> You can use logical reasoning in any way you wish. But is that a Universal Truth that you can use and make your life better? I believe yes. And that's my point: all logical and scientifical explanations fail to provide universal truths. You cannot proof a Universal Truth in a perfect matter using imperfect tools such as logic, reason and science. So the question remaining is: Using these flawed instruments, what is the extent of truth we need to reach in order to serve our purpose (make our lives happier) ? Or am I wrong ? Can we actually use flawed tools to prove Universal Truths like Morality in a Perfect manner, in a way far more superior to reason and logic itself? Let's suppose this issue is undecidable. In which case, the only certainty we have is doubt about the issue in question. But what is the maximum of insight about morality that we can extract from an undecidable issue? Well, this is an idea which is worth exploring.
@Yussuki ₪ We can know nothing with absolute or perfect certainty - I would argue we don’t need to. Scientific method is the closest approximation of how our reality (whether real or not) works. And that is enough to base decisions on using predictive models of reality. It is quite decided.
The question of morality is a different one - let’s discuss that as a topic on VC soon.

We all act as though Universal Truth is true.

Faith isn’t just a useful tool, it’s the mechanism which allows you to LIVE life without first having to justify it.

Science is a tool for understanding HOW things work, but can only capture the aspects of Truth that can be measured and used to control outcomes.

One’s need to control outcomes seems to correlate with their proclivity to only accept truths that Science can tackle, and deny truths that it cannot.

“Truth” is, in my approximation, “that which, when acted out, doesn’t contradict itself.”

Also, methods of getting to Truth are those which gives you real answers to defined questions.

Prayer is a way to Truth that cannot predict or control outcomes. It does, however, give you answers.

You can explain, mechanically, why it works, but you can’t deny that it works as it promises (which is without guarantee)

I have a LOT to say on this, but I’ll spare everyone for now. I just thought it would be nice to throw some of these ideas and thoughts into the mix, so that we might discuss Truth in a broader sense :)

(Lastly, Truth can be thought of “that which, if you deny, will make everything else false or ambiguous” ....)

Woah, someone made the pragmatist argument, I’ve been resisting for two weeks

@JPMcGlone thanks for bringing a different and diverse viewpoint to the table. Would love to get into it in detail in a VC

@StoneCold316 what’s a VC? New here, sorry.

Voice chat

> Woah, someone made the pragmatist argument, I’ve been resisting for two weeks
@Zurich04 who would that be? 😶

@Zurich04 I’m not sure my points are pragmatist, but I also don’t know much about the academic understanding of “pragmatism” so my idea of what that is might be WAY off. Happy to discuss (if that was directed at me)

@StoneCold316 happy to do a voice chat. When and where?

Depending on the context, the scientific method may be replaced by other better methods such as the scientific inquiry or design thinking @StoneCold316 So the scientific method is not always the best method to use. I would argue that there is a "Perfect Way" in everything, depending on the criteria we choose.

We usually use the methods we "need" to further our goals. If we were to dig deeper into the flaws of the scientific method we would get to metaphysics really quickly.

> @StoneCold316 happy to do a voice chat. When and where?
@JPMcGlone here in this server and whenever Miller decides to set the topic as morality

@Yussuki ₪ i’m not suggesting there aren’t other methods - I was trying to respond to all the different points u raised without quoting each sentence. Although i would ask if any of the methods you propose guarantee ‘absolute’ certainty? (I don’t think there is such a thing- and doesn’t need to be) and if they fall outside the bounds of logic and maybe even philosophy?

Hm..I guess logic is part of philosophy. Absolute certainty may only exist within faith. Which doesn't necessarily make faith good or bad.

Because only in faith, can the Conscious Observer separate himself from the surrounding reality and observe it from outside. Otherwise his "certainty" wouldn't be Absolute. Absolute means some1 can thoroughly separate himself from the environment.

In scientific terms, not transferring heat or mass with the exterior (adiabatic process). If we relate to humans as thermodynamic systems.

Consciousness observing reality is impossible by definition

Yes, logic is part of philosophy. I would question the value sought in ‘absolutes’ - before even validating the mechanisms of how to achieve it ( through an outside observer or otherwise).

Consciousness or Conscious ?

If you are a Sam Harris fan you will understand that there is no observer, the observation just exists by itself. So a conscious observer is just another word for consciousness

I know Mr Sam Harris. And he is right from his frame of reference. When Mr Harris sees a dog barking, he would say: "Omg, here is the dog!" "Omg, there is the bark" 😂

True 😂 our language is not equipped to talk about that

A conscious observer cannot exist without consciousness - I think I agree with that. ‘I think therefore conscious observer is’.

I would stick to my position in my previous message and not move on before that has been satisfied.

But it’s a great discussion.

In which case could we have consciousness without observer ?

Cons iousness is already without observer

We have consciousness (whether neurons firing or a simulation, it’s our condition) - and we don’t know if there’s an observer.
I don’t see how it logically (or any other philosophical means to knowledge) follows. It isn’t necessitated.
Also it’s shifting the burden. This would not mean anything if we’re using different means to knowledge.

Consciousness without observer is like saying we can have bark without the dog. Or ?

It depends on what you mean by dog. If you mean a single entity that decided to bark and also created the bark and also walks and can be happy and sad, that entity doesn't exist. It's just not how reality works.

So you are saying that on a deeper level of reality the bark dogs, instead of the dog barks ?

I'm saying that the bark exists as a sound in the consciousness of the dog and as information in sinapses and as waves of particles in the air

How about the Qualia of the Dog? How do you explain that away? 🦮

I think it’s an incorrect argument in many ways, some I’ve pointed out already, but I’ll play along.
In your analogy, a dog is required to bark. Demonstrate that an observer is required for consciousness.
2nd argument- We know the bark exists because we observe barks and observe dogs and conclude that dogs bark. Please demonstrate observers create consciousness.

I just explained one quale, the bark. You can do the same with all the other ones

By the way, I am now convinced that eating pork and steak is deeply immoral and unnecessary. But since I love burgers, I would love to be proven wrong.

@Tiago Rodrigues nope you’re right, it is completely immoral and unnecessary atleast for now with the way it gets on your plate

Omg 😂

@Tiago Rodrigues Can you give the reasons why you think it’s immoral

> By the way, I am now convinced that eating pork and steak is deeply immoral and unnecessary. But since I love burgers, I would love to be proven wrong.
@Tiago Rodrigues I’m having steak as we speak 😂

@T2the2ndpowr Because even if you are worried about health risks of becoming a vegan/vegetarian, you don't need red meat because you can always eat chikens, turkeys and fish which have much smaller brains