Beginning of the beginning?

[iwantanewcomputer]

i suggest asking God...

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

Uhh..... what was the first line in my post? I could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.

Define r(p) as the subset of all things that intersects with p's set of morally right things. I dunno much of how to formulate logical equations so that's my best attempt.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

Uhh..... what was the first line in my post? I could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.

Define r(p) as the subset of all things that intersects with p's set of morally right things. I dunno much of how to formulate logical equations so that's my best attempt.

>> r(p) = whatever is right for p
That's not logical.

r(Satan) != r(You)

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

Uhh..... what was the first line in my post? I could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.

Define r(p) as the subset of all things that intersects with p's set of morally right things. I dunno much of how to formulate logical equations so that's my best attempt.

>> r(p) = whatever is right for p
That's not logical.

r(Satan) != r(You)

Either one of two things has just happened here. The first is that you're not familiar with predicate logic. The second is that I have something screwed up. Maybe it's both... because it's pretty clear to me that r(x) doesn't have to be equal to r(y)

Ok.. I looked up some of my old books, P(x) means x has a quality P. So it's not entirely in proper form.. regardless... just LOOK at his argument... I'm confused why you're having so much trouble. He's stating.

If I am CSMR, then all things that are moral to CSMR is moral to me. That is a logically valid statement... it is equally valid to the argument that if A then A. How are logically valid statements equal to what should or should not be done? What morality can i extract from if A then A?

 

[imported_JohnnyBravo]

By Hatim

1 If science says that the big bang happened, It mustve started from something. Like a dot. So where did that dot come from?

2 Also What happens to the feeling of beings oneself after death? You cant just not exist if you think about it.

3 What gives someone individuality. Why are you yourself? Why can you feel only yourseld? Why can you see what your body sees? Why are you inside your body?

4 How are there so many individuals each thinking for himself? Like if you are you, then a new baby must also be thinking the same way. So how are there increasing? Where did "we" come from?

5 Does a baby remember what happens inside his/her mother's womb? How is something born? Like a sperm? How is the sperm created which becomes you. Were you a sperm that evolved? Could you feel yourself when you were a sperm? If yes then before the sperm?

A different approach....

1. The Big Bang has only happened in my mind. I have created the universe in my mind. You can really do the same and decide for yourself how it was created, I would hate for you to be depressed if you couldn't think of an answer for yourself.

2. Nothing..... but when I die, you die, because to me, you don't exist anymore.

3. I am an individual because I choose to be, I choose what I want to feel and how I want to feel it, I see what I want to see and I can see anything I want.

4. These individuals were created by me, and I have chosen for them to have their own opinions, thoughts and beliefs to make my life interesting.

5. I have chosen not to remember what it felt like being in my mothers womb and no... I was not a sperm that evolved, I was an egg cell.

...?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements.

You say that morality exists, and that every person is subject to his own morality, but are not sure that there is a universal morality that applies to all people? Where by universal is meant true for each individual. I showed that from individual morality you can get a universal morality in your sense. Yes, that is a trivial and not a substantive observation.

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

All my statements were well constructed.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

Uhh..... what was the first line in my post? I could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.

Define r(p) as the subset of all things that intersects with p's set of morally right things. I dunno much of how to formulate logical equations so that's my best attempt.

>> r(p) = whatever is right for p
That's not logical.

r(Satan) != r(You)

Either one of two things has just happened here. The first is that you're not familiar with predicate logic. The second is that I have something screwed up. Maybe it's both... because it's pretty clear to me that r(x) doesn't have to be equal to r(y)

Ok.. I looked up some of my old books, P(x) means x has a quality P. So it's not entirely in proper form.. regardless... just LOOK at his argument... I'm confused why you're having so much trouble. He's stating.

If I am CSMR, then all things that are moral to CSMR is moral to me. That is a logically valid statement... it is equally valid to the argument that if A then A. How are logically valid statements equal to what should or should not be done? What morality can i extract from if A then A?

Actually, the math is right, it been 8 years since I use this. But there's something I'm not quite sure. Please shed some light.

r() is a function that won't change. My point is that that result of r(You) is not fixed.

Look at this, I posted a message that to question your view. If you are right, why would you look into the book?

is that equals to r(You, Book)?

No offense but put it this way.

r(p) = whatever right for p
r(p+1day) = whatever right for p next day

For Satan, it will be always
r(Satan) , since Evil is always right and Satan is timeless.

So this argument might be
r(Someone + 2 years) = Smoking and drink is right.
r(Someone + 500 Year ) = Evil is Right again.

Now that looks better to me.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: tinyabs

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: CSMR
No, it's not. r(p) is defined by "(for all p) r(p) is whatever is right for person p"
The statement "(for all p) if I am p then r(p) is right for me" is then a universal morality, isn't it? (NB it isn't the definition of what is right, just a statement about it.) Actually you could also call r a universal morality (by your meaning of universal). It applies to all people and tells them what they should do.

r(p) = whatever is right for p

if I am p, then r(p) is right for me.
if I am p, then what is right for p is right for me.

since me = p

if i am p, then what is right for p is right for p.
if i am p, then true
if (anything) then true

The last two statements are equally valid and logically true. I don't see where morals come by declaring logically true statements. If logic validity equates to truth, then evaluate the following:

X = "If X is logically valid, then Santa is real"

The equation has a flaw. you didn't define r().

Uhh..... what was the first line in my post? I could make it sound a whole lot more complicated.

Define r(p) as the subset of all things that intersects with p's set of morally right things. I dunno much of how to formulate logical equations so that's my best attempt.

>> r(p) = whatever is right for p
That's not logical.

r(Satan) != r(You)

Either one of two things has just happened here. The first is that you're not familiar with predicate logic. The second is that I have something screwed up. Maybe it's both... because it's pretty clear to me that r(x) doesn't have to be equal to r(y)

Ok.. I looked up some of my old books, P(x) means x has a quality P. So it's not entirely in proper form.. regardless... just LOOK at his argument... I'm confused why you're having so much trouble. He's stating.

If I am CSMR, then all things that are moral to CSMR is moral to me. That is a logically valid statement... it is equally valid to the argument that if A then A. How are logically valid statements equal to what should or should not be done? What morality can i extract from if A then A?

Actually, the math is right, it been 8 years since I use this. But there's something I'm not quite sure. Please shed some light.

r() is a function that won't change. My point is that that result of r(You) is not fixed.

Look at this, I posted a message that to question your view. If you are right, why would you look into the book?

is that equals to r(You, Book)?

No offense but put it this way.

r(p) = whatever right for p
r(p+1day) = whatever right for p next day

For Satan, it will be always
r(Satan) , since Evil is always right and Satan is timeless.

So this argument might be
r(Someone + 2 years) = Smoking and drink is right.
r(Someone + 500 Year ) = Evil is Right again.

Now that looks better to me.

Yes, if you assume that morality is time variant, then I guess you have to put an additional variable. You can keep adding more variants until you fully describe morality, so yeah, if you want, you can say.

Define r(p,t,s,w) = Whatever is morally right at moment t given sober state s with w wealth for person p.

r(satan,anytime,anything,any amount) = evil
r(me,2004,sober,poor) = don't steal money, etc.....

Is that where the confusion came from? I never really intended this to be an argument of symantics, but rather just to point out that CSMR's statement was more of a logic form than a morality.

 

[imported_JohnnyBravo]

Does r(hatim, religion, science, time) = 5 stupid questions?

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Is that where the confusion came from? I never really intended this to be an argument of symantics, but rather just to point out that CSMR's statement was more of a logic form than a morality.

Yes; that's right.