Morality as Symmetry in Time

[Logik]

I have already PROVEN that I can justify why I answer with a yes OR with a no. In case you are unaware, the REASON why I answer with a yes or with a no is because I WANT to. There (validly) JUSTIFIED. Very simple really.

This is just like absolutely EVERY thing you do is because you WANT to, also.

You want to justify your answers to other people?

Strange desire.

Have you ever seen one of those online "IQ tests" that ask you really dumb questions?
You get to question 120 and the test continues.
You get to question 250 and the test continues. Still dumb questions - but whatever!
And you get to question 572 and the test continues, but you just WANT to know what your IQ is. So you keep answering dumb questions.

Then you figure out that the way to get a "high score" is to figure out that you are being taken for a ride!
The sooner you quit - the higher score you get.

That's how philosophy works.

Philosophers care about "justification" (whatever the fuck that is), scientist care about methodical rigour.

Unless you can demonstrate your method, your answers are as good as a coin flip.

[Age]

I do NOT see a problem because there is NO problem here for me.

Is there a problem for you?

Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. It's another yes/no question.

I validly JUSTIFIED what I set out to do, so there is NO problem, and nothing else more for me to do here.

Did you validly justify what you set out to do?

Maybe you did. Maybe you didn't. Yes/no question again!

So you justified a yes/no question with by making a statement which requires you to answer another yes/no question.
Which you then justified with yet another yes/no question.

But I did NOT provide ANOTHER any thing to YOUR question.

The brain within that body is ASSUMING things, once AGAIN.

Also, there is NO requirement here. The only so called "requirement" regarding this comes from a distorted brain.

The infinite regress is so obvious that you can't see it.

Obviously I can SEE what you are trying to show and prove here, that is HOW and WHY I did NOT fall into your little word game.

But all you are really doing is a little bit of deception to TRY and deceive and distort the actual and real Truth of things. Although you are completely unaware that that is what you are actually doing. You are incapable of working things out by yourself so when you find some thing, discovered and/or written by others, that you BELIEVE is true, then you will continue to use that even if it is only a "theory", which could be completely FALSE.

Quick! Stick your head in the sand! Maybe it will pass.

Or perhaps you will recognise that equivocation and truisms are not knowledge?

You have already stated that YOU can NOT justify any thing you say. Therefore, it is so.

If you want to move on to more topics and we want to now talk about truisms, remember it was you who wrote and stated that Humans can reason.

In regards to equivocation, from my perspective, it is you who is TRYING TO use language to support your distorted BELIEFS, to conceal the actual and real Truth. Although you are not aware of this because you are doing this completely unconsciously.

And, if I recall correctly it was also you who stated something like, Knowledge is impossible.

If you really want to discuss what you BELIEVE is True, which has not much at all to do with this thread, how about you start a new thread about what it is that you want to prove is correct?

[Age]

I have already PROVEN that I can justify why I answer with a yes OR with a no. In case you are unaware, the REASON why I answer with a yes or with a no is because I WANT to. There (validly) JUSTIFIED. Very simple really.

This is just like absolutely EVERY thing you do is because you WANT to, also.

You want to justify your answers to other people?

Strange desire.

Another example of another assumption, which is totally WRONG.

What can also be noticed here is how this WRONG assuming and believing also effects the way this subject writes. The test subject here makes a statement, adds a question mark at the end, and then provide their OWN answer. This happens quite frequently with this subject.

Have you ever seen one of those online "IQ tests" that ask you really dumb questions?

No.

You get to question 120 and the test continues.
You get to question 250 and the test continues. Still dumb questions - but whatever!
And you get to question 572 and the test continues, but you just WANT to know what your IQ is. So you keep answering dumb questions.

Then you figure out that the way to get a "high score" is to figure out that you are being taken for a ride!
The sooner you quit - the higher score you get.

That's how philosophy works.

Is that how "philosophy" works, for you. Thank you for this information. Would you now care to give YOUR definition for the word 'philosophy'?

