
I'm a vegetarian so I really like that we're so much like animals. That's why I'm saying a tweek and twerk in a gene is nonsensical to understand, instead humanity encompasses animality and it will Represent sentient beliefs that can be somewhat compared to sentient beings, humans use intelligence to the benefit of sentient beings.
DeleteOn the physical and mental structure I think it all depends on the difference that may be between space and time. If things could be decidable in infinite amount of space and time.
Animals is a pretty broad category. Understanding the genome is not nonsensical. But then again it doesn't explain everything.
DeleteAll animals display some level of intelligence and by definition all are sentient. I don't see how labels of intelligence or sentient make any difference.
Once again your understanding of infinites are rather poor. Basically you are lamenting the fact that infinities exist because they pose tremendous challenges to your ability to feel comfortable with your own understanding.
I mean that computation cannot be reducible to only time or only space, so there is the disctinction of mind and body.
DeleteI think the labels make sense when intelligence and sentience MUST be good and produce good.
I meant to say, we have no intuition of the genome, no immediate feeling or conception of it, so in that sense it would be unthinkable, not all unthinkable things to someone are irrelevant so the human would think the unthinkable to others, and they would benefit from it even if humans have the tendency to kill those who try to help them. If they had the tendency to kill those who made them worse we would be fine by now.
Even more LOL. So you have no knowledge of computational complexity. There is a VERY good reason we categorize algorithms only by their time and space complexity.
DeleteThey only MUST be good, because you want them to be. If they are not, your whole worldview of you as the great sage falls apart.
Dumbass, what is unthinkable by the human mind applies to everybody including you.
I can show you MANY cases of things that are unthinkable by the human mind. Nobody can do it and nobody will ever be able to do it. It is a simple mathematical fact.
Are you just so insecure in your positions that you have to continue to appeal to some magical morality of good and bad?
Nobody gives a fuck if you are right or wrong.
Can you have computations with time or space exclusively?
DeleteSo we must make it good? I understand that good and bad may be reduced to "I agree or I disagree" rendering it to a self-reference.
So the question is wheter the genome is thinkable or just agreable, and if agreable - to what?
You need to study the concept of a Turning Machine. They are not actual physical devices. They are thought experiments where all there can be is time and space.
DeleteThere is absolutely nothing right or wrong with self reference. Just like there is nothing good or bad about agreement and disagreement.
You are simply trying to give weight to your obviously weak political argument.
You should study what the word "thinkable" actually means. As I believe Gödel put it, "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is not a machine."
My question is if there's a model of computation that is made of only time or only space.
DeleteI mean the genome is not experienced by the senses in any way, touch, smell, sight...
The STANDARD model of computation IS made up of only time and space. You must have both otherwise there is no meaning to concepts like order, regularity or recognition.
DeleteHave you seen the color of somebody's eyes? If so you have directly experienced the genome.
Even you have probably experienced in your lifetime things I have created. You don't see the instructions, but never the less you do experience what their existence causes.
If you are such a big proponent of empiricism, you should understand that you don't "see" light. You see the effects of light.
I'm not exactly an proponent of empiricism, Quine's two dogmas of empiricism comes to mind.
DeleteI think I have an model that goes beyond empiricism and whatever else as it is a real way of measuring human experience, the true way of measuring a system to it.
By seeing someone's eyes I don't know about any gene that makes it, so I don't experience no genes.
Experiencing what someone may have done is where we get a distinction between the empirical person and transcendental person that is unchanging in change or something.
Two dogmas was an attack on logical positivism that died a horrible death in the 60's and 70's. It was not an attack on empiricism. Just an attack to some misguided versions of empiricism.
DeleteBig deal, you like epistemic ideas and see the limitation of ontic ideas, but you are still not going to get around the gap that creates skepticism.
So you have never seen light, and therefore your requirement that you see it is simply meaningless.
So what would lead you to believe that in a universe where everything by definition changes all the time, there would exist this magical "transcendental person" that doesn't change.
It sound like you have a conclusion and you are working to find your premises.
I think logical positivism died togheter with fascism and the like.
