Writing a philosophy of my own.

[BurnedOut]

Hello fellow intps. My decision to take up philosophy was quite abrupt. Apparently my shrink had told me that philosophy would suit my analytical thinking style and now I feel it truly does. Its only been 1 week as such and I'm already latched on to 'Critique of pure reason'. However, one day, I suddenly decided to write some of my own. As I read 'Thinking Fast and Slow', i slowly realised the uselessness of using intuition in daily activities except split second decisions. So, here is how my journey began. I decided to write an essay on 'The critique on usage of intuition'.
As I kept on writing, I slowly veered off track after writing the first chapter and decided to follow the tangent of 'The prevalence of patterns'. That's when I introduced the concept of 'binary cognition'

So I based off almost 30 pages and counting on the concept of usage of binary logic in the age old debate of 'randomness vs determinism'

Till now, I'm going okay, able to derive theories and ideas and thinking of transcribing it digitally ( I'm comfortable with pen and paper more than keyboards).

I just want your opinions on whether using the concept of 'binary logic' and 'mathematical functions' is okay for basing a treatise in the debate of free will vs determinism. Also, a stupid question. I'm 17 and I wish to base off a book on this. Will I be able to do it ? Apparently I'm quite insecure about my own work always thinking that its stupid.

Thank you all.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[doncarlzone]

It's impossible to determine without knowing the proper context. Depending on what you intend to achieve by your writing, I'd suggest that you start smaller. Say, think about writing a paper with a formulated argument. Of course, if you are more serious, you should demonstrate that you are familiar with the contemporary philosophical debate on the issue (current philosophy journals) before presenting your own arguments.

However, given you are only 17 and you like writing, I would encourage you to just continue doing what you are doing; sounds like you are in a good state. If you want some feedback, and we are not talking about a hole book , then you are also welcome to send it to me. I have already written several papers (just university level), as well as a thesis on free will.

 

[BurnedOut]

It's impossible to determine without knowing the proper context. Depending on what you intend to achieve by your writing, I'd suggest that you start smaller. Say, think about writing a paper with a formulated argument. Of course, if you are more serious, you should demonstrate that you are familiar with the contemporary philosophical debate on the issue (current philosophy journals) before presenting your own arguments.

However, given you are only 17 and you like writing, I would encourage you to just continue doing what you are doing; sounds like a good state you are in. If you want some feedback, and we are not talking about a hole book , then you are also welcome to send it to me. I have already written several papers (just university level), as well as a thesis on free will.

Pray send me your thesis. I've read the classic arguments. They border more on ethics and human perspectives so I didn't find them too intp-ish. And moreover, I posted a gist of this theory on another thread that I had created. Turns out what I conceived is a conglomerate of the E8 lattice and cellular automaton theory. I've put the cellular automata theory on hold for now to see how far I go with my imagination and then I shall compare. However, on a subjective note, I was disappointed and happy at the same time to see that my theory is already conceived and not bullshit. Thank you. Please send me your papers if you have them.
Its going to take me quite long to transcribe the thing I've written. Aiming to go for 150+ pages at least. So it might take several months given that I'm very busy.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

Anything but hard determinism demands non-causal processes which are an inherently irrational concept. If something can happen without a cause what stops that something being something else? If something can happen without a cause then anything can happen without a cause and if anything can happen what stops everything from happening?

In other words if reality is fundamentally unstable how does a stable universe emerge from that instability, even if reality is mostly unstable there has to be some element of stability to seed the process. This could be compared to the primordial soup that led to the abiogenesis of life but that comparison is flawed, I'm not talking about relative instability, I'm talking about the absolute chaos that is the absence of causality. Emergent properties are products of processes but without causality there's no process at all, an emergent property can't emerge if it's immediately being overwritten by the completely random "initial conditions" of the following moment.

As soon as someone concedes causality is a prerequisite for reality the discussion is over, there's no varying degrees of causality, anything that isn't absolute hard determinism isn't causality. You can't assert that causality only applies sometimes without explaining how and since the absence of causality is inherently irrational that explanation is impossible.

Blah blah nihilistic implications blah, I think existential/epistemological philosophy is a dead field, it's all been worked out already and it only seems like it hasn't because the vast majority of people prefer their comforting delusions to the uncompromising truth.

 

[BurnedOut]

Apparently I found a way to revive determinism

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[doncarlzone]

Blah blah nihilistic implications blah, I think existential/epistemological philosophy is a dead field, it's all been worked out already and it only seems like it hasn't because the vast majority of people prefer their comforting delusions to the uncompromising truth.

lol.

And what would be the existential uncompromising truth then?

 

[BurnedOut]

lol.

And what would be the existential uncompromising truth then?

Hey, check your PM

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

lol.

And what would be the existential uncompromising truth then?

Hard determinism is incompatible with any notion of free will and once free will is out of the picture so too goes the notion that life is inherently meaningful.

 

[BurnedOut]

Hard determinism is incompatible with any notion of free will and once free will is out of the picture so too goes the notion that life is inherently meaningful.

Read up E8 lattice quantum theory.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[doncarlzone]

Hard determinism is incompatible with any notion of free will and once free will is out of the picture so too goes the notion that life is inherently meaningful.

What would make life inherently meaningful, as you put it? And if your response is free will, then please define it and explain what it is about that definition of free will, should we have had it, that would have made life inherently meaningful?

Hey, check your PM

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

I will.

