"Ought" Derivable from "Is"

[surreptitious75]

How can you prove I 2 3 4 5 6 ... is an infinite sequence ?

You dont have to count every single integer to prove the number line is infinite - as you know very well - so your question is simply unnecessary
The positive integers are an infinite set as is the number line itself that is infinite in both directions - and is also something you know very well

[Ecmandu]

How can you prove I 2 3 4 5 6 ... is an infinite sequence ?

You dont have to count every single integer to prove the number line is infinite - as you know very well - so your question is simply unnecessary
The positive integers are an infinite set as is the number line itself that is infinite in both directions - and is also something you know very well

That’s completely my point and not my point at all!

Syllogisms cannot infer like the higher level mind constantly does! The “ought“ in this Example is that we know we can’t prove it by counting all the numbers (the “is”) but we derive an “ought” by knowing they go on forever sequentially (inference).

[surreptitious75]

Birth is neutral consent . Consent occurs later in life . Without birth we cant even have a consent to be violated

If we die forever after this : suicide is the most rational choice

There is no such thing as neutral consent which is an oxymoron - you cannot consent to being born - so its negative consent not neutral
No birth means no existence which will only come with death which is the end of all consent violation - so peace will come eventually
A billion years - when all life will cease once the ocean temperatures rise - is nothing at all compared to the eternity of non existence

[surreptitious75]

Syllogisms cannot infer like the higher level mind constantly does ! The ought in this Example is that we know we cant prove
it by counting all the numbers ( the is ) but we derive an ought by knowing they go on forever sequentially ( inference )

That example is entirely irrelevant because ought and is pertain to moral philosophy rather than to mathematics
Morality is subjective not deductive like math is and objective morality is not truly objective - merely consensual

[Ecmandu]

Syllogisms cannot infer like the higher level mind constantly does ! The ought in this Example is that we know we cant prove
it by counting all the numbers ( the is ) but we derive an ought by knowing they go on forever sequentially ( inference )

That example is entirely irrelevant because ought and is pertain to moral philosophy rather than to mathematics
Morality is subjective not deductive like math is and objective morality is not truly objective - merely consensual

It’s the same thing. Morality can ONLY be derived from inference! Just like math.

Everyones consent is violated.
Nobody likes their consent violated.
The goal of everybody (morally) is to completely eradicate consent violation.

Just like math, all of this is inference (perfectly sound inference) from the is to the ought.

All of this (just like math) requires higher cognitive functioning than the premises and conclusion

[Prismatic567]

Syllogisms cannot infer like the higher level mind constantly does ! The ought in this Example is that we know we cant prove
it by counting all the numbers ( the is ) but we derive an ought by knowing they go on forever sequentially ( inference )

That example is entirely irrelevant because ought and is pertain to moral philosophy rather than to mathematics
Morality is subjective not deductive like math is and objective morality is not truly objective - merely consensual

It’s the same thing. Morality can ONLY be derived from inference! Just like math.

Everyones consent is violated.
Nobody likes their consent violated.
The goal of everybody (morally) is to completely eradicate consent violation.

Just like math, all of this is inference (perfectly sound inference) from the is to the ought.

All of this (just like math) requires higher cognitive functioning than the premises and conclusion

It is more realistic and practical to state,
-the goal of everybody [morally] is to completely flow spontaneously & positively with consent [as defined] that are good and avoid those that are evil.

[Ecmandu]

Your post is off topic (that there are higher cognitive functions than syllogisms) but I’ll answer it anyways!

We live in a negative zero sum reality. All goods have / are evils as well. Being awake is knowing this for a fact and not tolerating it.

[Silhouette]

You missed my whole point. I can write a syllogism that states that:

1.) “repeatedly adding one to a sequence a 1 that doesn’t stop”

2.) if you can’t count it, then you can’t be sure it doesn’t stop

I didn't miss the point, I disagreed with it and logically proved the grounds of my disagreement. Just because you don't like my disproof of your point, doesn't mean I missed the point or that I'm wrong.