By the way if that is how "philosophy" works, for you, and you even are AWARE that the sooner you quit - the higher score you get, but yet you still remain here, in a "philosophy" forum, where the 'test' continues, then does that at all seem contradictory for you to CONTINUE to remain here.

Philosophers care about "justification" (whatever the fuck that is), scientist care about methodical rigour.

What is the purpose of and for the methodical rigor?

Unless you can demonstrate your method, your answers are as good as a coin flip.

I have ALREADY demonstrated My method. Did you miss that ALSO?

You have also demonstrated YOUR method, do you remember. You say that you just deduce. You go from making your OWN assumption/s, and then jumping straight to a conclusion.

[Logik]

What can also be noticed here is how this WRONG assuming and believing also effects the way this subject writes. The test subject here makes a statement, adds a question mark at the end, and then provide their OWN answer. This happens quite frequently with this subject.

Am I the test subject or you?

Flip a coin

Is that how "philosophy" works, for you. Thank you for this information. Would you now care to give YOUR definition for the word 'philosophy'?

Search for Truth.

By the way if that is how "philosophy" works, for you, and you even are AWARE that the sooner you quit - the higher score you get, but yet you still remain here, in a "philosophy" forum, where the 'test' continues, then does that at all seem contradictory for you to CONTINUE to remain here.

I am on a philosophy forum, but I am not doing philosophy. I am applying science.

What is the purpose of and for the methodical rigor?

To increase one's certainty beyond 50%.

Beyond a coin flip.

I have ALREADY demonstrated My method. Did you miss that ALSO?

And I already demonstrated that your method didn't address anything.

You answered one yes/no question but you left another yes/no question unanswered.

So my uncertainty about the correctness of answer is still 50%.

You have also demonstrated YOUR method, do you remember. You say that you just deduce. You go from making your OWN assumption/s, and then jumping straight to a conclusion.

Yes. I concluded that you are mortal.

Was that a wrong conclusion?

[Age]

Is that how "philosophy" works, for you. Thank you for this information. Would you now care to give YOUR definition for the word 'philosophy'?

Search for Truth.

But just one, definition of many.

By the way if that is how "philosophy" works, for you, and you even are AWARE that the sooner you quit - the higher score you get, but yet you still remain here, in a "philosophy" forum, where the 'test' continues, then does that at all seem contradictory for you to CONTINUE to remain here.

I am on a philosophy forum, but I am not doing philosophy. I am applying science.

If you so believe that jumping straight from making your own assumption to deducing a conclusion, without (any) reason is applying science, then so be it.

I have ALREADY demonstrated My method. Did you miss that ALSO?

And I already demonstrated that your method didn't address anything.

Did you?

You answered one yes/no question but you left another yes/no question unanswered.

Because I did NOT want nor need to.

So my uncertainty about the correctness of answer is still 50%.

Who cares?

You have also demonstrated YOUR method, do you remember. You say that you just deduce. You go from making your OWN assumption/s, and then jumping straight to a conclusion.

Yes. I concluded that you are mortal.

Without any reason also.

Was that a wrong conclusion?

Was that a right conclusion?

You are the one who deduced that conclusion.


Look you theorized that I could not do some thing. I then did that thing, so I falsified that theory. End of story.

[Logik]

If you so believe that jumping straight from making your own assumption to deducing a conclusion, without (any) reason is applying science, then so be it.

Science is empiricism + process of elimination. No reason required.

I have ALREADY demonstrated My method. Did you miss that ALSO?

And I already demonstrated that your method didn't address anything.

Did you?

It's one or the other. 50/50. Shall we flip a coin?

Who cares?

Apparently you do. You keep asking "Are you 100% certain?"

Without any reason also.

Of course! With deduction instead of reason.

Was that a wrong conclusion?

Was that a right conclusion?

Well it was either the right or the wrong conclusion. 50/50.

Shall we flip a coin again!

You are the one who deduced that conclusion.