 

[Black Rose]

Hard determinism is incompatible with any notion of free will and once free will is out of the picture so too goes the notion that life is inherently meaningful.

Meaningfulness as a cognitive process has been and is available to many people throughout time. I have had very meaningful thoughts and emotions in the past, they are just not available on demand as with luckier people I know exist.

 

[BurnedOut]

Meaningfulness as a cognitive process has been and is available to many people throughout time. I have had very meaningful thoughts and emotions in the past, they are just not available on demand as with luckier people I know exist.

Hey, no offence, you veer off to prove your emotional points too often. Maybe you are one of the more sensitive intps or the ones believing in empiricism.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Haim]

Hey, no offence, you veer off to prove your emotional points too often. Maybe you are one of the more sensitive intps or the ones believing in empiricism.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

yes offence, You do not take into logical consideration that you are in fact not a logical creature, those make a logical fallacy of trying to apply logic to a thing that logic does not apply to.

life has no meaning because determinism is a logical fallacy, as "free will" and "meaning" are human concepts not a precise thing, meaning is an emotion and free will being the idea you can make decisions(which you can)

 

[Cognisant]

What would make life inherently meaningful, as you put it? And if your response is free will, then please define it and explain what it is about that definition of free will, should we have had it, that would have made life inherently meaningful?

Go find a theologian, I do my best to keep my head clear of that rubbish.

Read up E8 lattice quantum theory.

Get a Phd in Physics, I'll get one too and then we'll be qualified to talk about quantum mechanics.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

yes offence, You do not take into logical consideration that you are in fact not a logical creature, those make a logical fallacy of trying to apply logic to a thing that logic does not apply to.

life has no meaning because determinism is a logical fallacy, as "free will" and "meaning" are human concepts not a precise thing, meaning is an emotion and free will being the idea you can make decisions(which you can)

We're having a discussion then Haim comes in, flips the table and yells "you're wrong" before storming off.

 

[Hadoblado]

Hey Burned out,

Regarding OP, it's highly unlikely you're doing anything new. Not impossible, but unlikely. If you write a book, it will probably not be received well because the things you write will probably be concepts already covered but rehashed.

That said, I think you should write it anyway. The way I learn new things is to create my own models of them, sometimes complete with an instruction manual - it's great to have a concrete position from which to appraise new information. I pretend I'm an expert, making strong falsifiable claims etc., and I think writing a book or anything else is a great way to put yourself in a position to make a meaningful contribution later.

So err... What I'm saying is, maybe don't have high expectations for your first work, but still do it. Having your first attempt be successful at something as ambitious as breaking new ground in philosophy is unrealistic even for the exceptionally talented. I don't know what your motives/expectations are, so this might be completely missing the mark :P

 

[BurnedOut]

Hey Burned out,

Regarding OP, it's highly unlikely you're doing anything new. Not impossible, but unlikely. If you write a book, it will probably not be received well because the things you write will probably be concepts already covered but rehashed.

That said, I think you should write it anyway. The way I learn new things is to create my own models of them, sometimes complete with an instruction manual - it's great to have a concrete position from which to appraise new information. I pretend I'm an expert, making strong falsifiable claims etc., and I think writing a book or anything else is a great way to put yourself in a position to make a meaningful contribution later.

So err... What I'm saying is, maybe don't have high expectations for your first work, but still do it. Having your first attempt be successful at something as ambitious as breaking new ground in philosophy is unrealistic even for the exceptionally talented. I don't know what your motives/expectations are, so this might be completely missing the mark :P

Not really expecting a great reception or an audience. I like theorising. Its more like a hobby. I just want to compare me ideas with the existing one. Its more about testing my own limits

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

Well then I think it's one of the best things you could be doing

 

[BurnedOut]

Go find a theologian, I do my best to keep my head clear of that rubbish.


Get a Phd in Physics, I'll get one too and then we'll be qualified to talk about quantum mechanics.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo


We're having a discussion then Haim comes in, flips the table and yells "you're wrong" before storming off.

Is this is a trend ? One advice and you guys go ballistics ? I told you to read up on E8 lattice theory so that you may understand my point. And if you think a PhD is required for discussing anything, you might as well keeping your mouth shut for the rest of your life because what you just said is a classical sign of a stupid ESTJ reply when he's too bored to use his head (which is present in most of the scenarios.). You'll make an acerbic comment after this but I assure you that I'm not getting involved in any more quandaries.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

yes offence, You do not take into logical consideration that you are in fact not a logical creature, those make a logical fallacy of trying to apply logic to a thing that logic does not apply to.

life has no meaning because determinism is a logical fallacy, as "free will" and "meaning" are human concepts not a precise thing, meaning is an emotion and free will being the idea you can make decisions(which you can)

Goddamn, I'm talking in terms of quantum physics and making references to E8 lattice theory and the cellular automata and we are having a debate taking into account the higher perspectives and you have to keep stressing on the fact that infinity can be limited and then measured. What you don't realise is your so called 'higher-cognition processes and human life and blah blah' is irrelevant because its either programmed to function like that due to simulation of realities or every small thing in this universe is sentient whether it is a human or not. I'm not going to argue with you any further. You will get down to ethics and morals and stupid linguistic analysis whilst ignoring the fact that layman perspectives are specifically being ignored. In that scenario, it will be hypocritical for you to believe in the e8 lattice emergence theory and quantum mechanics ( especially the duality of matter which in fact shows that photons/neutrons/electrons have the capability to know when they are being observed and I suppose that's quite a 'human' trait). If you want to keep arguing upon a redundant point of a moralistic perspective then go to ESTJ or some stupid SJ thread. And you can continue with your rebuttals. Commence.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

I told you to read up on E8 lattice theory so that you may understand my point.