I think you ought to learn a bit about syllogisms before you trash them for getting in the way of your "intuitions". You don't just state a couple of claims and call it a syllogism - there's a specific form that a syllogism follows. E.g. you could have said:
P1. It is possible to repeatedly add 1 to a sequence
P2. Not being able to complete repeated addition is insufficient proof that it goes on infinitely
C1. Repeated addition of 1 to a sequence can't be sufficiently proven to go on infinitely
At least then you'd have a valid syllogism - but it still wouldn't be sound because premise 2 isn't true.

It might be the case that you personally will only regard "what you can directly experience" as proof, but the conclusion I provided relies on the notion of "don't stop". You could be strictly pragmatic and claim that in practice nobody can live forever to successfully perform "not stopping", but if you accept the theoretical possibility of "not stopping" aside from practical limitations of actually doing it (and empirically confirming the reasoning), then the conclusion is necessarily true by virtue of the valid logic structured in my syllogism.

But humans already had the Empiricism vs Rationalism bout a few hundred years ago.
Personally I acknowledge the importance of the experience of "intuition" as a kind of "internal check" as to whether something really is or isn't logical. The experience is a kind of familiar feeling based on previous experience of logic. On a psychological level, this is in fact the best that humans can do on a maximally individual level with regard to logic, but the sociological experience of dialectically refining your intuitions of "logic" cannot be ignored - because it distinguishes "I'm right because of the experience of intuition alone" from "I'm right because of sociologically tempered experience of intuition". The latter is how everyone learns the language and thought processes to mentally encompass "logic" and "intuition" in the first place, and is ultimately the only way to best intuit the effectiveness of your own intuitions with regard to logic. There's a basic failure on your part to constructively participate in the social refining of your intuitions in relation to logic.

I know silhouette, I know the way your mind works with your ego. I know this is anathema to you. Syllogisms don’t work. It’s all intuition. Me, being an objectivist, understands how frustrating that is to you.

Being able to confidently and competently disassemble someone's point, to highlight the flaws that make it wrong, doesn't mean you have an "ego" - no matter how resentful you might feel for having it done to you.

It would be possible for someone to be motivated to try and prove you wrong because they had an ego, but there are many other motivations to want to do this. As such, concluding that an "ego" is involved is known as "abductive reasoning", which is basically just "jumping to conclusions". I'm sure this fits in just fine with your "intuitionism", where basically anything goes as long as you suspect it. Convenient, huh?
It would also be possible for someone to have such faith in their own intuitions as you do because they have an "ego". Observe as I do not now jump to this conclusion before logically verifying it - i.e. completely casting off anything to do with my own "ego" in favour of being impartial and objective.
An "intuitionist", such as you are modelling yourself to be, is basically the opposite of an "objectivist". Objectivism (n.b. not the Ayn Rand nonsense) is what I'm doing - being objective. I don't want to downplay the value of intuition - intuitions often turn out to be correct, but to stick to the scientific method to confirm if they turn out to be correct or not, you can only draw upon intuitions as far as your hypothesis. From then on, you devise an experiment to isolate independent variables against which to measure your hypothesis objectively, acknowledging as many caveats as you can as to the accuracy and reliability of doing so. You then take nothing more than the data you've gathered to inform your conclusions. Only in your evaluation can you then compare your objective findings to your intuitions to detemine whether they really were correct or not.

All of the above is cold hard fact. Any injection of "ego" into the mix is on your part alone. It's your right to indulge in "psychological projection" if that's what you're doing, but as for me - if I could get everyone else to focus only on the contents of my arguments instead of me as a person, I would. "Me" is 100% irrelevant, if I may have so much of an ego to claim such an egotistical sentiment.


Anyway - it's a stretch, but I'm gonna claim this is all still on topic to the extent that it challenges the form of syllogisms themselves, and addresses attitudes towards syllogisms, when syllogism was a main feature of the OP...

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

[Prismatic567]

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

Point is, syllogism should be the core of any argument.
You cannot simply dismiss the effectiveness of syllogism but has to use it along with other tools qualifying its limitation.
Since syllogism has limitations, you need to support your argument with other philosophical tools that are useful to support the argument.

Note two tools among others;

Reflective Equilibrium,
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

Coherentism
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another.

