Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 4/12/04 8:13 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft) (Yossarian)

: Although it's logically "safe" to assume the negative, it is
: practically impossible to employ that logic in any type of reality. So the
: "safer" alternative is to be logically agnostic, to not make a
: logical judgement until the rule is tested. Even then, logical rules that
: exist in reality are not unbreakable, they can be, are, and sometimes must
: be revised.
Maybe you can help me rephrase this then...
The assumption of the negative came about from observations about behavior between theists, atheists and agnostics. Agnostics have a tendancy to act like atheists, being strictly science-based and such, except where presented with "evidence of the supernatural", and even then they take a science-like approach to that. Basically they seem to act only on what has been proven positive (since you can't prove a negative), and behave as though everything else is by default negative. With no proof that God exists, why should I take concerns about him in my plan of action? I can't always think "What if I have invisible elves in my pockets?" whenever I'm not actively looking in them; if I did that I've be constantly considering "what if..." the infinite variables that could be, which would be impossible to do. It's best just to assume those things aren't so unless you have some reason to think they are.
: Everything a person CAN know *is* everything to that person, not *your*
: everything. Every thing that I think about in my life...that is my
: "every thing", and I have thought about it. Ergo, I HAVE thought
: about everything.
: If there is something you think about in your life that I have not, then it
: is not considered in *my* understanding of everything, and is therefore
: irrelevant.
But if you tell me "something is..." and that is something outside my reality, I am now AWARE OF something that I haven't yet experienced.
: Why?
: Reality only has informational aspects when human minds apply them. Would
: reality exist without human beings? Your reality cannot exist without you,
: in fact, it won't. Do you think that reality operates according to logical
: rules? Or are the rules simple connections made by your mind? Is the
: reality you see in your conscious mind the reality you think you see, or
: just the reality your brain gives your mind access to? Is reality
: mathematical?
: If we continue under the assumption that each one person has his or her own
: reality, then all of this is pointless. YOUR reality can be representated
: as a set of information. YOUR reality has these limitations. By extension,
: mine does not have to.
: But the "set" is dependent on you, and is a creation of your brain,
: formed by incoming stimuli. Are you both outside of and inside the set?
: Which is bigger? You, or the concept of your reality?
I subscribe to many physicists' point of view that since math seems to so accurately describe the most fundamental workings of the universe, that it's likely that math IS the most fundamental working of the universe. I believe math is discovered, not invented.
You seem to feel that math is an invention of human minds that conveniently happens to describe, more or less, what we experience around us.
: And this is where both theists and atheists take refuge in Faith. You can
: search the entire universe, a theist to your left and an atheist to your
: right, and once all is said and done, the theist will say he saw God
: everywhere and the atheist will say he saw god nowhere, you will say that
: now that all has been seen and you still lack proof of god you doubt his
: existence.
Except that you can never know everything... not only because of the set problem, but because the universe has to be infinite at some level... something else I intend to prove in a later version, but I can do in brief for you soon.
: I'd merely say that god is irrelevant, and whether or not he exists is a
: minor detail.
Nihilist.
: Are you trying to objectively define what would be best, or are you trying to
: objectively define what you THINK would be best? The major problem with
: this is that you are not the authority to dictate what is morally correct
: and what is not; I know you're not trying to come down from the mount with
: stone slabs or anything, but even the premise of morality or what it may
: or may not be is so ridiculously subjective so as to make any definite
: statement about it moot.
Well this comes down to something else I intend to add to a later version: you cannot actually KNOW anything, just make a best guess based on logic and experience. I am trying to make a best guess of that type as to what is, generally, better for the whole.
: And what is the best for the longest really the best? What about complacency?
: People start taking this "good" thing for granted, and it no
: longer becomes good. The loss of it can have catastrophic effects
: (electricity, for instance). What if, after some decades or centuries,
: humanity has forgotten how to live without it? And suddenly it is gone,
: and chaos ensues. Can we justify the "moral good" of its
: inroduction and the subsequent damage this thing has eventually caused?