Alright lets do it this way, I read up on E8 lattice theory and I still don't understand your point, please explain how this quantum mechanics theory relates to hard determinism and free will, I assume it has something to do with how non-causal processes work because if it doesn't well then you were just wasting my time.

I suspect you can't explain it to me because you don't understand it and you're only citing it to obfuscate the issue, or rather you read some pop-science article written by a journalist that doesn't understand it but used it to justify some mystic bullshit because people love mystical bullshit and journalism isn't about being right, it's about making money, appealing to the common denominator.

 

[BurnedOut]

Alright lets do it this way, I read up on E8 lattice theory and I still don't understand your point, please explain how this quantum mechanics theory relates to hard determinism and free will, I assume it has something to do with how non-causal processes work because if it doesn't well then you were just wasting my time.

I suspect you can't explain it to me because you don't understand it and you're only citing it to obfuscate the issue, or rather you read some pop-science article written by a journalist that doesn't understand it but used it to justify some mystic bullshit because people love mystical bullshit and journalism isn't about being right, it's about making money, appealing to the common denominator.

If the free will theory is boiled down to its roots ie the ability to make a differentiation between different choices, then the E8 lattice theory comes into picture. The E8 lattice theory seeks to say that the 8 dimension if taken in forms of 3D dimensions, a densely packed structures of kissing tetrahedrons are formed. Now, the E8 lattice structure is not just one but out of 3 as far as I remember and one of the structures containing around 254 dimensions is perfectly able to exist in reality. This variant of the E8 lattice is considered and then projected onto the spatial realm of humans ie 3D. Now, if you spread 3D on 2D, it'll appear to be a linear image. Perhaps an aperiodic quasicrystal similar to Penrose tilings. These tilings are if taken fundamentally, have certain polygonal structures which make up the whole thing. I suppose in the 1D world, if taken in terms of Planks number will be the smallest fundamental unit in the form of 1D. If you apply the same thing to the 3D thing, a 3D tetrahedron is the smallest thing. Now, considering the fact that these 3D tetrahedrons form an aperiodic quasicrystal, we can deduce that given time progresses, the pattern becomes more and more sophisticated and evolves. Now if the pattern has the ability to evolve, we can deduce that the pattern has some sort of sentience. According to the E8 lattice emergence theory, every tetrahedron is a living object who can decide between 0 and 1 and similarly affect other tetrahedrons. Since they are able to decide, we can say that the idea of free will now emerges since the most fundamental particle has the ability to exercise cognition.

Now, if you consider the cellular automata theory and consider the assumption that world is a lattice and every fundamental object is a cell in it and works when some of the cells get switched on and off affecting the working of other cells. Determinism steps in here saying that if a cell has an already existing 1 state or 0 state then I can confirm that this will emerge into a foreseeable pattern as the cell will set off a chain reaction of on and off cells working on a robust algorithm. And if the world is in fact working on a complex algorithm then determinism can be applied in this case since even if every pattern is aperiodic yet adopts a quasicrystalesque style, it can backtracked in order to get the original algorithm if a computer is made which is strong enough to compute such variables.

Now this is just my perspective.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

Now, considering the fact that these 3D tetrahedrons form an aperiodic quasicrystal, we can deduce that given time progresses, the pattern becomes more and more sophisticated and evolves.

How does a uniform structure of hypothetical geometry evolve?

I've gone from doubting that you know what you're talking about to be being quite convinced, that you don't.

 

[BurnedOut]

I would hate to be you right now but I will call you a moron right now.

1. You wrote a bigass post about how determinism is bullshit because it abandons the principle of causality. Has it ever occurred to you to consider other different theories about how causality can co-exist ? And moreover hard determinism takes into account the fact that everything is predefined. Now this can be branched into two types -
1. Everything was already preexisting.

2. Everything emerged from a single value or has a unitary start. Logically if there was a unitary start, the principle of causality does not get eliminated as the act of one entity led to the creation of another.

What you are considering is the first point ( that too in a partial way). And even if everything was preexisting, the concept of evolution and morphism gets eliminated.

And you are there combining the principle of causality to the theory of preexistence. Considering your argument which fits neither of the two theories, its essentially irrelevant and does nothing to prove the non-existence of determinism. The probability of both the theories being true is equal. Now, you would ignore the whole explanation and then use your fav function of reply and quote the the first variant of the determinism and ask me , ' Oh then, then I doubt you have even understood your own theory and your theory is essentially bullshit because 'everything can't simply come into existence''

Now, one thing that is done while making theories is that 'assumptions' are made. No theory can be made without making assumptions. If you think you are making a deduction from your observation, you are inherently assuming that your surroundings are going to obey the law of classical physics and probability and that given the principles remain constant, you'll be able to make a deduction based off that assumption. If you really believe in quantum mechanics, you should very well know that just because your surroundings doesn't seem to change doesn't mean that they will stay the same either.

Then you talk about how reality is unstable and how universe prevail from a realm of chaos. Just so you know, causality doesn't always adhere to chain of events or a chain reaction.

If A leads to B
But
A doesn't lead to C

Doesn't prove that causality is gone. Causality still exists in the first case. Your perception of chaos is highly biased. Chaos if analysed can be subjected to cause and effect by making certain assumptions and order can be made out of it.

