Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality is possible

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

2) If reality is self-determinative and self-configuring, then implicit in existence is what reality thinks is "right", because indifference would imply non-existence (because self-determinative) and a disparity between reality and reality's intention would mean reality is not self-configuring.

3) Internal with respect to reality means "real", and "real" means "objective. Therefore, any of reality's internal value scales constitute objective morality.

Conclusion: objective morality is possible (Q.E.D)
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 2:45:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

2) If reality is self-determinative and self-configuring, then implicit in existence is what reality thinks is "right", because indifference would imply non-existence (because self-determinative) and a disparity between reality and reality's intention would mean reality is not self-configuring.

3) Internal with respect to reality means "real", and "real" means "objective. Therefore, any of reality's internal value scales constitute objective morality.

Conclusion: objective morality is possible (Q.E.D)

Possible but not real. People have different morals and that to me refutes objective morality. I wonder how you would not see anything wrong saying reality is 'totally self-determinative' and saying reality has intentions or internal value scales.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 5:06:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

lol, nice. Just. Nice.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 5:58:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

You can't distinguish between reality and fantasy?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:28:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 5:58:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

You can't distinguish between reality and fantasy?

- The things reality is distinguished from do not exist.
- Therefore, reality is distinguished from nothing.
- Therefore, reality is not distinguished.

Keep in mind, we're talking about reality in itself. We can subjectively conceptualize reality and oppose it from fantasies, but such is a synthesis, and not an intrinsic value of reality. The claim was that reality is "totally self-determinative". We can translate that to "totally differentiated-determinative", and the problem with it becomes more clear. It's saying that reality obtains it's being solely by being differentiated, which is in a sense true when we're talking about the subjective experience, but the intention was to go beyond that.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:36:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:28:01 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/30/2014 5:58:34 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

You can't distinguish between reality and fantasy?

- The things reality is distinguished from do not exist.
- Therefore, reality is distinguished from nothing.
- Therefore, reality is not distinguished.

Keep in mind, we're talking about reality in itself. We can subjectively conceptualize reality and oppose it from fantasies, but such is a synthesis, and not an intrinsic value of reality. The claim was that reality is "totally self-determinative". We can translate that to "totally differentiated-determinative", and the problem with it becomes more clear. It's saying that reality obtains it's being solely by being differentiated, which is in a sense true when we're talking about the subjective experience, but the intention was to go beyond that.

In other words, when we synthesize reality into a concept, the concept has an imaginary self, but there is no 'self' of reality apart from that. Also I just realized I said 'reality in itself' which is obviously wrong, lol.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:40:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 2:45:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

People have different morals and that to me refutes objective morality.

People have different hair colors, does that refute objective hair color? This "people have different" criteria of objectivity pretty much eliminates all objective facts. Can you present us with an objective fact that has 100% consensus among all people?

I had a debate with someone who argued that the sun revolves around the earth, so I guess the earth revolving around the sun is not an objective fact. The whole point of distinguishing between objective and subjective is to discern the truth between different opinions and interpretations, the "people have different" criteria completely eliminates any ability to distinguish between objective and subjective.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Needed;

A detailed description of "objective" and "morality".
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:48:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:40:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/30/2014 2:45:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

People have different morals and that to me refutes objective morality.


Moral standards that are not in line with reality's are false by definition.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:49:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:40:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 1/30/2014 2:45:21 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

People have different morals and that to me refutes objective morality.

People have different hair colors, does that refute objective hair color? This "people have different" criteria of objectivity pretty much eliminates all objective facts. Can you present us with an objective fact that has 100% consensus among all people?

People stop living if their body reaches absolute zero?


I had a debate with someone who argued that the sun revolves around the earth, so I guess the earth revolving around the sun is not an objective fact. The whole point of distinguishing between objective and subjective is to discern the truth between different opinions and interpretations, the "people have different" criteria completely eliminates any ability to distinguish between objective and subjective.

I wouldn't say it's not an objective fact, just not an objective belief. It seems morality can be included in the beliefs section, so can beliefs be objective?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:55:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

It already is reality. There's nothing to determine.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 8:13:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:55:34 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

It already is reality. There's nothing to determine.

Reality must internally distinguish between that which it is and that which it is not. This is true because no distinction between existence and non-existence = undifferentiated potential (nothingness). Non-existence does not make the distinction, thus reality must do so.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 8:15:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:45:48 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Needed;

A detailed description of "objective" and "morality".

Objective: real

Morality: I doubt you'd be able to find any definition for it that doesn't work.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 8:21:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 8:15:17 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:45:48 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Needed;

A detailed description of "objective" and "morality".

Objective: real

Morality: I doubt you'd be able to find any definition for it that doesn't work.

So you're only saying that morality is real? Is love of Maths objective? Why or why not?

I like the definition

"2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Your definition of morality is that is can defined however you want? So I can define is as a red vegetable?