Again, hence the time clause. If going a lot of good now will cause more bad later... (whether for more time, over more people, or just worse things) then it's not really a net good. Of course we can't know the future any more than we can know anything else (less, even), so the best we can do is try to make a really good guess.
: No. Before making any moral assumption we must assume the negative. A logical
: conclusion, nay, THE logical conclusion is to assume that this -concept,
: phenomenon, whatever- will have a net NEGATIVE moral effect. After all,
: assuming in the positive is a logical fallacy, right?
I agree. Do nothing unless you have reason to think it will have a net good effect. Consider the negative reprocussions of your actions first.
: I agree that variety is important, where would we be without it? Evolution
: depends on variety, and that goes without saying. However, here also I
: believe it is necessary to include a clause stating that variety is not
: always a good. thing. There is also necessity and beauty in consistency.
: Here again the vague scent of balance.
: Again, I can agree. But balance need not be 50/50. I do not think there is
: anything that one can give as perfectly balanced. Balance exists, or we
: think it exists (within our actual realities) only to a degree. There can
: be balances of high degrees that last for billions fo years, and balances
: that last for billionths of a second. Variety in balance, balance in
: variety. There is no black and white, just varying degrees of grey, as I
: see it.
I agree completely, hence why I have both variety and balance. Think of it like a bell curve, while variety would be a flat random distribution and perfect balance a line in the center.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: Maybe you can help me rephrase this then... : The assumption of the negative came about from observations about behavior : between theists, atheists and agnostics. Agnostics have a tendancy to act : like atheists, being strictly science-based and such, except where : presented with "evidence of the supernatural", and even then : they take a science-like approach to that. Basically they seem to act only : on what has been proven positive (since you can't prove a negative), and : behave as though everything else is by default negative. With no proof : that God exists, why should I take concerns about him in my plan of : action? I can't always think "What if I have invisible elves in my : pockets?" whenever I'm not actively looking in them; if I did that : I've be constantly considering "what if..." the infinite : variables that could be, which would be impossible to do. It's best just : to assume those things aren't so unless you have some reason to think they : are. : But if you tell me "something is..." and that is something outside : my reality, I am now AWARE OF something that I haven't yet experienced. : I subscribe to many physicists' point of view that since math seems to so : accurately describe the most fundamental workings of the universe, that : it's likely that math IS the most fundamental working of the universe. I : believe math is discovered, not invented. : You seem to feel that math is an invention of human minds that conveniently : happens to describe, more or less, what we experience around us. : Except that you can never know everything... not only because of the set : problem, but because the universe has to be infinite at some level... : something else I intend to prove in a later version, but I can do in brief : for you soon. : Nihilist. : Well this comes down to something else I intend to add to a later version: : you cannot actually KNOW anything, just make a best guess based on logic : and experience. I am trying to make a best guess of that type as to what : is, generally, better for the whole. : Again, hence the time clause. If going a lot of good now will cause more bad : later... (whether for more time, over more people, or just worse things) : then it's not really a net good. Of course we can't know the future any : more than we can know anything else (less, even), so the best we can do is : try to make a really good guess. : I agree. Do nothing unless you have reason to think it will have a net good : effect. Consider the negative reprocussions of your actions first. : I agree completely, hence why I have both variety and balance. Think of it : like a bell curve, while variety would be a flat random distribution and : perfect balance a line in the center.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

help me out...to read this	goran	4/4/04 3:04 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Yossarian	4/4/04 6:30 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	ukimalefu	4/4/04 8:33 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/5/04 12:01 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/5/04 6:46 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/6/04 5:16 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/6/04 6:54 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Johannes Gunnar	4/6/04 7:42 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/6/04 9:08 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/6/04 10:21 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Yossarian	4/6/04 11:51 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/6/04 2:19 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/6/04 9:41 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/6/04 9:14 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/6/04 10:36 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Yossarian	4/6/04 11:40 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Forrest of B.org	4/6/04 5:03 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Yossarian	4/6/04 6:13 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Forrest of B.org	4/7/04 7:04 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/7/04 8:34 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Forrest of B.org	4/7/04 10:41 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Forrest of B.org	4/7/04 10:41 a.m.