Your own reasoning is bullshit and not bound to any considerations to other theories and viewpoints. What you do is simply read a theory, use your system 1 thinking and make a deduction, feel like a boss by thinking that you have successfully neutralised the argument of your victim by making Socratic questions (which is the worst way to ever argue except for coward)

2. Adding to your apparent closed mindedness, you go and read up about E8 lattice and not E8 lattice emergence theory which talks about connecting
E8 lattice to a plane of observation devoid of any complex number related elements hence claiming that the world is 8 dimensional projected onto 3D. The theory of emergence doesn't 'deduce' that just because a 3D observable reality of tetrahedron exists, there exists life. If you peruse, it makes an assumption that

' Since quasicrystalesque nature exists too in 3D reality, I may surmise that we can use the concept of sentience and say that since the quasicrystal 3D plane exists, sentience exists among the tetrahedrons'. This gives rise to the fact that Emergence theory is connected to free will.

Its an assumption. Not a deduction.

Similarly, I can say that,' Since quasicrystalesque nature exists too in 3D reality, I may surmise that we can use the concept of predeterminance and say that since the state of one tetrahedron was already existing, it set off a chain reaction among the other tetrahedrons who function in terms of complex algorithms producing reality not by the usage of sentience but the usage of an algorithm (similar to the game 'Conway's game of life')

3. You quoted the wrong line to humiliate me. The stuff I wrote is a gist of the emergence theory which didn't get through your skull since you thought it was so easy that you could comprehend it within a few minutes. The only thing I changed is that just like any other theorist, I made an assumption.

4. What you do is nothing but use personal attacks and sarcasm and half analysed lines without taking into account the concept of 'gestalt'. Now before you pick your next victim for your charade of grandiloquent vocabulary and your inflated pride, use your head and think deeply for once instead of using your genius-level-IQ status to make pseudo-smart-seeming comments.

Done with your bullshit ? Get out of this forum and pick your victims somewhere else.


Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Cognisant]

I'd refute you but you're not making any sense.

 

[BurnedOut]

I'd refute you but you're not making any sense.

Well, elaborate 'Mr. Condescending Bastard'.
You can't refute because your argument and your motive is destroyed lol.


(BTW nice way to post a meme when you have nothing else. *claps silently*)

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Hadoblado]

Hey guys I'd like to moderate you maybe but as far as I can tell you both seem to be enjoying yourselves?

BurnedOut if Cog is making you feel unwelcome say something, otherwise, I've removed all the pointy edged furniture from the room so you guys can swing your dicks around unimpeded.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm done here.

Go-go-cogcopter! *gyrates hips furiously and paramotors away*

 

[BurnedOut]

Hey guys I'd like to moderate you maybe but as far as I can tell you both seem to be enjoying yourselves?

BurnedOut if Cog is making you feel unwelcome say something, otherwise, I've removed all the pointy edged furniture from the room so you guys can swing your dicks around unimpeded.

I think we are cool now. Thanks anyway.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[doncarlzone]

Go find a theologian, I do my best to keep my head clear of that rubbish.

So you are fine with making a philosophical claim, you just don't want to back it up with actual arguments? And yet you claim that philosophers, the majority of whom are atheists, cling to their delusions? What's interesting is that you would probably agree with many theists philosophically. Only theists, and a few 20th century French existentialists, would ever bring up nonsense about life lacking "inherent meaning", whatever the hell that means, because there is no God or because we have no free will etc.

Here is a good example by Christian apologist William L. Craig:

"If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as
a Stalin or as a saint. Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's
behavior, you may as well just live as you please. "

"What is true of the universe and of the human race is also true of us as
individuals. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature,
thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life."

I take it you agree with that?

Source: http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil3600/Craig.pdf

My bet is this: Once you, and William L. Craig, actually engage with the reasoning behind your rejection of life's meaning on an atheistic framework, you will notice one or two things: Either your conception of "inherently meaningful" is incoherent, in which case who cares, you couldn't possibly be missing out on anything anyway; or your conception of an inherently meaningful life would not be worth wanting, as in Craig's case when he is talking about a God constituting "inherent meaning" (of course some people, like Craig, find the notion of a God constituting meaning to be meaningful, but I take it that you, as I, are not among those).

Both of these options begs the question: Why would you ever delude yourself into believing something that you would not want to be the case anyway?

Thus the reason why atheist philosophers don't follow William L. Craig's philosophy is not out of delusions, but because it is bad philosophy.

 

[Cognisant]

Here is a good example by Christian apologist William L. Craig:

"If life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as
a Stalin or as a saint. Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's
behavior, you may as well just live as you please. "

"What is true of the universe and of the human race is also true of us as
individuals. If God does not exist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature,
thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life."

I take it you agree with that?

Coming from a Christian apologist I suspect those are his critiques of existential nihilism, I agree with the situations he's describing, not the critique, rather I would critique his expectation that there ought to be an afterlife and that the absence of god would make us a "miscarriage of nature".

My bet is this: Once you, and William L. Craig, actually engage with the reasoning behind your rejection of life's meaning on an atheistic framework, you will notice one or two things: Either your conception of "inherently meaningful" is incoherent, in which case who cares, you couldn't possibly be missing out on anything anyway;

Preaching to the nihilistic choir

or your conception of an inherently meaningful life would actually not be worth wanting, as in Craig's case when he is talking about a God constituting "inherent meaning" (of course some people, like Craig, find the notion of a God constituting meaning to be meaningful, but I take it that you, as I, are not among those).

