Similarity leads to...

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:45 pm
But, as I explained, just like 'truth' can be relative so to 'appropriateness defined by conditions' can be relative.
Appropriateness can be no other than relative, for it exists only in relationship.
Great, then we agree.
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am An individual’s own mental state assesses appropriateness.
Again, we are in agreement.
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am Feedback from the environment (organic or inorganic) confirms or denies the accuracy of the assessment, and that serves to shape the next assessment of a similar situation.
But feedback from the environment does NOT confirm nor deny the accuracy of the assessment, especially for those who are already holding BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, correct, or not.

For example, what you assess as appropriate from and/or within a situation I may not assess as appropriate from and/or within the EXACT SAME situation, and vice-versa. As I have explained previously.

Therefore, the feedback from the environment might be the EXACT SAME, but we both might have VERY DIFFERENT and EVEN OPPOSITE assessments of the situation, which will then serve to shape the next assessment of a similar situation, for both of us.

The accuracy of one's own assessment can only be obtained by one TRUE WAY, which I have also already previously explained.

The reason 'you', adult human beings, are still SO LOST and CONFUSED in Life is because you base your own thinking being true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect, on those actual Assumptions, which you make based solely on your own Past Experiences, and your own perception of those past experiences. Thus, by the way, is the reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, have SO MANY conflicting and opposing views of things from "each other".
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am Some folks get so wrapped up in their knowledge of the way things are, that in an unfolding situation perceived as similar to the known, this confident assessment becomes an overlay upon what is actually happening, and much like an incompetent elevator inspector, the assessor is now reacting to memory and not necessarily the reality of events.
Very true, from my perspective.
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am This commonly happens when one gets locked into abstracts such as humanity, and thinking of humanity as groups of types.
To me, this just happens when one is looking at things from their own ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS of things, instead of just looking from a Truly OPEN perspective.

Also, if humanity is NOT groups of types, to you, then what is 'humanity', to you?

To me, 'humanity' is just the collective group of the types known as 'human beings', if anyone was interested
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am A fine example of this is not seeing the person right there in front of you, and in the extreme taken from various humorous punchlines, a fine example is when one calls an intimate partner by the wrong name after climbing the mountain and reaching the summit.
But this just happens because one is just 'thinking' of someone else, and/or 'hoping/wishing' they were 'there'. They are NOT necessarily BELIEVING nor ASSUMING that that "other" is there. But maybe they are? We will NOT know until we CLARIFY. Anyway, 'hope', and 'fantasy/dreaming', can be a very strong player in that example.
Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am Underlying motive?* The queen is a news item, thus a cogent example to explain the abstract.

Speaking of the underlying motives that are on your mind, what’s yours?
1. Who was speaking of the underlying motives that are, supposedly, on "my mind"?

2. I do NOT have "my mind".

3. What are you REALLY wanting to uncover/discover and KNOW here?

Walker wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:58 am * "When a man says no to champagne, he says no to life."

Comment: As well as I can, I pour, though it may be swill or nectar. :wink:
I do NOT understand what this is in relation to AT ALL.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:54 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:58 am

And, I informed you and the readers that by your use of the 'et cetera' word MEANS that I and the readers have NO choice other than to ASSUME what you are referring to here.

Surely this is Truly BASIC to SEE and UNDERSTAND, by now?
Ok.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

But there is ONLY One Mind.

Unless, OF COURSE, you can prove otherwise. As of when this is written you have NOT.



I asked you before to CLARIFY who is the 'we' you were referring to here. You answered this by stating that by 'we' you mean "humans, animals, etc." But now you contradictory state that "We are humans" only.

I will also note that you now state that 'humans' are made of minds and bodies.



You say here now that, " 'Our' minds are similar ".

The word 'our' infers, or at least implies, ownership. So, who and/or what is the collective 'One' or the separate 'ones' who owns these, alleged, "minds", which you claim are similar?
Humans' minds for example.
So, you now claim here in this thread that; " 'we' humans HAVE minds ", while in other threads you claim that; " 'we' humans ARE minds ", correct?

Also, I will note and ask, you also claim above that; " 'we' ARE humans ", which are; "made of minds", correct?

Once 'you' can get all of this sorted out for 'us', then we can move on to how saying, "humans' minds are similar" would lead to ANY 'thing' substantial?

Saying, or thinking, that "humans' minds are similar" is like saying, or thinking, "humans' arms (or legs) are similar", but what does thinking or saying that this similarity lead to, exactly?
When I use "we" in different situations I mean something different that "we" refers to.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm 'you' are 'trying to' 'push' in 'what direction', EXACTLY?
To agree on the moral principle.
Okay. But if, as you claim below, 'moral principle' IS similarity, then SURELY getting 'agreement' on 'the moral principle' would be about the most simplest and easiest thing to do, correct?
Morality is about doing right in a situation.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm I suggest if you want people to agree with, so called, "moral principle", then INFORM 'us' of what 'moral principle' IS, EXACTLY, and FIRST.
The moral principle is similarity.
If 'moral principle' is similarity, to you, and, to you, 'similarity' leads to moral principle, then what you are essentially SAYING and SHOWING 'us' here is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, and what NOT to do, in philosophical discussions, correct?
No.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:54 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
Ok.