DeleteDifferent genes may cause the same effect.
Because there's no way to disprove it, so there's only believing in it, the premises support the conclusion it will not prove it.
LOL. You actually believe fascism died.
DeleteSo what, the same gene can even cause different effects.
They only support the conclusions in a dishonest attempt to claim logical necessity when all that exists is a fallacy.
i.e. All beliefs are fallacies BECAUSE they are begging the question.
Haha, more saying that fascism and logical positivism goes hand to hand these days.
DeleteDifferent beliefs support different conclusions, so that's how you choose it.
Then you have no idea what fascism and logical positivism actually are.
DeleteSo your grand scheme is to just define a logical fallacy and claim the conclusions are sound.
You need to learn more about the difference in structure and substance of a position.
No, structure makes sense as there's arguably no view without structure.
DeleteThe transcendental and empirical distinction is backed up on the distinction of time and space in computation.
Morality is not begging the question because it is not a consequencialistic position, it's the belief in consequences by taking hold of principles.
How does the presupposition of a transcendental or empirical amount to anything more than a wild guess?
DeleteHow is assuming the consequences are caused by not hold to some principles NOT a simple begging the question fallacy?
Just teach me the ways of --zen-- i mean atheism, will ya Beech. No good and bad? Hunang Bo said that years ago. I get there's no talk with someone that doens't want to talk about it. Nuking people is just stupid though.
ReplyDelete"Why do you want or even need agreement? It can be a useful tool, but then again just because some people agree doesn't make it right or wrong."
DeleteJust to say that was zen again, not the japanese sitting meditation that has nothing to do with zen. Question, where is the bound of right and wrong? Decidability you mean?
And once again you don't get there cannot be a bound on something that doesn't exist and never has, and never will.
DeleteThere's no right answer to 2+2 then? Right and wrong, good and bad, beauty and ugly, what other dicothomies do you make?
DeleteLOL. Are you too dumb to understand how the universe of discourse and the definition of the operators makes a difference?
DeleteWait, no, I think I get it. Nuking people is politically stupid why don't you admit it? Russia can roast the US, that's why you had no go in military analysis.
DeleteWhy would be nuke Russia when they are not a threat? That would be a waste.
DeleteYou should read "A Book Of 5 Rings".
The theory of mutual destruction having a deterrent effect is more close to the technology of the day.
DeleteIt's no theory. If we can't live, neither can they.
DeleteAnd there's no war between nuclear powers. That is nowhere in the 5 rings.
DeleteLOL. Are you really so nieve to believe there is no war between nuclear powers?
DeleteIt would seem you haven't read the book more than once passing time.
No full war when mutual destruction is assured.
DeleteWell I guess the hundreds of thousands of people killed each year by the nuclear powers don't count because you have declared "There Is No War".
DeleteThat's a case qwhere mutual destruction isn't assured.
DeleteSo are you trying to claim war doesn't exist when there isn't MAD? You need to think of the difference between hot and cold wars.
DeleteThere's no cold war with terrorists LOL.
DeleteYou need a government or nation in order to declare a war, the war against terror is just an excuse to take alway rights from people and elect demagoges to power in alliance with corporative media.
DeleteLOL, you need to study your history a little closer.
DeleteSo what word do you use for countries killing people and blowing things up WITHOUT a declared war ????
Atheism boils down to one and only one thing: "I don't believe you". If you think it's more than that you are heading into a dead end.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot handle that, you are not an atheist and you are not going to be able to deal with atheist arguments.
But there still is nothing wrong with nuking the people that deserve it :-)
lol, I see no reason to 'believe' in anything too. How do you know that reality isn't throwing out what you think is real? Hahahahhahahahahahhaa. sorry,
DeleteSure all beliefs comes from the outside, outside and inside is an belief too.
But don't you get that's a belief too :-)
DeleteNo arguing when you don't have the keys in your pocket?
DeleteAnd that's a belief too.
DeleteI think I'm getting the picture. You are saying that classical atheists don't care what someone's religious befiefs are contrary to what some religious people say.