Your argument is that a red vegetable is real? I don't find your argument that controversial, new or even noteworthy.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 9:00:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

2) If reality is self-determinative and self-configuring, then implicit in existence is what reality thinks is "right", because indifference would imply non-existence (because self-determinative) and a disparity between reality and reality's intention would mean reality is not self-configuring.

3) Internal with respect to reality means "real", and "real" means "objective. Therefore, any of reality's internal value scales constitute objective morality.

Conclusion: objective morality is possible (Q.E.D)

Presumably anything that disagrees with reality does not exist, so I'm struggling to see how you're not saying 'That which is impossible is immoral'.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 9:12:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 9:00:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

2) If reality is self-determinative and self-configuring, then implicit in existence is what reality thinks is "right", because indifference would imply non-existence (because self-determinative) and a disparity between reality and reality's intention would mean reality is not self-configuring.

3) Internal with respect to reality means "real", and "real" means "objective. Therefore, any of reality's internal value scales constitute objective morality.

Conclusion: objective morality is possible (Q.E.D)

Presumably anything that disagrees with reality does not exist, so I'm struggling to see how you're not saying 'That which is impossible is immoral'.

I was waiting for someone to ask this. Essentially, reality incorporates variously-bounded levels of freedom to fulfill its "generalized utility function". As Chris Langan puts it: "This amounts to self-generative freedom, hologically providing reality with a "self-simulative scratchpad" on which to compare the aggregate utility of multiple self-configurations for self-optimization purposes."
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 10:12:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

The "self" is an individual entity that fits within the overall composition of "reality."

In that same regard, a paradigm is a scope in which morals can exist objectively. Along the same lines, nothing can exist objectively within the overall scope of "reality." One can objectively understand the concept of "running," for example, here on earth, but the process for executing such an activity exists exclusively here on earth, as we know it. The process of cleaning a hardwood floor is different than for cleaning a rug, which are both different for cleaning a carpet. In terms of science, there are reasons why this is the case, and science can explain that. Moreover, science can help describe how to reach desired ends. Morality comes into play when one determines whether what is proven to be "correct" aligns with that is currently being executed.

...which, of course, is objective.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 10:52:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

I think the idea behind sdavio's comment is that when you're dealing with something like "reality", there's no "self" aspect involved, because there's nothing else BUT reality.

So, sure, reality determines reality, but it's not "self-determinative." To say reality is "self-determinative" would imply there is something other than reality, which contradicts the definition of reality.

So, you'd just say that reality is determinative, which would bring us back to the arguments I made in the thread you posted about Langan...i.e. determinism vs "self"-determinism...there is no distinguishable difference and the latter is an illusion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 10:54:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:55:34 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

It already is reality. There's nothing to determine.

lol, heady...so would you say that determinism is false too? Or just in the context of "reality not needing to determine itself"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 12:31:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 9:12:06 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 9:00:34 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

2) If reality is self-determinative and self-configuring, then implicit in existence is what reality thinks is "right", because indifference would imply non-existence (because self-determinative) and a disparity between reality and reality's intention would mean reality is not self-configuring.

3) Internal with respect to reality means "real", and "real" means "objective. Therefore, any of reality's internal value scales constitute objective morality.

Conclusion: objective morality is possible (Q.E.D)

Presumably anything that disagrees with reality does not exist, so I'm struggling to see how you're not saying 'That which is impossible is immoral'.

I was waiting for someone to ask this. Essentially, reality incorporates variously-bounded levels of freedom to fulfill its "generalized utility function". As Chris Langan puts it: "This amounts to self-generative freedom, hologically providing reality with a "self-simulative scratchpad" on which to compare the aggregate utility of multiple self-configurations for self-optimization purposes."

Glad to be of service... Chris Langan, smartest man to ever disagree with me, apparently.

Unfortunately, I must admit that was one of the most meaningless things I have ever read. Why would anyone believe any of this?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 10:52:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

I think the idea behind sdavio's comment is that when you're dealing with something like "reality", there's no "self" aspect involved, because there's nothing else BUT reality.

sdavio just googled the definition of self and then decided that "self" only applies where there are (real) external properties. In no way is the term "self" in "self-detetminative" contingent upon this. If he refuses to budge, then I simply mean something different by "self". This is a non-issue.


So, sure, reality determines reality, but it's not "self-determinative." To say reality is "self-determinative" would imply there is something other than reality, which contradicts the definition of reality.

No, to say reality is determinative would imply that. Determinism entails prior/external causes, and for existence itself, no such causes are possible.

So, you'd just say that reality is determinative, which would bring us back to the arguments I made in the thread you posted about Langan...i.e. determinism vs "self"-determinism...there is no distinguishable difference and the latter is an illusion.