Humans' minds for example.
So, you now claim here in this thread that; " 'we' humans HAVE minds ", while in other threads you claim that; " 'we' humans ARE minds ", correct?

Also, I will note and ask, you also claim above that; " 'we' ARE humans ", which are; "made of minds", correct?

Once 'you' can get all of this sorted out for 'us', then we can move on to how saying, "humans' minds are similar" would lead to ANY 'thing' substantial?

Saying, or thinking, that "humans' minds are similar" is like saying, or thinking, "humans' arms (or legs) are similar", but what does thinking or saying that this similarity lead to, exactly?
When I use "we" in different situations I mean something different that "we" refers to.
I have noticed. I also note that the difference is not consistent, nor even similar.

I also note here that this is another attempt at your 'trying to' detract away from answering the actual questions I posed to you, which, by the way, were was more about your completely and utterly inconsistent use of the word 'mind' in relation to 'you', human beings.
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
To agree on the moral principle.
Okay. But if, as you claim below, 'moral principle' IS similarity, then SURELY getting 'agreement' on 'the moral principle' would be about the most simplest and easiest thing to do, correct?
Morality is about doing right in a situation.
Okay. And how do 'you' decide, or KNOW, what is right in a situation?
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:34 pm
The moral principle is similarity.
If 'moral principle' is similarity, to you, and, to you, 'similarity' leads to moral principle, then what you are essentially SAYING and SHOWING 'us' here is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, and what NOT to do, in philosophical discussions, correct?
No.
Okay, then what, exactly, are you 'trying to' SAY and SHOW here?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:35 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 11:54 pm

So, you now claim here in this thread that; " 'we' humans HAVE minds ", while in other threads you claim that; " 'we' humans ARE minds ", correct?

Also, I will note and ask, you also claim above that; " 'we' ARE humans ", which are; "made of minds", correct?

Once 'you' can get all of this sorted out for 'us', then we can move on to how saying, "humans' minds are similar" would lead to ANY 'thing' substantial?

Saying, or thinking, that "humans' minds are similar" is like saying, or thinking, "humans' arms (or legs) are similar", but what does thinking or saying that this similarity lead to, exactly?
When I use "we" in different situations I mean something different that "we" refers to.
I have noticed. I also note that the difference is not consistent, nor even similar.

I also note here that this is another attempt at your 'trying to' detract away from answering the actual questions I posed to you, which, by the way, were was more about your completely and utterly inconsistent use of the word 'mind' in relation to 'you', human beings.
I mean "we" refer to something so the meaning understood.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm

Okay. But if, as you claim below, 'moral principle' IS similarity, then SURELY getting 'agreement' on 'the moral principle' would be about the most simplest and easiest thing to do, correct?
Morality is about doing right in a situation.
Okay. And how do 'you' decide, or KNOW, what is right in a situation?
I use the moral principle of similarity and derive right in a situation.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:37 pm
Age wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:33 pm If 'moral principle' is similarity, to you, and, to you, 'similarity' leads to moral principle, then what you are essentially SAYING and SHOWING 'us' here is just another PRIME EXAMPLE of circular reasoning, and what NOT to do, in philosophical discussions, correct?
No.
Okay, then what, exactly, are you 'trying to' SAY and SHOW here?
As I said in the last comment. Do you want an example?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Walker »

Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:04 am But feedback from the environment does NOT confirm nor deny the accuracy of the assessment, especially for those who are already holding BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, correct, or not.
You look out the window and assess you will not need a jacket. You walk two blocks from the house and realize you’re very cold. What happened? Environmental feedback denied the accuracy of your assessment.

Seems rather simple.

As far as beliefs and assumptions go, who knows what kind of crazy cold-is-hot, up-is-down, in-is-out, good-is-evil, evil-is-good bullshit counter-intuitive assessment some ego-slave may come up with.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Age »

Walker wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:22 am
Age wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:04 am But feedback from the environment does NOT confirm nor deny the accuracy of the assessment, especially for those who are already holding BELIEFS and/or ASSUMPTIONS about what is true, right, correct, or not.
You look out the window and assess you will not need a jacket. You walk two blocks from the house and realize you’re very cold. What happened? Environmental feedback denied the accuracy of your assessment.

Seems rather simple.
You appear to have missed my point.
Walker wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 9:22 am As far as beliefs and assumptions go, who knows what kind of crazy cold-is-hot, up-is-down, in-is-out, good-is-evil, evil-is-good bullshit counter-intuitive assessment some ego-slave may come up with.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Walker »

If you think your assessment is correct I see no problem with that, since mine is the relevant point.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by DPMartin »

Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:35 am

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'one' has had the EXACT SAME experiences as "another", then that 'one' would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as the "other".