Appologies for the double-posts...	Forrest of B.org	4/7/04 10:42 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Steve Levinson	4/7/04 11:36 a.m.
Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Forrest of B.org	4/10/04 12:09 p.m.
Yikes!!! NM	ukimalefu	4/10/04 4:21 p.m.
I'll wait for Cliff's Notes NM	Siphonopho	4/10/04 7:34 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Yossarian	4/10/04 7:51 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Forrest of B.org	4/10/04 10:27 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Yossarian	4/11/04 2:55 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Forrest of B.org	4/12/04 8:13 a.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Yossarian	4/12/04 4:41 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Elliott	4/11/04 5:24 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Yossarian	4/11/04 7:04 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Elliott	4/11/04 10:25 p.m.
Re: Fobo's "Philosophy..." (part 1 rough draft)	Lt Devon	4/10/04 9:55 p.m.
INRTLB :-P NM	ukimalefu	4/11/04 12:56 p.m.
You have a lot of mental energy.	K-chi	4/11/04 1:19 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	goran	4/5/04 12:32 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	ukimalefu	4/5/04 5:10 p.m.
THE MATRIX HAS YOU!	ukimalefu	4/6/04 11:18 a.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Vid Boi	4/6/04 2:04 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Johannes Gunnar	4/6/04 3:14 p.m.
Re: help me out...to read this	Adam Ashwell	4/6/04 4:19 p.m.
Army of Darkness NM	Yossarian	4/6/04 4:30 p.m.
But originally from The Day the Earth Stood Still NM	the Battle Cat	4/7/04 6:37 a.m.
One of the greatest Sci-Fi movies of all time NM	Steve Levinson	4/7/04 8:22 a.m.
Myth II: Soulblighter. The Deceiver. [no message] NM	Andrew Nagy	4/7/04 5:14 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : Maybe you can help me rephrase this then... : The assumption of the negative came about from observations about behavior : between theists, atheists and agnostics. Agnostics have a tendancy to act : like atheists, being strictly science-based and such, except where : presented with "evidence of the supernatural", and even then : they take a science-like approach to that. Basically they seem to act only : on what has been proven positive (since you can't prove a negative), and : behave as though everything else is by default negative. With no proof : that God exists, why should I take concerns about him in my plan of : action? I can't always think "What if I have invisible elves in my : pockets?" whenever I'm not actively looking in them; if I did that : I've be constantly considering "what if..." the infinite : variables that could be, which would be impossible to do. It's best just : to assume those things aren't so unless you have some reason to think they : are. : But if you tell me "something is..." and that is something outside : my reality, I am now AWARE OF something that I haven't yet experienced. : I subscribe to many physicists' point of view that since math seems to so : accurately describe the most fundamental workings of the universe, that : it's likely that math IS the most fundamental working of the universe. I : believe math is discovered, not invented. : You seem to feel that math is an invention of human minds that conveniently : happens to describe, more or less, what we experience around us. : Except that you can never know everything... not only because of the set : problem, but because the universe has to be infinite at some level... : something else I intend to prove in a later version, but I can do in brief : for you soon. : Nihilist. : Well this comes down to something else I intend to add to a later version: : you cannot actually KNOW anything, just make a best guess based on logic : and experience. I am trying to make a best guess of that type as to what : is, generally, better for the whole. : Again, hence the time clause. If going a lot of good now will cause more bad : later... (whether for more time, over more people, or just worse things) : then it's not really a net good. Of course we can't know the future any : more than we can know anything else (less, even), so the best we can do is : try to make a really good guess. : I agree. Do nothing unless you have reason to think it will have a net good : effect. Consider the negative reprocussions of your actions first. : I agree completely, hence why I have both variety and balance. Think of it : like a bell curve, while variety would be a flat random distribution and : perfect balance a line in the center.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: