Integral Paradox

Do what you feel you have to do, but there are so many charismatic people out there with all sorts of worldviews, there has to be some reason specific ones are able to draw you in and others don't. Let rationality be the guiding force behind whatever you feel your identity should be, since it probably already is, though I think a complete breakdown of our former beliefs can be healthy and necessary at first.

My premise is well understood. In Abrahamic traditions, God isn't something you realize you are one with, it's a being you obey, to seek future reward and to avoid future punishment.

Yes but like I said, the theory of gravity waves was based on the need to explain the observable.

Right, and you can't get anywhere with math itself - you have to apply to something observable. Then boom, you have physics.

But it's never "what if there are these things called gravity waves? It wouldn't explain anything but it's possible." The theory of gravity waves was based on the need to explain the observable. By "not detactable" I don't mean to just our 5 senses, I'm including science and math, which can be considered extensions of our senses.

Something that doesn't occupy the same space as our 3-dimensional system can't be detectible, which means it fits the critera for non-existance, like the tooth fairy. It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected. If another physical system existed that we could detect through physics, then physics is the thing linking these systems to one another, meaning they're not separate after all.

Anything with the phrase "nothing exists" is bound to be paradoxical. When I said "everything exists within something," I meant that every "thing" individually is part of something larger, and "universe" should be the word that encapulates that concept. What if there are multiple multiverses? Are we just going to come up with more and more words for what we think is the largest concept possible? I say we start with "universe" being synonymous with the entirety of existence, then use smaller concepts like "dimensions" from there. As Stef points out, it's totally possible for interdimensional beings to exist, but there's no evidence for them, and if there were, why refer to them as gods?

As Kevin pointed out, it makes more sense to use the word "universe" to refer to the entirety of everything. If there are other dimensions, then there must be some single law that allows them to exist. Everything exists within something.

What would these universes be part of? It doesn't matter how many dimensions there might be - there can only be one universe, which can only be understood through reason, not preferance.

If there are no neutral actions, a person in a coma is being moral even though they have no ability to be immoral. This asserts that free will is irrelevant when coming up with criteria for moral behavior.

You're right that the "one universe = one god" assumption makes no sense - not because of the quantity of gods, but because there's no need for the invisible dieties to explain how things work. It's a question about logic, not preference.

Life itself will be cruel. There's no reason the parents should introduce them to it. If anything, they should set the example that one doesn't have to be cruel to make it in the world.

If I'm God, why do you endorse mythical religions that endorse worshiping god as a separate being? Eastern systems of philosophy like Buddhism and Vedic texts are about reaching a realization of non-duality directly, as opposed to a world view that causes gay people to kill themselves.

Gimme Some Truth - John Lennon Im sick and tired of hearing thingsFrom uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocriticsAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truthIve had enough of reading thingsBy neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politiciansAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truthNo short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dickyIs gonna mother hubbard soft soap meWith just a pocketful of hopeMoney for dopeMoney for ropeNo short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dickyIs gonna mother hubbard soft soap meWith just a pocketful of soapMoney for dopeMoney for ropeIm sick to death of seeing thingsFrom tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinistsAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truth nowIve had enough of watching scenesOf schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnasAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truthNo short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dickyIs gonna mother hubbard soft soap meWith just a pocketful of soapIts money for dopeMoney for ropeAh, Im sick and tired of hearing thingsFrom uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritesAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truth nowIve had enough of reading thingsBy neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politiciansAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truth nowAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truth nowAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truthAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truth

It's not a quote, but I have to confess I can't get his Ayn Rand impression out of my head.

I see your point now, which is that the opposite of an immoral action is included in the immoral action's negation. To me, this lowers the bar a bit too low when deciding what is and isn't moral behavior, since it would mean that the surgeon, the person in a coma, and all inatimate objects are equally moral. Forget about virtue and values, most people are not going to get on board with UPB if it can classify inanimate objects, or dead people as moral, and I think UPB has the potential to gain much more influence outside the FDR community if this counter-intuitive framework can be tweaked a bit.

So you disagree with Stef's statement below?

So under that premise, there's no neutral behavior? The person in a coma is as moral as someone saving people's lives? If not, it seems like moral behavior would have to be organized as [immoral < moral < VERY moral]. Like I said, I understand having to say "though shalt not" for wording laws, but not for determining moral opposites, and what people seem to ignore is that Stef himself used the surgeon as an example as the moral opposite to a mugger stabbing someone. To me, adhering to a valid law is not the opposite of whatever behavior the law condemns.

