I assure you, no one here is threatened by you. We find it sad that you are so narrow-minded.

Well, i tried to point that out in a less flame-inducing and more convincing manner, this is what i got .
Very well, life is a contest, <clicks shotgun> ... Run! </sarcasm>

I think in discussion, agreeing to disagree is vital, otherwise you are risking antagony. Besides that, without it, you eventually go in circles until one party goes away from exhaustion. Try to find what common ground there is, and hope a later discussion is more fruitful.

Here you concede to an argument that refutes the claim you where arguing, and say that is the reason for your claim.
BTW What utabintarbo was arguing before:
<edit> this argument below is wrong :/, 5 points for saying where</edit>
Does not even make sense, because what it is saying that and axiom cannot be refuted unless you assume it. or rather A=> not A, and you agreed that resulted in A false. so by this claim, there are no axioms at all. (BTW the word trying makes the statement vague.) <edit> this is the one that should be taken seriously</edit>It also blatently ignores that there might be other axioms around, and while assuming those, you might be able to (dis)prove the claim that is one of those three axioms.

@yaaarrrgg post #57 what are you going at? Some of those axioms are actually those that utabintarbo said where the good ones. I say axioms can only be bad if they are overly ill defined, or if someone claims a set of axioms that contradict.
(whitespace modified)Does it unpack to that? I would say the act of existing exists. Or perhaps there is something that exists. Nah, i dont believe that, it is language-based-logic, and language is not a formalism.

I know utabintarbo will give some counterarguments, but can we continue looking at axioms? (read back a little to recall what axioms where proposed.)

I will try freshing things up a little. I tried to find where things were mentioned. (I might use this(updated) as a thread-starter if it still goes nowhere )

It already was the idea to talk about things bottom-up, starting from axioms #24. I propose:
- defining an axiom any assumption. Anyone can assume any set of axioms (s)he believes do not contradict.
- That we assume that our reasoning can actually restrict what is true, based on axioms. (although possibly the result might be subjective, as was agrued #3,4)
- That we agree to disagree, when a discussion takes to long, find common ground, rather then fight!
- Not focussing on what sets of axioms we ourselves like too much, rather seeing what is out there.

It will be biased a little. Here are axioms:
General axioms:
- Existence exists #1

- Things we deal with have a consistent behavior. #1

- A consciousness is some thing that perceives things. #1

World-axioms:

- The consistent-behavior-things interact.

- external world, one of the things of the consistent-behavior-thing is an external world. All Conciousnesses are (at least in a way) external to this. #2
On this world axioms like "physics uniformity" axioms apply. (could say that consistent-behavior-things only interact with the external-world)

- Non-external world, assuming only the world exists, so everything is intrinsically non-external to this.
An additional axiom assumes that abstractions can be made to make things with a consistent behavior like said above. (this is sort-of the opposite approach as the above) #48 (my interpretation)

- One of the consciousness makes the world. (like bnonn seems to believe is absolute in thread "What is faith"), #22

About the (non) external world:
- Non-determinism (not sure if we need it #18)
- Determinism
- Uniformity of physics.
(Probably much to say, do not know much philosophy of physics.)

Dealing-with-world-axioms: (similar to #2)

- Some consciousnesses(including us) can deliberately:

- In case of external world, it either can affect all other things, or only the external world, and other things indirectly via that.
- In case of non-external world it can affect the world and other things since it is all part of the non-external world.

- Some consciousnessess(including us) can get representative information of other things. (again consider different worldviews) #5

- Some consciousnessess(including us) can get an idea of the effects of their actions. (deliberate affecting)

Ethics axioms, or perhaps, goals: (I call them axioms, that what to do(and subgoals) can be 'derived' from what you want.)
Following two have a realism and non-realism side(wikipedia for ethics), realism is that underlying measures are absolute.

- There is a good(measure). (absolute good on realism side) #5,#20

- (eh, my own, said that i wouldnt start without being asked but #3,#18,#29

- There is a feel-good(measure, called want earlier) for things (or slightly stronger: conscious things)
- There is a measure of weight for these things. (although you could say consciousness has multiple levels, and that is the weight, making it an definition)
- goal is to increase average feel-good, based on measure of weight.

Any others, in any category? Would like even more structure to ethics , more specific what to do.

On the realism side, the question is how to determine the objective measures. An answer for both, is not to answer, and say you use your associations. For the second, you can see what consciousnesses/things do, when given freedoms, and assume that is makes them feel-good. The non-realism(or, since we dont know, the realism too?) side seems to mean that the first means that you do whatever you wish, and the second might say to someone that pain and hurt is feel-good. (utabintarbo,SigmaX helped showing that 'hole' but i still thing ethic-axioms usefull, but what do others think of it? reasonable?)
I reckon that the second brings much more 'structure' in what is good. (what do you think? #33)

Earlier summary: #24 Note that it is very biased<edit>refering to my own summary</edit>, feel free to mention anything i missed, or criticise constructively.

PS damn took more time then expected, but i find these things cool.

Thanks for trying to get us back on topic. I'll respond, but I need some time to go through that. I bet it did take a while! I find these things cool also.

Alright Jasper. I'll go with what you have there. It seems like you caught most of what we had discussed.