What that has to do with what you wrote is; If one has had the EXACT SAME experiences as, let us say, "michael jordan", then that one would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as "michael jordan" does.
that's not true at all you have to be MJ to be MJ, twins don't always do the same, and they are about as the same as it can be. side by side is never the same. you stand there i stand here its not the same. also if you have two MJ's then its not the same experience as only one MJ's. a copy of the master is not the master and that alone is not the same because the copy isn't the master.

for your statement to be true more then one has to experience the same and that isn't true, its like saying if water was grape fruits then ......

water isn't grape fruit, so who cares.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Age »

DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:35 am

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'one' has had the EXACT SAME experiences as "another", then that 'one' would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as the "other".


What that has to do with what you wrote is; If one has had the EXACT SAME experiences as, let us say, "michael jordan", then that one would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as "michael jordan" does.
that's not true at all
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what 'it' is, to you, correct?

You OBVIOUSLY have MISSED my point, and you have OBVIOUSLY have done NOTHING to ascertain 'it', either.
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmyou have to be MJ to be MJ, twins don't always do the same, and they are about as the same as it can be. side by side is never the same. you stand there i stand here its not the same. also if you have two MJ's then its not the same experience as only one MJ's. a copy of the master is not the master and that alone is not the same because the copy isn't the master.
This is just MORE evidence AND proof that you have completely and utterly MISSED my point.

In fact, did you even read the ACTUAL words that I used?
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmfor your statement to be true more then one has to experience the same and that isn't true, its like saying if water was grape fruits then ......

water isn't grape fruit, so who cares.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how and when human beings base their views, writings, or responses on ASSUMPTIONS, rather than CLARIFYING, FIRST.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by DPMartin »

Age wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:45 am
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pm
Age wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 7:35 am

But, OBVIOUSLY, if 'one' has had the EXACT SAME experiences as "another", then that 'one' would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as the "other".


What that has to do with what you wrote is; If one has had the EXACT SAME experiences as, let us say, "michael jordan", then that one would be doing the EXACT SAME things, as "michael jordan" does.
that's not true at all
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what 'it' is, to you, correct?

You OBVIOUSLY have MISSED my point, and you have OBVIOUSLY have done NOTHING to ascertain 'it', either.
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmyou have to be MJ to be MJ, twins don't always do the same, and they are about as the same as it can be. side by side is never the same. you stand there i stand here its not the same. also if you have two MJ's then its not the same experience as only one MJ's. a copy of the master is not the master and that alone is not the same because the copy isn't the master.
This is just MORE evidence AND proof that you have completely and utterly MISSED my point.

In fact, did you even read the ACTUAL words that I used?
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmfor your statement to be true more then one has to experience the same and that isn't true, its like saying if water was grape fruits then ......

water isn't grape fruit, so who cares.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how and when human beings base their views, writings, or responses on ASSUMPTIONS, rather than CLARIFYING, FIRST.
give it a break you're not that high up the brain scale to go one about how elusive your point may be. thing is, it seems you will go anywhere to deny you just might be incorrect.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Similarity leads to...

Post by Age »

DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:27 pm
Age wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 2:45 am
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pm

that's not true at all
If that is what you BELIEVE, then that is what 'it' is, to you, correct?

You OBVIOUSLY have MISSED my point, and you have OBVIOUSLY have done NOTHING to ascertain 'it', either.
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmyou have to be MJ to be MJ, twins don't always do the same, and they are about as the same as it can be. side by side is never the same. you stand there i stand here its not the same. also if you have two MJ's then its not the same experience as only one MJ's. a copy of the master is not the master and that alone is not the same because the copy isn't the master.
This is just MORE evidence AND proof that you have completely and utterly MISSED my point.

In fact, did you even read the ACTUAL words that I used?
DPMartin wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 4:30 pmfor your statement to be true more then one has to experience the same and that isn't true, its like saying if water was grape fruits then ......

water isn't grape fruit, so who cares.
This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of how and when human beings base their views, writings, or responses on ASSUMPTIONS, rather than CLARIFYING, FIRST.
give it a break you're not that high up the brain scale to go one about how elusive your point may be.
If thee Truth be KNOWN, this is VERY LOW on the, so called, "brain scale", (as if that is even a 'thing').
DPMartin wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:27 pm thing is, it seems you will go anywhere to deny you just might be incorrect.
I might be incorrect about 'what', EXACTLY?

Bring it forward. So, then at least we can take a LOOK AT 'it', and DISCUSS 'it', to SEE if I actually incorrect OR correct.

If you do NOT shine a LIGHT on 'it', then we have NO idea what 'it' is, which you here are suggesting I will go anywhere to deny I might just be incorrect about.

If ANY else has a CLUE on what 'it' is, then let them bring 'it' forward.

SEE, 'I' can back up and support what I say here. But can 'you'?

Now, if you wan to have a Truly OPEN discussion, then please proceed.
Post Reply