Indeed if there is a god he is, without exception, the greatest of assholes.

Both of these options begs the question: Why would you ever delude yourself into believing something that you would not want to be the case anyway?

...exactly? Hence why I try to keep my head clear of that rubbish, I find it quite frustrating to live in a society that predominately chooses to believe that life must be meaningful, that there must be an afterlife, that good and evil must be somehow more than just arbitrary human concepts.

So you are fine with making a philosophical claim, you just don't want to back it up with actual arguments? And yet you claim that philosophers, the majority of whom are atheists, cling to their delusions? What's interesting is that you would probably agree with many theists philosophically. Only theists, and a few 20th century French existentialists, would ever bring up nonsense about life lacking "inherent meaning", whatever the hell that means, because there is no God or because we have no free will etc.

I'm confused, are you arguing with me or agreeing with me?
Why do I need to explain life being inherently meaningful when obviously we agree that it's not?

 

[Cognisant]

Thus the reason why atheist philosophers don't follow William L. Craig's philosophy is not out of delusions, but because it is bad philosophy.

*gears audibly whirring*

Oh you thought by saying "I think existential/epistemological philosophy is a dead field" I was saying they were irrelevant/invalidated schools of philosophy, rest assured it's the exact opposite, I'm saying they're "dead fields" because the conclusion has been reached. There's no longer any constructive arguments about whether or not life is inherently meaningful because it blatantly isn't, the only possible meaning one's life may have is personal and subjective even if one wishes to delude themselves into believing otherwise.

 

[onesteptwostep]

William Lane Craig is more of a moral philosopher, not a teleological one.

Didn't read the entire thread, but teleology/existentialism and epistemology are very different things. Neruoscientists would be out of a job if epistemology wasn't relevant.

 

[doncarlzone]

*gears audibly whirring*

Oh you thought by saying "I think existential/epistemological philosophy is a dead field" I was saying they were irrelevant/invalidated schools of philosophy, rest assured it's the exact opposite, I'm saying they're "dead fields" because the conclusion has been reached. There's no longer any constructive arguments about whether or not life is inherently meaningful because it blatantly isn't, the only possible meaning one's life may have is personal and subjective even if one wishes to delude themselves into believing otherwise.

I understand. I should maybe be more upfront as to my exact position (we are of course not far from each other despite our initial polemic).

To state it clearly: My problem is with nihilism. There is a reason why no philosophers take this position seriously, except Christian apologist. The reason for this is that it takes serious implications to come out of nonsensical premises.

Such as: A meaningful life ought to be defined in a way such that it is incoherent and thus impossible. Since life has no meaning, it doesn't really matter whether a baby gets tortured or not.

I'm saying not you are saying this. I'm saying that these are some nonsensical implications of the pseudo-philosophical position of nihilism. You don't need an incoherent concept (or a God) to explain why we would shouldn't torture babies. And if anyone thinks that "torturing babies is bad" is "just like your opinion man", they should probably reevaluate their conception of objectivity. Any concept we discuss is of course a human construct, and as such, it is fundamentally a normative question as to how we look at these concepts. The nihilist thus chooses to look at the conception of a meaningful life in a nonsensical way, just like the Christian apologist.

Here are more examples of serious implications coming out of nonsensical premises from so called nihilists:

"The sun is going to burn out, so nothing really matters"
Since when was it a requirement that something should be eternal for it to matter? Does me eating a nice piece of cake have to continue for eternity for it be a meaningful experience?

"We are just meat machines, so nothing really matters"
Meat machines that created art, poetry and iPhones and have capacity to love one another. One ought to ask: 'What should be the alternative'? Are we not spectacular enough? Should we be made of lava?

"There is no ultimate moral truths, so nothing matters"
Again, what would an "ultimate moral truth" be according to the nihilist? Probably an axiom of sort. A God could proclaim one: "Thou shalt torture each other", but would that make torturing a meaningful pass time? No because we would disagree, and if we asked for reasons as to why we should torture, none should be given because we would not want any, as the axiom would be an axiom no longer.

Nihilists mistake morality and value with empirical truths we get through our immediate senses. I look at a table; there is a table. A moral claim cannot be moral because it is claimed, it is moral because it can be explained. But if you explain it, it is not longer ultimate; thus wanting it to be ultimate is wanting it to be unexplained. Thus the fact that we explain moral claims, does not imply that "nothing really matters".

In essence: There is no limit to the amount of stupidity coming out nihilists mouths (this is not to say that I have never thought some of these things myself).

A final, not so important, point:

I agree that a meaningful life is subjective, however, probably not only subjective. The reasons philosophers would be wary with such a claim, can be demonstrated in a rather simple way:

'Say someone, due to whatever reason, is finding it subjectively meaningful to repeatedly bust their own head into a wall 24/7.' (You could also imagine someone torturing puppies 24/7).

I find it hard to say that this is a meaningful life for this person, in which case I have to accept that I probably think that a meaningful life requires a bit more than just the subjective experience of thinking that it is meaningful. Whatever that is, and we can discuss what that might be (nothing super-natural of course ), would be an external element.

 

[doncarlzone]

William Lane Craig is more of a moral philosopher, not a teleological one.

Didn't read the entire thread, but teleology/existentialism and epistemology are very different things. Neruoscientists would be out of a job if epistemology wasn't relevant.