By "self-determaintion", I don't mean that reality determines itself because matter tells other matter what to do according to (real) laws of physics.I mean that reality, in the most literal sense, determines itself and all of its laws independently from any prior/external causal precent.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 12:57:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 10:52:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

I think the idea behind sdavio's comment is that when you're dealing with something like "reality", there's no "self" aspect involved, because there's nothing else BUT reality.

sdavio just googled the definition of self and then decided that "self" only applies where there are (real) external properties. In no way is the term "self" in "self-detetminative" contingent upon this. If he refuses to budge, then I simply mean something different by "self". This is a non-issue.


So, sure, reality determines reality, but it's not "self-determinative." To say reality is "self-determinative" would imply there is something other than reality, which contradicts the definition of reality.

No, to say reality is determinative would imply that. Determinism entails prior/external causes, and for existence itself, no such causes are possible.

That's an interesting statement right there. Is existence causal?

So, you'd just say that reality is determinative, which would bring us back to the arguments I made in the thread you posted about Langan...i.e. determinism vs "self"-determinism...there is no distinguishable difference and the latter is an illusion.

By "self-determaintion", I don't mean that reality determines itself because matter tells other matter what to do according to (real) laws of physics.I mean that reality, in the most literal sense, determines itself and all of its laws independently from any prior/external causal precent.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 1:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:57:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 12:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 10:52:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

I think the idea behind sdavio's comment is that when you're dealing with something like "reality", there's no "self" aspect involved, because there's nothing else BUT reality.

sdavio just googled the definition of self and then decided that "self" only applies where there are (real) external properties. In no way is the term "self" in "self-detetminative" contingent upon this. If he refuses to budge, then I simply mean something different by "self". This is a non-issue.


So, sure, reality determines reality, but it's not "self-determinative." To say reality is "self-determinative" would imply there is something other than reality, which contradicts the definition of reality.

No, to say reality is determinative would imply that. Determinism entails prior/external causes, and for existence itself, no such causes are possible.

That's an interesting statement right there. Is existence causal?

I'll have to answer you later.

So, you'd just say that reality is determinative, which would bring us back to the arguments I made in the thread you posted about Langan...i.e. determinism vs "self"-determinism...there is no distinguishable difference and the latter is an illusion.

By "self-determaintion", I don't mean that reality determines itself because matter tells other matter what to do according to (real) laws of physics.I mean that reality, in the most literal sense, determines itself and all of its laws independently from any prior/external causal precent.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 1:23:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Except that the phrase is logically inconsistent, as morality is a purely subject concept. "Objective" things must be physical things. Morality is an idea that only exists if there are moral agents to enact it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 3:49:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 12:57:40 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 12:55:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 10:52:47 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/30/2014 7:47:52 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/30/2014 4:09:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/29/2014 3:09:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
1) It is possible that reality is totally self-determinative and self-configuring.

The word 'self' means that something is 'distinguished', but reality is not distinguished from anything because there is no other. Therefore reality has no 'self'.

I disagree, but if you insist: reality being self-determinative means reality determines reality.

I think the idea behind sdavio's comment is that when you're dealing with something like "reality", there's no "self" aspect involved, because there's nothing else BUT reality.

sdavio just googled the definition of self and then decided that "self" only applies where there are (real) external properties. In no way is the term "self" in "self-detetminative" contingent upon this. If he refuses to budge, then I simply mean something different by "self". This is a non-issue.


So, sure, reality determines reality, but it's not "self-determinative." To say reality is "self-determinative" would imply there is something other than reality, which contradicts the definition of reality.

No, to say reality is determinative would imply that. Determinism entails prior/external causes, and for existence itself, no such causes are possible.

That's an interesting statement right there. Is existence causal?

Existence regresses to a background of nil constraint from which it must refine itself. Since logic can only be violated where the distinction between existence and non-exsteince is made, and since this distinction can only be maintained under existence, existence can emerge from this potential without violating the "rules" of existence. In order to differentiate itself from nil constraint, reality must internally distinguish between that which it is and that which it is not. If there were no real (internal) distinction between them, the concept of "real" (as opposed to unreal) would fall apart, and reality could not exist. Thus, existence is not a state, but a process. Since this process cannot rely on anything external to it, since it is totally "surrounded" by non-reality, it must be self-determinative.


So, you'd just say that reality is determinative, which would bring us back to the arguments I made in the thread you posted about Langan...i.e. determinism vs "self"-determinism...there is no distinguishable difference and the latter is an illusion.

By "self-determaintion", I don't mean that reality determines itself because matter tells other matter what to do according to (real) laws of physics.I mean that reality, in the most literal sense, determines itself and all of its laws independently from any prior/external causal precent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 4:08:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 1:23:43 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Except that the phrase is logically inconsistent, as morality is a purely subject concept. "Objective" things must be physical things. Morality is an idea that only exists if there are moral agents to enact it.

2+2=4 is not objectively true?