That I did.

Look you theorized that I could not do some thing. I then did that thing, so I falsified that theory. End of story.

If you had done the thing I asked you to do then it would have been end of story. In that premise I agree entirely.

It just seems to me that we are having difficulty deciding whether you did or didn't do what I asked you to do.

It's one or the other. 50/50. Shall we flip a coin?

Is it not you who keeps saying "The Truth shall be known when everything is in agreement"?

How do we decide and agree on the right answer?

[Age]

If you so believe that jumping straight from making your own assumption to deducing a conclusion, without (any) reason is applying science, then so be it.

Science is empiricism + process of elimination. No reason required.

Your definition of 'science' is empiricism plus process of elimination. What is your definition of 'empiricism'?

Who cares?

Apparently you do. You keep asking "Are you 100% certain?"

HOW many posts back was the last time I asked "Are you 100% certain"?

Just to be clear since you answered that you are NEVER 100% certain of any thing, then that was enough clarification for Me. Since then you have have also clarified that:
You do NOT use reason to deduce.
You arrive at a conclusion with absolutely NO need for (any) reason at all.
You also clarified that you are completely unable to justify your responses.
Therefore, if you inform us again: So my uncertainty about the correctness of answer is still 50%. Then I will most likely again respond back with: Who cares?.

My response really had nothing whatsoever at all to do with me asking you "Are you 100% certain? of some thing way BEFORE you informed us of the above. In fact to suggest that it was so would be absolutely FALSE. My response had to do with you telling us that your uncertainty about a correctness of an answer is 50%.

Just to make it clear; if your certainty about one of your answers is 100%, then let me KNOW. Because then that is when I care. Otherwise, I really do NOT care how much or how little certainty you have put into any answer whatsoever, including yours, mine, anyone else's, or even a coins. Unless of course I ask you for how much certainty are you giving that answer.

Without any reason also.

Of course! With deduction instead of reason.

By the way, some be noticing by now how, when BELIEFS search out confirmation biases and grab onto any thing, that they inevitably get STUCK. That is until that BELIEF is changed, removed, or gotten rid of.

Was that a wrong conclusion?

Was that a right conclusion?

Well it was either the right or the wrong conclusion. 50/50.

Shall we flip a coin again!

WHY the 'we' and the 'again' words here. I have NEVER flipped a coin to find an answer to a question. Only YOU do that sort of thing. And ONLY you do that, that I know of.

Look you theorized that I could not do some thing. I then did that thing, so I falsified that theory. End of story.

If you had done the thing I asked you to do then it would have been end of story. In that premise I agree entirely.

It just seems to me that we are having difficulty deciding whether you did or didn't do what I asked you to do.

What is that you think you ask me to do?

I also have absolutely NO difficulty in deciding.

It's one or the other. 50/50. Shall we flip a coin?

Lol

Is it not you who keeps saying "The Truth shall be known when everything is in agreement"?

I will agree with you here though.

Although the chances of you even beginning to understand what is happening here now will be very, very low.

How do we decide and agree on the right answer?

When you finish with the last point, then we can move onto another one like this one, if that is what you want to move onto now.

I have already done what you said I could NOT do and what I set out to do. I have NO difficulty in deciding that. You, however, appear to disagree with what I SEE. Now, just so that we are all clear here, tell us what you asked me to do, and tell us why, from your perspective, I have, supposedly, NOT done that yet.

Once we are completely finished with this issue, then we can move on.

[Logik]

What is that you think you ask me to do?

I asked you to justify your answer.
And then I asked you to justify your justification.

I also have absolutely NO difficulty in deciding.

No? Then tell us HOW you did it. Because it seems to me you are just picking the answers at random.

Like a coin.

Although the chances of you even beginning to understand what is happening here now will be very, very low.

Lower or higher than 50%? Like a coin.

I have already done what you said I could NOT do and what I set out to do. I have NO difficulty in deciding that.