I would like to pose the following question: What are the implications? Suppose we take a given (consistent) group of axioms. What does that tell us about the world around us? Are any of the things listed mutually exclusive?

First off, I think we have to take Jasper's General Axioms or else we have a complete mess. So assume those.

Second, I will assume that I am able to perceive and understand the world around me. If not, then what's the damn point? I cannot do without this one. I'll add to this that other people are what they seem, and can also perceive and understand the world as well (generally speaking) as I can.

Also, I will say that races, ethnicities, nationalities, and genders all have equal value and skills.

Just this much implies that there is value/usefulness in exploring and discussing the world around us. The centuries-long dialogue about the meaning of life has truth in it. Further, this casts strong suspicion on any religion which has as a tenet that one people group is superior. Suppose there is a God, why would He "reveal Himself" to only one group of people if they are all equal? He would not.

I've got more, but I'll stop here for now and see if anyone would like to comment.

deleted

@Mr. Jaggers: I'm not quite sure how your post fits with the rest of the thread. Care to explain?

deleted

You're right, they may be. We're not claiming that these are the "right" axioms. Just suppose that they are true, what are the implications? Now suppose some other set of axioms is true, what are the implications of that? I don't think you can logically determine the entire truth of the world, but if you take a few reasonable assumptions, you can determine the consequences of those assumptions, and that is what we're discussing.

@bns, good point, have not done much thinking what axioms result to yet. Closest i got was in post #33. I find it very hard to find anything that leads from it, especially for the non-ethics-axioms.
Considering axioms that exclude each other, I would say saying that there is only one thing which is the universe(non-external) and things are all part of that pretty much remove the need for the axiom that some things interact. It also pretty much contradicts the one-consciousness makes world idea.
Do the dealing-with-world axioms not cover that? The assumption about different races is not one i would quickly assume. Looking at my feel-good axioms, i see no reason to deal with beings on a per-creature basis. Classifying creatures under catagories like cat, dog, mouse, human is just a method of dealing with them, not being able to assess them all. BTW on the slashdot forum, i had a discussion about that once, the counterargument being that people would in practice use this viewpoint as license to neglect other humans their rights.
Perhaps some things like free speech can be argued from the ethics-axioms, assuming that some consciousnesses do not follow the axiom, or have very different ones, and one cannot easily decide which, therefore everyone should be able to communicate what they think about others, discrediting people that are "immoral" before they "hurt the cause". (hard to say if that is a very practical view, though)

I think we can work around that contradiction. I presently feel no need, however.
I think they do, I was just considering a subset of them.
It's one I think is important. It is the only basis for arguing against xenophobia, AFAIK. It is an assumption that alters my own world-view, so that's why I mention it. It is a strong assumption, and it also has far-reaching implications.

No need at all, the points I set out earlier were meant as a summary, not a viable set of axioms as a whole.

That is exactly the counterargument i got on the slashdot forum. (cannot find it back :/) On the "theoretical side" i disagree, determining the rights of a creature has the same problem of being arbitrary as determining what is (feel-)good in the first place.
On the practical side, I agree, since what is good is already defined culturally. Or perhaps instinctively or via association? I guess people who have no idea of good and evil cannot from any kind lasting society.
Human rights not being race-based is a newer concept though, i do not think any such mechanism exist to make it last by itself. (especially considering history!) I think i can do without an dont-be-racist axiom without being racist myself. i do not expect that others do the same. For example, in practice this would mean that in the law rights should not be per-creature based, but sweeping, like rights per animal species, human rights.
I simply cannot imagine treating people differently because of such superficial aspects. (ok, I probably am when people are attractive, but who isnt)

I agree that logically it is a bit arbitrary. But in the end, I think that's all we have. Out of all the world that I can perceive, I assign humans the greatest value. Further, I assign equal value to each human. I admit that there isn't really any logical basis for that other than my instincts, but there it is.

It seems to me that a whole lot of people would agree with the notion that we are all equal, but a whole lot fewer would agree with what I see as direct consequences of it.

That sensory feeling are universal.

The dignity of man is inviolable.
In Immanuel Kant's philosophy, the claim is made that rational beings have an intrinsic and absolute value, which is referred to as dignity.

That's what I was getting at, but you said it better.

deleted

@Mr. Jaggers: we are not proposing a perfect system here, nor that it even is possible. Philosophy can help create an inperfect system, which still has to rely on people behaving morally.
@MRiGnS: I was talking in a more general sense. And in that sense I feel that rights should theoretically be based on a per-creature basis. But, practically, i agree that things like the law should not state it that way. Plenty of people are idiots or will delude themselves that other humans do not have the same rights.(same could be said for what is moral in the first place; i argued in #73, but what is moral is more culturally defined) I do not agree with Kants idea; there is no single level of "rationalness" or consciousness. We have animal rights, right? We hardly give ants and dogs the same right.
@SenixMarcoviAhaa: Sensory feelings are hardly universal, animals have very different kinds of sensory feelings. I am sure there are differences between humans too.

I think some of these post have the same misunderstanding. When i say "consciousness" I do not only mean humans.
PS hope i didnt scare utabintarbo off? (hehe get real defensive when people claim life is just a game.)

you could extend the axiom to: the dignity of life is inviolable.


I was just quoting the first article of the german basic law btw.