ReplyDeleteAtheists are not like agnostics too who take no stance on the issue they deny that the question of existence of god has some sort of relevance.
Something that people often fail to understand is that even in mathematics where there are more developed methods of dealing with proofs and demonstrations there are questions that have no attainable answers.
There's a parallel to be made with religion and politics where instead of trying to convince and make arguments people will just reassure and pray to the converts and pretend that people with differing beliefs are evil - which is politically inept but a tactic nonetheless.
For the more part you are correct.
ReplyDeleteThe old time hard core atheist just doesn't want religious kooks to put restrictions on their lives even when the religious kook is one of these new atheists.
I think you are getting agnostic and igtheist confused. For agnostics the question is relevant, they just don want to choose. The igtheists think the question is just meaningless. A classical atheist knows the question is relevant, but also knows there is no answer to the question so choosing to ignore it or side step it is just plain stupid.
It's not just a parallel. Politics IS a religion. You can tell all the presidential candidates would love to say their opponents eat babies :-)
The distinction between agnostics and igtheists seems correct. Classical atheists deny the existence of god because they don't believe in it, and there's no problem with that?
DeletePolitics are supposed have more of direct and pratical personal interest than religion at least in modernity where the government is concerned.
Atheism was NEVER about belief in a god. That's just the definition placed on the group by theists that where dismayed at the fact that their arguments about how "god commands it" where not accepted by the group.
DeleteAtheism is about not having your life dictated to by the wacked out beliefs in OTHER people's heads.
If you pay attention, pretty must EVERY theist is actually an atheist. They don't want the religious beliefs of other religions dictating what happens in their lives.
Politics is just a very nasty version of religion where some small group of ass wipes, based on their beliefs, uses force to compel others to comply.
What is the difference of having your life dictaded by wacked beliefs and just simply accepting wacked beliefs? Or wacked beliefs and non-wacked beliefs?
DeleteOr as long as you believe it, it's not wacked. I think mistaking causes of things may have something to do with it, or putting your feelings outside of what is in your power.
Some people have no stomach for a fight. They lack the self confidence to make up their own mind and force the world to bend to their will.
DeleteThey generally end up in low paying jobs, hating what they do for a living.
Live is not about surviving. It's about surviving WELL.
Sure survival is not a nice thing without the things that make it to be so. I can't accept the idea that you just have to do well until you die, that's a non bending will in my book.
DeleteI also don't get how completeness would be prefereble to consistency other from first order logic and the like.
Survival doesn't exist without the things that make it so. Whether you like it or not is of concern to nobody.
DeleteSo you don't understand what consistency and completeness are. Gödel's work put the final nail in the coffin of 19th century views of how mankind would be able solve all problems.
If your view is complete, there is no meaning to ideas like good and bad being different things. If your view is consistent you have to admit you cannot know everything.
You are screwed either way. Either your god is not good or you cannot even describe your god.
I'm sorry if you feel hurt by the fact that there are real bounds on what you can think and do that can never be overcome.
I like that view of completeness and consistency, to believe that there's no real bad because god gives freedom or because god is good or because only god would be omniscient, so I don't see how atheism comes from it (unless you make it to be only politics of course, there's the case that religion is a form of alienation from politics as it is today).
DeleteGodel was a platonist, so I don't think he would have the same interpretation following his theorem.
I'm fine with determinism I don't think I'm hurt by what it entails in this sense.
You seem to be missing the point. God doesn't give freedom. There simply is no way to distinguish any difference between free will and an entirely random system. In addition without both completeness and consistency, a god would not have the power to be omni-anything and could not have created the universe.
DeleteGödel's personal views are completely irrelevant to the mathematical certainty of his proof.
You should learn that determinism and non-determinism are provably equivalent at each end of the complexity spectrum. Only in the middle "recursive" systems are there any differences.
But as soon as you realize this and the what the limitations of those systems are, you will come to find that "indeterminism" rules the day.
You simply cannot by definition determine that a god exists or doesn't exist. Sure you can believe anything you want, but that doesn't mean your beliefs hold any more weight than any other.
Hence: Atheism.