The initiation of rape, murder, or theft isn't really based on context, the example of a guy on an island doesn't make sense. Moral rules are about how your actions effect other people. There has to be someone else involved in order for morality to exist at all. Saving a drowning person is morally good if you choose to do it, but you can't say that you're obligated to in all situations, especially if it would involve risking your own life. Too many grey areas.

Thanks Kevin. It was a good listen, though I cringed a bit throughout since the person Stef was talking to didn't really seem to know what his own argument was (no offense if that's a member here). Stef didn't have a chance to address the objections/proposals I had, since the person he was debating didn't really know where he was going. Stef basically just clarified things already in UPB, since the person didn't understand it. I feel I do understand it. And if those here still feel I don't, I'll email him with my ideas on how to potentially fix the reasoning for the framework a little, and let you know what he thinks. I agree that the moral opposite of "X" needs to be in the same category of "X", but some action must be initiated. "Not-X" is necessary for creating valid laws, but adhering to "though shalt-not murder" is morally neutral. While adhering to the law of not murdering, there's still room to actually perform the moral opposite of murder, which would be stopping/preventing it. Once again, here's what I proposed: If you guys have objections to the above, I'm all ears, though please criticize the logic of my proposal rather than trying to explain how I'm misunderstanding UPB. Thanks.

Yes, that is what I meant, but I should have just stuck with Stef's terminology to avoid confusion. I continue to use Stef's terminology in the post I referred to in order to make my proposal of why the coma test isn't necessary for the requirement of moral laws to be stated as "though shalt not" (though I totally get why he felt it was needed). I listed the examples he gave for what muggers have to know in order to do what they do, but I don't see how any of those examples had to do with virtue. Please help me out, since you're in agreement with his statment.

Thanks for the reply PT! I was somewhat unclear in my first post. See my last post where I layed out my proposal about opposites more clearly. I listened to the video, and unfortunately I'm left with even more questions than before. Evil must have knowledge of virtue, but I don't see how that applies to a mugger. He talks about how a mugger knows that someone would rather give up their wallet then die, won't give them the wallet voluntarily, and will want to keep the wallet as their own after it is stolen. Yet I don't see how that demonstrates that a mugger has a "deep knowledge of virtue." The example of politicians manipulating people's desire for good is a great example according to his definition, I'm just not picking up on how it fits the mugger. Maybe someone can explain what I'm missing.

Feel free to leave my posts hanging if you feel I didn't come here in search for truth. My intention hasn't been to irritate you. I reread the thread, and offer a crystilized version of what I propose since I indeed had certain things mixed up before. 1) Laws must be put in terms of "though shalt not," not because of the coma test, but because only laws regarding evil behavior can be made universal. Initiation of force and property theft are always immoral, whereas what is good is almost always based on context, often involving subjective emotions, which UPB understandably tries to keep at a minimum. 2) Moral opposites exist, but not through "rape vs not-rape" logic (which where the coma premise is off). Any behavior that is good or bad must be initated. A moral action should be defined as any action that repairs/heals/fixes the property of someone else, or actively prevents a future evil from occuring to someone else (without breaking a moral law in the process). 3) A law itself has no moral content, it is only a statement about that which does have moral content. Actions are empirical, and can have moral content since they can be initiated, but laws can only be valid or invalid (which UPB gives fantastic criteria for), but not good or bad. Breaking a "shalt not" law requires initiation of immoral behavior, though adhering to a "shalt not" law does not require initiation, therefore is not its moral opposite and cannot be defined as "good." The three points I just provide what I feel is a valid definition of moral opposites that also mirrors Stef's mugger/surgeon example, and saves UPB from confusion about negation and opposites, while maintianing the necessary requirement of universal moral laws being stated as "shalt not." That's as clear as I can get in my proposition. If you still feel I just formulated that to irritate you, feel free to give up on this thread, and maybe someone else will give their opinion. Thanks.

So virtue and vice are terms regarding the character of an individual, and good and evil regarding the behavior itself. Got it. My point still stands that a "non-X" cannot be either good or evil since it has no content, it's a non-behavior. According to UPB, being in a coma is good behavior because it involves not doing evil. If you go on to say that it doesn't apply because he has no choice, you've violated the framework of UPB since UPB can only make statements on behavior, not "states of mind." I really think UPB has done a better job in its attempt to provide an objective way of evaluating moral propositions than any other system, it just needs to fix the opposite/negation dilemma, which I think is possible.

Does it work the other way around though? According to the above quote, the man in the coma is "good" for not raping, which makes as little sense as him being evil for not behaving morally.