I agree. I don't want to say all Christians are like Craig, at all. And I also agree with you that epistemology is very relevant and the contemporary discussion is quite interesting indeed. People still use arguments, the structure of which was first used by epistemological skepticists, to reject concepts such as morality or a meaningful life without ever realizing what branch they are sitting on.

 

[Cognisant]

"We are just meat machines, so nothing really matters"
Meat machines that created art, poetry and iPhones and have capacity to love one another. One has to ask: 'What should be the alternative'? Are we not spectacular enough? Should we be made of lava?

I call this full circle nihilism, the realization that the meaninglessness of existence is itself not meaningful, that life's absence of inherent meaning isn't cause to despair, that just because morality isn't inherent doesn't mean it's neither pragmatic or sensible.

The thing is though this is a conversation that can only be had with other nihilists, other people just don't get the whole "we are meat machines" thing and are offended when we try to explain it to them. It's frustrating, there's nothing about our philosophy that demands I evangelize others but I wish we weren't such a minority, for entirely selfish reasons I wish there were more nihilists.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14"

 

[BurnedOut]

I call this full circle nihilism, the realization that the meaninglessness of existence is itself not meaningful, that life's absence of inherent meaning isn't cause to despair, that just because morality isn't inherent doesn't mean it's neither pragmatic or sensible.

The thing is though this is a conversation that can only be had with other nihilists, other people just don't get the whole "we are meat machines" thing and are offended when we try to explain it to them. It's frustrating, there's nothing about our philosophy that demands I evangelize others but I wish we weren't such a minority, for entirely selfish reasons I wish there were more nihilists.

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14"

So you are a nihilist. Apparently, I'm a nihilist too. I suppose nihilism is more likely a psychological state of despair and anomie. Being a nihilist is not wrong in my opinion. Its basically choosing to be the seeker of truth or adopting a hardcore scientific outlook. However practising nihilism is utterly stupid because a hardcore nihilist should be better off dead ,in my opinion, as the existence of anything doesn't matter to him anyway. However accepting yourself as a softcore nihilist might in fact benefit you by making you have an unbiased cognition during tough situations. Its really confusing whether nihilism is good or bad, its simply a matter of preference but one should not mistake it for pessimism and fatalism because the previously mentioned two ideologies if taken in terms of psychological illness have a similar string of the term 'depression' running through them. From a strictly philosophical point of view, nihilism can't be made a basis of literature or any original thesis since it already declares everything as null and void and hence cancelling any chances of inductive theories right at the start.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[BurnedOut]

I don't want to sound stupid but I promote scientism.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[doncarlzone]

"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14"

Alright. So I watched this video. While I agree with some sentiments in the video, it still makes claims such as:

"If the universe ends in heat death, every humiliation you suffer in life will be forgotten".

Is this supposed to make me incapable of feeling humiliation because the sun burns out? If I slap you in the face, that will be forgotten, too, when the sun burns out. So what? Does that morally neutralize the fact that I slapped you in the face? Of course it doesn't. You will at some point feel humiliation in your life because it is a basic human emotion, and because as a human you care. If you love someone and they break up with you, you will feel sad because you cared about them and your love was real. The fact that the sun burns out means very little in this regard, unless you don't want to care about anything at all.

"Every bad thing you did, will not matter in the end"

Again, this "the sun will burn out, so nothing matters in the end" is just nonsense at best and willfully evil at worst. I get the sentiment is: "Don't feel to bad about X". However, if that's true, what then if the sun didn't burn out, should you then feel bad about X forever?

"If our life is the only thing we get to experience, then it is the only thing that matters"

Yeah well, I don't know about that. Other lives, say other animals' lives, could matter, too. This just seems like lazy philosophy.

I understand you probably live in a country where religion is it a completely different level than in my country, but I would just encourage you to not think of your views as being nihilistic just because you don't believe in some God. That's quite a stretch.

As an example, non-cognitivistic philosophers are not nihilists. Subjectivistic philosophers, as it relates to the meaning of life, are not nihilists. Nor are incompatibilistic philosophers nihilists. This is not because they are delusional, but because the nihilistic intuitions, as outlined above, are so easily dissolved.

 

[doncarlzone]

Why do I need to explain life being inherently meaningful when obviously we agree that it's not?

Because the definition of the concept we reject determines its relevant implications. If you define "an inherently meaningful life" such that it is conceptually incoherent, my only option is to agree with you. However, from this, it does not follow that the concept of "an inherently meaningful life" ought to be defined in a way such that it is conceptually incoherent. This where philosophy begins, not where it ends. Had you provided your arguments as to why you chose to define it in such a way, I would likely have taken issue with a few of them as they would likely have mirrored those of Craig's.

This does not imply that I think that an inherently meaningful life ought to be defined in a way such that it is possible (I have no strong position on this), but I do think that a meaningful life ought to be defined in such a way.

What I have found, however, is that most arguments rejecting the notion that life is meaningful, and that this is some objective fact, are be deeply flawed.

 

[Cognisant]

However practising nihilism is utterly stupid because a hardcore nihilist should be better off dead ,in my opinion, as the existence of anything doesn't matter to him anyway.

I do ponder that a lot, if you define "better" as a reduction in suffering then being dead is clearly better than being alive, however if "better" is defined as an increase in happiness it clearly is not.