I can see how if you begin by axioms those axioms are unsupported by themselves. Is that what you mean by determinism being like indeterminism?
DeleteThat's a good point about a god having to be complete and consistent at the same time. In platonism taking mathematical thinking and taking hypothesis to be axioms is a step bellow true forms. The form of the One which is the Good is taken to be without likeness or difference.
Determinism has nothing to do with something being able to be determined. The opposite of determinable is indeterminable. (i.e. you can either able to calculate things or not capable of calculating things).
DeleteDeterminism is about how well you can determine what just the next step is. With determinism there is a one and only next step for each possible state and input. Non-determinism is when there are more than one next possible step for a given state and input.
It is VERY possible and quite common for systems that are completely deterministic to still contain things that cannot be determined.
Looking at it from this standpoint it's just plain absurd that even a god can accurately predict all of the future.
Either he perfectly knows all the rules but his rules generate contradictory conclusions so his guesses are many times wrong. Or he is perfectly consistent but can never know all the rules so his predictions are necessarily wrong.
An all powerful god disappears in a puff of logic :-)
By the Principle of Sufficent Reason everything has a cause. It just puts God as the cause of it all.
DeleteI was going to say that there's freedom only in full determinism. In it not being random.
ReplyDeleteGodels didn't thought that his results had anything to do with atheism as far as I know, when the first atempts of doing so appeared he just said that he knew they were coming one way or another, it doens't follow from anything that he said.
Determinism seems to tie with language being able to describe something. Are you saying that language is only representation? In quantum mechanics we have local realism, why indeterminism would take any precedence?
You need a mathematically precise definition for the word "determinism". It doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not even remotely the opposite of random.
DeleteOnce again Gödel's personal views have nothing to do with the validity of his argument.
I never said Atheism comes from Gödel's proof. However the proof does give a very precise reason why atheism must exist in any non-trivial system.
Determinism only describes one tiny rather insignificant aspect of computation or semantics if you like.
If you follow Chomsky's Generative Grammar, language is just the serialization of a much more complex representational system.
It don't matter how "real" your system is. What is indeterminable is still nothing more than your lack of being able to distinguish between different states.
That's where realism comes in, ins't it? Something you're unable to determine that is determined.It's something that is there even if you cannot use it how you would like.
DeleteModern realism is only a belief there is some aspect of reality that is ontologically independent of other considerations.
DeleteIf you cannot determine something, what exactly does it buy you to postulate a world where it is determined but you can never experience it?
Let's say postulating it makes no sense for our purposes. Do we fall directly to politics where someone may fuck with you directly and you may dislike it? Or what?
DeleteOnce again, you need to understand the difference between politics and morality.
DeleteMorality has NOTHING to do with what someone else does. The ONLY time you can claim someone else is immoral is when the act contrary to their stated morality.
Them acting against your morality doesn't change their level of morality. It only changes their political position.
So morality is just what someone likes or dislikes. Politics is also a social thing so it is in some ways plural, that is it isn't a contradiction for the individual to hold different positions. Maybe i'm talking something of a moral realism, some things don't resolve back to what is legal or not, and it is not just because i'm disatisfied with it, that's why people made constitutions for example.
DeleteA morality exists ONLY between somebody's ears. There is no way to compare it to any other morality.
DeleteThe act of serializing it into a string of words looses so much of it's meaning to render it simply incomparable with any other moralities.
While likes and dislikes may well play into a morality, they don't dictate it.
Politics is the striking of agreements between people to act a certain way towards each other. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality.
People have been pretending their politics is morally based since the beginning of time. Moral realism is just another excuse why one person's morality should override another person's.
Think of it this way: If we both agree it's moral to not kill other people, it's guaranteed to not be an absolute. So under what conditions to we each think it's OK to kill people?
So you are reducing morality towards individualism. Likes and dislikes doesn't fully describe it for sure.
ReplyDeleteJust because we agree not to do something doesn't mean we agree to do something. Those conditions imply there's an agreement, so what are the conditions we should agree that is OK to kill people? The conditions of there being an agrement comes before that.