In the above approaches, one can bring all all relevant justifiable information to support one's argument.

When you bring in anything that is supposedly intuitive, you still have to ensure it have some degree of reasonableness.
Your 'consent' theory may be intuitive, but as I have shown it is not solidly sound by the counters I provided.

I will agree with my consent [as defined] rejected if anyone can prove convincingly that what I consented to has evil elements which I may have been ignorant or not-aware of.

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

Point is, syllogism should be the core of any argument.
You cannot simply dismiss the effectiveness of syllogism but has to use it along with other tools qualifying its limitation.
Since syllogism has limitations, you need to support your argument with other philosophical tools that are useful to support the argument.

Note two tools among others;

Reflective Equilibrium,
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

Coherentism
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another.

In the above approaches, one can bring all all relevant justifiable information to support one's argument.

When you bring in anything that is supposedly intuitive, you still have to ensure it have some degree of reasonableness.
Your 'consent' theory may be intuitive, but as I have shown it is not solidly sound by the counters I provided.

I will agree with my consent [as defined] rejected if anyone can prove convincingly that what I consented to has evil elements which I may have been ignorant or not-aware of.

“My consent theory” is not counterable, it’s true by definition. I can’t remember your argument to counter it. Did you use the birth example like everyone does? I can’t remember. Birth is always neutral consent. You need to be born to have or not have consent.

Anyways... I’d like to again see how you ‘proved’ this is not a sound idea (apologies - but if it really means something to you, and it’s on the ‘tip of your tongue’ then it shouldn’t be much of an imposition! Me? I have to re-read the whole thread!

Reflective equillibrianism and coheretism are bullshit.

These concepts don’t prove soundness. Truth in all logic is and only is visceral, is a feeling about words.

Have you ever heard of “boo/yeah theory“. We as primates either boo something or we cheer for it. Funny theory by the way!

Something can be perfectly true, but animals like us always have the option of “booing” it.

I find this on YouTube ... I look at a great number of songs on it, sure as shit, the definitively one of the coolest songs ever has thumbs down. The only exception is very specific performances of classical music that almost everyone on earth is not in the know. Then you’ll find no thumbs down. There are probably at least a million people on earth who hate ALL music.

It’s insane, but that’s their gig in life, so they boo everything.

In the same way, logic bothers at least a million people, they just boo it no matter what.

So you’re going to tell me a syllogism is going to work on these people if you add the spices of coherentism and equilibrianism ? They don’t give a shit. All they care about is using meaningless words to their advantage in a might makes right dominance concept of existence. Their words and logic never worked for them as children when mommy and daddy, life, existence used to beat the shit out of them everyday for ‘being smart’

They don’t give a fuck about reference!

You come on this board with a syllogism etc... thinking that you actually solved something. You didn’t solve shit. Yes, people know what your words mean, they just don’t care... their higher brain doesn’t care. To talk to people like this, you have to make sense appealing to their higher brain. It’s not easy work.

[Prismatic567]

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

Point is, syllogism should be the core of any argument.
You cannot simply dismiss the effectiveness of syllogism but has to use it along with other tools qualifying its limitation.
Since syllogism has limitations, you need to support your argument with other philosophical tools that are useful to support the argument.

Note two tools among others;

Reflective Equilibrium,
Reflective equilibrium is a state of balance or coherence among a set of beliefs arrived at by a process of deliberative mutual adjustment among general principles and particular judgments.

Coherentism
Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must “cohere” with one another.

In the above approaches, one can bring all all relevant justifiable information to support one's argument.

When you bring in anything that is supposedly intuitive, you still have to ensure it have some degree of reasonableness.
Your 'consent' theory may be intuitive, but as I have shown it is not solidly sound by the counters I provided.

I will agree with my consent [as defined] rejected if anyone can prove convincingly that what I consented to has evil elements which I may have been ignorant or not-aware of.

“My consent theory” is not counterable, it’s true by definition. I can’t remember your argument to counter it. Did you use the birth example like everyone does? I can’t remember. Birth is always neutral consent. You need to be born to have or not have consent.