Personally I want to live for ever or rather I want to know I'm going to live forever because every choice I make is made in the anticipation of the future it will cause. The more of a future I have the more significant (subjectively meaningful) my choices are because there's more of my life that they are going to affect, whereas the less of a future I have the less significant my choices are. If I'm about to die no matter what I say or do I'm still going to die thus the choice of what to say/do has become insignificant (less subjectively meaningful) because no matter what choice I make it won't change my future by much.

 

[doncarlzone]

I do ponder that a lot, if you define "better" as a reduction in suffering then being dead is clearly better than being alive, however if "better" is defined as an increase in happiness it clearly is not.

Personally I want to live for ever or rather I want to know I'm going to live forever because every choice I make is made in the anticipation of the future it will cause. The more of a future I have the more significant (subjectively meaningful) my choices are because there's more of my life that they are going to affect, whereas the less of a future I have the less significant my choices are. If I'm about to die no matter what I say or do I'm still going to die thus the choice of what to say/do has become insignificant (less subjectively meaningful) because no matter what choice I make it won't change my future by much.

Interesting. You almost sound religious, and I don't mean this in a negative way, I just don't relate to your reasoning. Of course if you feel like a mortal life is less meaningful to you than an immortal one, I cannot force you to feel differently.

While I do think you have a point when it comes the relationship between time and meaningfulness, I just have a hard time seeing its significance with life as a whole. For instance, if you ask me whether I want to play a soccer game, and you tell me that the game will only last for five seconds, then I would find that particular game pretty pointless. If, however, I have 90 minutes to play the game, then suddenly the game doesn't seem as pointless. Likewise with life, if you told me that I was going to die in a few hours, then I would find that the next few hours were rather pointless (and depressing) and would probably prefer for it to end sooner rather than later. However, given the fact that this is likely not the case, then I have plenty of time to live and experience what life has to offer, achieve worthwhile goals, love etc. While time may offer significance, too much of it, may also do the opposite; not to mention the fact the notion of immortality seems rather impractical given the sheer volume of people that would have to walk around me should nobody die.

Let me leave with a quote by the late great Christopher Hitchens:

“It will happen to all of us, that at some point you get tapped on the shoulder and told, not just that the party’s over, but slightly worse: the party’s going on — but you have to leave. And it’s going on without you. That’s the reflection that I think most upsets people about their demise. All right, then, because it might make us feel better, let’s pretend the opposite. Instead, you’ll get tapped on the shoulder and told, Great news: this party’s going on forever – and you can’t leave. You’ve got to stay.”

I'd prefer leaving this party at some point : )

But again, we might just happen to feel differently about this.

 

[Cognisant]

That makes sense when you're talking about wanting to go home from a literal party but as a metaphor for life your quote fails to explain why one would become so weary of life that death becomes preferable, I think it's a false analogy fallacy.

Don't just assume that eventually you'll want to die, that's a baseless assumption, instead tell me why you'll eventually want to die and then clarify why that reasoning is applicable to your future self but not your current self.

 

[Black Rose]

Will to power comes into this because I think Nietche rejected Nihilism. He just said that it would swarm Europe. Gods blood is on our hands, we are guilty and should feel guilty. God is dead is not a triumph, it is the worst thing to happen in existence. Will to power solves the suicide question. Life lives because it can, because it is driven to live. Meaning may not be an element like boron, or a force of nature like magnetism, but it is a self-generating intrinsic motivation. I want my life to be meaningful so I do what I do to make it that way because I can sense when I have it.

I am more in the area where ideas give me meaning but only the ideas I like and can work with. Meaning is universal because everything strives to make conditions as they want them. The limbic system drives us forward. The will is in the limbic system. It makes us change things, to act in the world. I make my ideas into something new and mental action is considered real action by the limbic system. The will is universal, the will is the limbic system, we change things so life is meaningful because we act because we will because the limbic system pushes us forward to get what we want. Meaning cannot be universal without the limbic system.

The notion that life is meaningless also denies will to power. The abstract notion that death destroys meaning is correct when it happens because the limbic system is gone. But the will to power will still deny suicide because of survival in the present. Death is not important to get what you want right now. The important thing is the decision, "What do I want". I want to create A.I. - I have wanted to create A.I. since 12 years old. If I die tomorrow I did not fail. I have come to realize people with IQ's 40 points higher than me already understand how Intelligence works and can be put into computers. I feel happy that I can understand the basics of these 160 IQ already know. So if I die they will create an avatar of me from my internet history and other records.

My theory for my own existence is this.
Pathways direct signals that change pathways that change where signals are directed.
Since I am only a collection of pathways then perception is all there is.
Basically, I am a virtual being in this temporary body. Death returns null;

 

[BurnedOut]

We just need a good excuse to live. Thankfully our superego and ego precedes our Id. We no longer strive only for survival but also stimuli to keep our brains fully functional.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[gps]

That's when I introduced the concept of 'binary cognition'

You wouldn't be the first or last NT/Rational to irrationally (mis)represent a continuum as something other than.
As you've identified the Western compartmentalized niche of discourse as `philosphy' -- once meaning love of wisdom -- I suppose it's fair game to mention falacies or reasoning.
All-or-nothing, black-or-white, right-or-wrong ... all these smack of the All or Nothing Falacy

If you were speaking from a computer science perspective I'd comment that you just might be using precious too few bits of resolution to model a domain space exhibiting more detail than your modeling paradigm faithfully represents.