If you have indeed done what I asked you to do then you should have no difficulty explaining to the onlookers HOW you decided it.
So that we can reach the same conclusion/answer on our own.
So that we can reach the same conclusion/answer without having to ask you.
So that we can decide for ourselves if your answer is right or wrong.

You, however, appear to disagree with what I SEE.

I have not disagreed with what you see!

I disagree with the inference you have made based on your observations.

Now, just so that we are all clear here, tell us what you asked me to do, and tell us why, from your perspective, I have, supposedly, NOT done that yet.

I want you to explain to me how you got to the answer to the question "Can humans reason?"
I want you to tell me HOW to get the answer to such yes/no questions in future so that I don't have to keep asking you.

[Age]

What is that you think you ask me to do?

I asked you to justify your answer.
And then I asked you to justify your justification.

So, If I made a justification, of which you asked me to justify, then that means I justified that answer that you asked me to justify.
Therefore, I did what you asked me to do, and what I set out to do.

As for justifying my justification, I did NOT need to do that as I had already did what you said I could NOT do, which I said I could do, and set out to do, and then did do. Falsifying your theory.

I also have absolutely NO difficulty in deciding.

No? Then tell us HOW you did it. Because it seems to me you are just picking the answers at random.

Like a coin.

Tell you HOW i did what exactly?

Although the chances of you even beginning to understand what is happening here now will be very, very low.

Lower or higher than 50%? Like a coin.

Lower.

Much lower.

I have already done what you said I could NOT do and what I set out to do. I have NO difficulty in deciding that.

If you have indeed done what I asked you to do then you should have no difficulty explaining to the onlookers HOW you decided it.

With reason, that is HOW.

So that we can reach the same conclusion/answer on our own.
So that we can reach the same conclusion/answer without having to ask you.

What are you talking about now exactly?

You, however, appear to disagree with what I SEE.

I have not disagreed with what you see!

I disagree with the inference you have made based on your observations.

Okay, fair enough.

I want you to explain to me how you got to the answer to the question "Can humans reason?"

With, and through, reason.

Through reason I deduced that humans CAN reason.

If you BELIEVE that they can NOT, then you are free to BELIEVE that, and any thing else you like.

But even you have agreed that humans CAN reason when you stated stated: humans can reason.

I want you to tell me HOW to get the answer to such yes/no questions in future so that I don't have to keep asking you.

With reason.

To deduce better, so that you can arrive at a more true, more right, and more correct answer, then to deduce with reason, helps considerably.

To deduce without reason, you will inevitably find that using a coin will be just as helpful to you. But you have ALREADY discovered this, right?

[Logik]

As for justifying my justification, I did NOT need to do that as I had already did what you said I could NOT do, which I said I could do, and set out to do, and then did do. Falsifying your theory.

But my theory was that you can't justify any justification without succumbing to infinite regress.
Which you couldn't and still can't do. So my theory was and is true.

So you are wrong about having falsified my theory.

Tell you HOW i did what exactly?

How you decided that what you call "justification" is, in fact, valid justification.

Lower.

Much lower.

Wow! That's great! To be honest, I wish I could be wrong 100% of the time! That would be incredibly useful!

Then the right answer is always the opposite of what I say!

With reason.

To deduce better, so that you can arrive at a more true, more right, and more correct answer, then to deduce with reason, helps considerably.

To deduce without reason, you will inevitably find that using a coin will be just as helpful to you. But you have ALREADY discovered this, right?

Age, this is NOT useful at all!

The moment I ask you this question: Are you deducing with reason or without reason?

Why can't you just explain to me how to get the answer for myself, so that I don't have to ask you the question to begin with?

Explain to me how to tell the difference between "deduction with reason" and "deduction without reason".

[Age]

As for justifying my justification, I did NOT need to do that as I had already did what you said I could NOT do, which I said I could do, and set out to do, and then did do. Falsifying your theory.

But my theory was that you can't justify any justification without succumbing to infinite regress.
Which you couldn't and still can't do. So my theory was and is true.