Anyways... I’d like to again see how you ‘proved’ this is not a sound idea (apologies - but if it really means something to you, and it’s on the ‘tip of your tongue’ then it shouldn’t be much of an imposition! Me? I have to re-read the whole thread!

Reflective equillibrianism and coheretism are bullshit.

These concepts don’t prove soundness. Truth in all logic is and only is visceral, is a feeling about words.

Have you ever heard of “boo/yeah theory“. We as primates either boo something or we cheer for it. Funny theory by the way!

Something can be perfectly true, but animals like us always have the option of “booing” it.

I find this on YouTube ... I look at a great number of songs on it, sure as shit, the definitively one of the coolest songs ever has thumbs down. The only exception is very specific performances of classical music that almost everyone on earth is not in the know. Then you’ll find no thumbs down. There are probably at least a million people on earth who hate ALL music.

It’s insane, but that’s their gig in life, so they boo everything.

In the same way, logic bothers at least a million people, they just boo it no matter what.

So you’re going to tell me a syllogism is going to work on these people if you add the spices of coherentism and equilibrianism ? They don’t give a shit. All they care about is using meaningless words to their advantage in a might makes right dominance concept of existence. Their words and logic never worked for them as children when mommy and daddy, life, existence used to beat the shit out of them everyday for ‘being smart’

They don’t give a fuck about reference!

You come on this board with a syllogism etc... thinking that you actually solved something. You didn’t solve shit. Yes, people know what your words mean, they just don’t care... their higher brain doesn’t care. To talk to people like this, you have to make sense appealing to their higher brain. It’s not easy work.

Btw, I never claimed syllogism is a final and ultimate determinant of truth, reality, facts, etc.
It is well recognized a syllogism can be logically valid but the conclusion is not necessary sound, Note GIGO.

What syllogism will do is to provide the initial structure as some sort of systematized reference to argue on.
It is very common and a critique requisite of efficiency of the requirement of a 'blueprint,' maps, flowcharts, plans before one build some kind of complex structure. It is with such a reference point that one can begin to change the plan and build in accordance to what is planned.
In addition, the planning and implementation is supplement with various tools.

In the case of establishing philosophical truth, I suggest among other, Reflective Equilibrium, coherentism and others.

What you are proposing is without relying on some sort of reference [syllogism, blueprints, charts, models, plans] and you will end up philosophizing rudderlessly.
This is philosophical incompetence, analogically like an architect who agrees with his client to build a 100-storey building without any architectural plans but rather than blindly and squabbling on the intended objectives while constructing the building which is likely to collapse and unfit for occupation.

Point is the great philosophers, scientists and other with genius ideas would have relied on higher cognitive abilities, intuition, imagination* and the likes, but the bottom line is whatever they proposed and accepted as truth must be syllogistic or coherent, and justified as Justified True Beliefs.

[Ecmandu]

Justified true belief “facts” only matter if you have a goal (such as a 100 story building or flying to the moon).

Most people don’t have that selective pressure.

Do you really think Donald trump has ANY selective pressure for truth in any way? No!

He’s the first post modern moral nihilist leader in the world’s history.

Before Hitler came into power, the first thing he did was to discredit all possible media as “fake news”.

Hitler wasn’t a moral nihilist though. Trump is much scarier!

Hitler spent his whole life looking for the “pure” religion. Trump doesn’t give a fuck about logic or anything except being admired (and he doesn’t know how to do that well).

He said to people a couple months before the election that he had a revelation that abortion is wrong: boom! All the Christians took his side!

Trump doesn’t give a fuck. He’s a moral nihilist. He just knew that he had to say that.

All trump is, is a fucking walking and talking focus group!

You think that’d work every time! But no! Trump is such a shithead that he can’t even do that right!

[Silhouette]

Silhouette,

To your entire post! I’m debating post modernists in another thread. Words are just words talking about more words and they don’t mean shit! Ever.

How the fuck are you going to come into this debate with syllogisms?!?!

You’re not. You have to appeal to a cognition that’s higher than syllogisms.

You didn’t put me in my place at all. It’s impossible to defend an infinite sequence with a syllogism, impossible. The human mind is so much, so much greater that what a puny syllogism can offer/provide.