So I based off almost 30 pages and counting on the concept of usage of binary logic in the age old debate of 'randomness vs determinism'

Both Goldilocks and Loftfi Zadah
should give you pause to reflect otherwise.
You're exhibiting the same psychopathology as Aristotle when he asserted his excluded middle `logic'.
{aside: Have your mom print a note to pin on your shirt the next time she pats you on the fanny and sends you off to your shrink -- the one who recommended philosophy -- saying "My gps unit said to either get YOUR head out of your ass or pass this kid along to a shrink who can help him get HIS head out of his ass BEFORE both of you dummies fall into a Folie à deux shared-psychosis phase-locked loop which NEITHER of you can get out of!"}

Nowadays the wiser among us skirt the dichotomous horns of a false dilemma via Butterfly effects, Emergence, Chaos Theory, and such.

IMNSHO, you'd get more developmental mileage as a budding philosopher by
juxtaposing the original meaning of the Greek terms `Chaos' and `Cosmos'.
The meaning -- thesis? -- of `Cosmos' was `order' and `chaos' was order's antiThesis ... awaiting you to lovingly-of-wisdom complete the sacred Triune via Synthesis.

And to toss `determinism' into the universe of discourse without addressing less-causal, less-certain `influence' vis-a-vis hands-off-the-reigns `chaos' is to favor an extreme position which allows no shades-grade Goldilocksian thinking/cognition of the`just right' sort arising from the synthetic blending of opposites.
Werner Heisenberg had something to say about `determinism' as it plays out in Reality/Cosmos as modeled by quantum physics ... as contrasted with the Universe of Discourse engendered by the use of Words as addressed by Philosophy of Language.

Till now, I'm going okay, able to derive theories and ideas and thinking of transcribing it digitally ( I'm comfortable with pen and paper more than keyboards).

Pretty funny stuff!
While pondering binary, either-or false dichotomies via All-or-Nothing fallacious would-be `cognition' you AVOID or eschew a machine which can make billions of them per second on your behalf?

I just want your opinions on whether using the concept of 'binary logic' and 'mathematical functions' is okay for basing a treatise in the debate of free will vs determinism.

Lotfi would send you a link to his Fuzzy Logic; I'll do so for him and you on both his and YOUR behalf.
If you meet some day be sure that both of you ingrates THANK ever so humble and modest ME for introducing you to each other for a meeting of your alleged minds.

Keep swinging! You're only 17.
When I was 17, I dreamed of being king ... and getting every thinK I wanted.
Though when I was 18 I was listening to Alice Cooper proclaiming that HE was 18 "and I like it".
Maybe by the time you're 18 you'll be proclaiming that you're AWARE of fuzzy logic and fuzzy -- non-Aristotealean -- thinking ... and you LIKE it!

Best of luck on your paper, dude!

 

[BurnedOut]

I don't really understand why you are being supercilious unnecessarily, much to your chagrin, the top theory encompassing the creation of the universe uses binary logic to assert its standpoint. Moreover, I'm not entitled to take your bullshit arguments which are based off on fractional logical analysis. Comparing my theory with someone else's and then making fun of them both doesn't make sense. BTW, you are falling short of information to make a judgement and an inference because my theory was conceived in a similar way by Stephen wolfram who has been promoting it since 1950s. Sad for you, your condescension didn't work this time because you chose to overlook all the existing arguments.

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[Polaris]

With interesting ideas and thinkers always comes great outrage and resistance. I’m not saying OP’s ideas are necessarily going to be ground-breaking , but what people seem to forget is what it takes to build these structures in the first place. Use the potential to refine, persist and perfect.

Edit: I guess I’m curious about this statement:

Now if the pattern has the ability to evolve, we can deduce that the pattern has some sort of sentience.

Would you mind explaining further? Why does a pattern’s ability to evolve necessitate sentience? What do you mean by ‘sentience’?

 

[gps]

I don't really understand why you are being supercilious unnecessarily, much to your chagrin, the top theory encompassing the creation of the universe uses binary logic to assert its standpoint.

Being qua being ... what was that?
Supercilious?
As if?
I was trying for semi-serious at times.
that rhymes with `supercilious'
Does this count for something now?

Moreover, I'm not entitled to take your bullshit arguments which are based off on fractional logical analysis.

Ahhh ... bullshit and based/founded, as opposed to unfounded as per minimization?

Comparing my theory with someone else's and then making fun of them both doesn't make sense.

You DID figure that one out as intended.
I was trying for absurdism and mock narcissism/megalomania by elevating my self -- EG mere persona -- above BOTH of you.
Watch how Donald Trump does it some time.

BTW, you are falling short of information to make a judgement and an inference because my theory was conceived in a similar way by Stephen wolfram who has been promoting it since 1950s.

There you go, you've go Appeal to Authority working for/against you now.
FWIW, I don't give a fuzzy rat's ass what Stephen Wolfram has been promoting ... or for how long.

Sad for you, your condescension didn't work this time because you chose to overlook all the existing arguments.

Dude, it WORKED for getting your panties in a wad.
I was lightheartedly presenting stimuli into your metaphorical Skinner box.
You reacted as a perfect reactionary.
They were and remain ONLY words as per Philosophy of Language.

The dead-serious part of my post was ...
"Good luck on YOUR paper, dude."

Sincerely,
Gene

 

[redbaron]

just another light-hearted 631 word multi-quote rebuttal with 12 separate links

jokes on u guys for taking it seriously though

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Cognisant could(will) you define or elaborate or what you mean when you say "inherently meaningful"? Because I don't see how hard determinism automatically makes it so that life isn't inherently meaningful.