So you are wrong about having falsified my theory.

If that is your "theory" now, and it WAS and IS "true", then it can NOT be falsified.

Therefore, I MUST be WRONG, and you MUST be RIGHT.

End of story.

However, some might disagree with you that a 'theory' WAS and IS true.

If a statement, (pretending to be a theory), WAS and IS true, then some would just call that a truism.

Tell you HOW i did what exactly?

How you decided that what you call "justification" is, in fact, valid justification.

As I SHOWED earlier, even YOU wrote; humans can reason.

Lower.

Much lower.

Wow! That's great! To be honest, I wish I could be wrong 100% of the time! That would be incredibly useful!

Then the right answer is always the opposite of what I say!

Only you would KNOW that.

And, MY response was in regards to only one thing ONLY, by the way. Which is, once again, NOTHING like, what you are assuming and/or implying here.

With reason.

To deduce better, so that you can arrive at a more true, more right, and more correct answer, then to deduce with reason, helps considerably.

To deduce without reason, you will inevitably find that using a coin will be just as helpful to you. But you have ALREADY discovered this, right?

Age, this is NOT useful at all!

The moment I ask you this question: Are you deducing with reason or without reason?

It does NOT matter at all.

Why can't you just explain to me how to get the answer for myself, so that I don't have to ask you the question to begin with?

Get to the answer of WHAT exactly?

And, are you assuming that I can NOT explain to you how to get the answer for yourself?

Explain to me how to tell the difference between "deduction with reason" and "deduction without reason".

One is deducing with reason, and, the other is deducing without reason.

[Logik]

Get to the answer of WHAT exactly?

The answer to the question: "Is Age deducing with reason?".
The answer is either Yes or No.

I don't want you to tell me what the answer IS.
I want you to tell me how to arrive at the answer for myself.

And, are you assuming that I can NOT explain to you how to get the answer for yourself?

I am not assuming anything. I am asking you to help me derive the "Yes" or "No" answer for myself.

One is deducing with reason, and, the other is deducing without reason.

How do I tell the difference between the two?

[Age]

Get to the answer of WHAT exactly?

The answer to the question: "Is Age deducing with reason?".
The answer is either Yes or No.

That would depend.

I don't want you to tell me what the answer IS.

Okay I will NOT then.

I want you to tell me how to arrive at the answer for myself.

The same way you arrive at all the answers for yourself.

How do you do that?

And, are you assuming that I can NOT explain to you how to get the answer for yourself?

I am not assuming anything. I am asking you to help me derive the "Yes" or "No" answer for myself.

You can do or use whatever you want to do or use.

You can even use a coin if you so wish. What you do is get a coin and flip it. But I think you KNOW this way already.

One is deducing with reason, and, the other is deducing without reason.

How do I tell the difference between the two?

Very easily.

[Logik]

The same way you arrive at all the answers for yourself.

It can't be the same way because our answers to the question "Can humans reason?" was different to yours.

I want you to teach me your way.

You can do or use whatever you want to do or use.

You can even use a coin if you so wish. What you do is get a coin and flip it. But I think you KNOW this way already.

Apparently it's wrong to use a coin.

I want to be right. Teach me your way.

Very easily.

It is so difficult for me that I can't see any difference.

Point out the difference, please? Teach me to recognise it.

[Age]

The same way you arrive at all the answers for yourself.

It can't be the same way because our answers to the question "Can humans reason?" was different to yours.

Who/what is the word 'our' refer to here?

I want you to teach me your way.

Okay.

You can do or use whatever you want to do or use.

You can even use a coin if you so wish. What you do is get a coin and flip it. But I think you KNOW this way already.

Apparently it's wrong to use a coin.

Who said it is wrong?

I want to be right. Teach me your way.

Why? Are you NOT happy with the way you do and see things now?

Very easily.

It is so difficult for me that I can't see any difference.

Point out the difference, please? Teach me to recognise it.

The difference in WHAT exactly?