I would argue that the nature of consciousness is to project an image of the actualize self. The actualized self is a metaphysical representation of the self that becomes god to the present self (because the self recognizes that state as divine: more good).
SighâŠIâll start with your first sentence. You didnât provide any mechanism for measurement. How do you, for instance, measure âmutual benefitâ? The âact of working togetherââŠwhat is that, precisely? How do you know if a goal is âcommonâ?
Could, for instance, the goal be providing a mutual benefit by killing someone that a group of people finds problematic?
So, are you saying that if some folks work against someone else it is badness? (Because I asked you how you measure / define badness.)
For instance, there are five people who want to hunt the last three of a species thereby causing its extinction. I and four others work against them in an effort to prevent that extinction. It is contentious. Thatâs badness?
From my side, it would seem that your objection is one of person incredulity.
Here are my definitions:
God = Being
Divine = Good
Concept = Consciousness
I pose these as axioms. God, Divine, and Concept are simply metaphysical forms of what we know as being, good, and consciousness. You could disagree and challenge these definitions, but we are not yet at the point for discussing classical notions of God or Divinity.
I had to strip my beliefs down to their very essences, but I donât believe that I had to deny them. Rather, since Iâm talking to people who donât hold to concepts of God or Divinity, I had to strip them down to remove any assumptions that we make about these concepts.
Thank you for asking. Mutual benefit is that which provides maximining total utility (freedom) with minimizing the negation of utility (freedom) for the other party. Both parties achieve maximin utility when both parties reach a state where the total sum of utility is maximin given the situational parameters.
It could in the superlative sense⊠However, we would have to run through all hypotheticals that do not require us to kill a person (negation of freedom). Only when we have justification (the problem person effects the situation to such a degree that they negate freedom to a measurable extent that the utility of freedom would be compromises by this personâs continued prolongation), have exhausted all alternatives (to protect the utility of freedom), and have rationally demonstrated that killing the person would restore utility of freedom (the person would have to be reprobate to the idea of cooperation), could we justify the action.
Badness yes. However, we must be careful not to equate subjective inference with conscious awareness.
The five people perceive the three as bad (assuming that they equate killing with the restoration of utility). The three perceive the five as bad (assuming that they donât want to be killed) You and the four others perceive the five as bad (assuming that you believe that the killing would result in a negation of utility). However, if you were all consciously aware, you would all view each other as one body and no one would want to kill each other.
You know, the validity of your conclusion depends on the validity of your premises, no matter how logically valid your deduction is. So, given your conclusion C as a function of the deduction D as a function of the premises P, i.e. C=D(P), the validity of C depends on the validity of P. If your premises/axioms/assumptions do not reflect reality, your deducted conclusions can not be presumed valid. Shit in, shit out.
Your use of the = sign indicates or suggests a mathematical or logical equality, while in reality they would be more like analogous associations. Further, on the right hand side of these equalities, you list concepts that are subjective (âGoodâ) and not well defined (âConsciousnessâ, âBeingâ). They are in other words ill suited for the basis of a discussion.
I understand. And you are free to challenge my definitions.
God is a metaphysical construct of what we know as being. Concept relates to consciousness if we assume that there is nothing outside of our consciousness (cartesian skepticism). Iâm taking an extreme stance hereâŠ
The Divine is a metaphysical construct of what we know as good. As you have mentioned, there may be subjective inferences of what we view as Divine, but that is due to the limitations of our own consciousness experience: not a reflection that there is no objective morality.
In other words, your premises are not really tied to an observed objective reality. Thus, whatever deductions you will try to make on the base of these premises are not logically tied to objective reality. If your premises do not agree with reality, itâs your premises that are wrong, not reality.
Thatâs where we disagree. I provided an objective reality (being, goodness, and consciousness) and tied these concepts to metaphysical symbols (God, Divine and Concept). Youâre welcome to challenge my definitions, but you must demonstrate why these definitions are philosophically incoherent.
No, that is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy. They are your definitions, so you have to demonstrate that they are correct. They not only have to be âphilosophically coherentâ, but if you want them to tell us something about the real world, you also have to demonstrate that they are objective facts that accurately describe reality. All I have to do is demonstrate that at least one of them are not. I showed that at least one is subjective. Hence, I have demonstrated that they do not hold.
What is perfect being if not omnipresence? What is perfect divinity (goodness) if not perfect good (cooperation, integration, and harmony)? What is perfect conceptualization if not omniscience?
You demonstrated that a personâs subjective judgement on the topic of divinity (goodness) could be faulted. I agree. But I demonstrate WHY. A personâs subjective judgement on the topic of divinity could be faulted BECAUSE they do not have perfect knowledge (concept). They havenât provided sufficient justification for utility, considered alternatives, and havenât rationally demonstrated the utility.
Yes. We are distinguishing between the subjective (inferred) and the objective (the perfect good).The perfect good is known by objecting our subjective (inferred) to the objective (utilitarianism).
Youâre response to me seems to have nothing to do with my comment to you. If youâd like to have a conversation with me, your next message needs to explain why you did this (like perhaps you sent the message to the wrong person?). Failing that, I will be blocking you; Iâm done dealing with clowns.
Thatâs not an argument, it is a bare unevidenced claim.
Word salad.
Yet all you managed was this bare assertion, you didnât even quote anything to offer any context, what objection specifically are you asserting this about? This would be a good start.
Sigh, those words already have definitions, and you are yet again offering a string of subjective unevidenced claims, that amount to false equivalences, and I have explained why above three times now, and yet you keep repeating the same claim over and over.
Groovy, and I claim god = non-existent, and claim it as an axiom, so if you believe your woefully subjective claims have any merit you would have to accept that I just demonstrated no deity exists.
No need, they are meaningless, the reason has been offered repeatedly, and ingored repeatedly, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
We have not moved beyond you making bare assertions, and offering dubious arguments. There is as yet no discussion, only you making bare claims.
For metaphysical construct see imaginary, and the word we in that sentence is pretty hilarious hubris.
Indeed they are subjective, and entirely unreliable as humans have imagined countless wildly differing deities and religions. Such âsubjective inferencesâ can be used to imagine just about anything.
Bingo, I should have scrolled down, it would have saved me a post.
Straw man, it is where you falsely equated those objectively real things to a deity, that has no logical basis in objective reality, if it did your words salad would be moot, as you could present that part of objective reality that evidences a deity, instead of falsely equating a deity you have no evidence for to things that are objectively real.
See above and above and above, theyâre a false equivalence, theyâve been challenged, you simply keep repeating them though.
and around and around she goes, where she stops nobody knowsâŠ