I can call it intuition, or simply a higher cognition we all possess.

Eh, you could call it higher cognition, lower cognition, metacognition, whatever - but you chose "higher". What do you think postmodernism would say about this from your discussions with other postmodernists on this other thread?

Postmodernists hold to a concept known as "privilege" as I'm sure you're aware: you mention how "words are just words talking about more words", which I agree with. So due to this inherent internal circularity there is no true grounding as to whether something is higher or lower or anything at all - unless you "privilege" the value of some words over others. If you do so, you can go on to feel justified in regarding things like intuition as "higher" than logic.
Note that you could do the reverse with just as much/little justification.

This would be why people "boo/yeah", because they tend to value differently or similarly, privileging one set of values over another, priming them to easily reject (boo) that which is too different to what they already value and accept (yeah) that which is similar enough to what they already value.

This presents a problem for intuitionists like yourself, because if your intuitions are rare, you're simply going to come up against much more opposition merely by statistics. Your own consciousness is peculiar to yourself, your personal experience only shared by those who just happened to live similarly enough to yourself - when you might be a particularly rare individual. By contrast, when you're tapped into what's popular, you can much more easily gain popularity simply by appealing to popular intuitions - immediately crushing rarer intuitions such as yours by playing your own game.
Contrast this to the much more widely shared, but much harder and selective game of "logic" - which appears to begin by disregarding as much of intuition as much as possible (whether it completely absolves itself or not - it probably can't) - and THEN seeing what's left.

This is the value that I see in Postmodernism - as consistent with the fact that Postmodernism applied to itself seems to undo itself - to use it to break things down maximally, and to see what's left and then move on much more purely, like a Descartes throwback but updated with (post)modern philosophical advances. This is where the philosophy of Pragmatism comes from, I believe, which looks to what works rather than what's true (modernism) or unable to be true (postmodernism). This is where the "discrete experiences" concept comes in with Experientialism, as distinct from "Continuous Experience", which is akin to "what works": the reality that we all ultimately base our values upon in all our different ways as described through discrete experiences, with values themselves only identified in the first place as a result of discrete experiences.

As you allude to with your examples of 100 story buildings and flying to the moon, logic works. It has utility, which Experientialism differentiates from truth. Utility is the only thing you can really work with, and appeals to intuition might prove very effective in the very Trump-like populist way that you're denigrating while at the same time supporting as long as it's YOUR intuitions rather than his that are accepted. But "logic" is way more effective, which is the whole reason we can build tall buildings and travel to the moon. There isn't some kind of barrier between these natural applications and everything else in nature by the way...
I wouldn't cast aside logic so easily if all you have is "the higher cognition of intuition" (so long as it's YOUR intuitions and definitely not someone's like Trump's). Logic could have helped you avoid that error if you cared to use it, but whilst it isn't my intention to "put anyone in their place", hopefully you understand the logic of this argument and deal with your "intuitionism" more carefully. Otherwise you're just going to lose influence way too easily.

P.S. This is why it's better to stick to arguments on their own merits - and NOT go after or assert authorship. It's not a battle of who's in power, it's not about me, it's not about you, but while we're deviating from this - "you'd" do better to not bring "me" into it, allowing me to return the favour. Then we can simply stick to constructive discussions that don't have personal stakes. It's pointless trying to argue with anyone who is emotionally invested in their argument - I recommend not doing that. You seem to bring yourself into every argument you make, and you don't need me to tell you that a lot of people have objected to this and attacked you rather than your arguments as a consequence. Do you want to turn that around or not?

[Ecmandu]

Silhouette,

I claim authorship for my ideas because I know that I’m at least one person who can be trusted.

I HATE that we live in a consent violating zero sum world. I’ll always be that way. It’s how I’m wired. I’m using higher logic to take ownership of these ideas so they don’t get corrupted. Do I want to be the leader of anyone? Fuck no! I just don’t want my ideas misinterpreted or corrupted.

Moral ‘Logic’ proper is simple on earth. Be an asshole, win the game. That’s how earth works. I need to appeal to a higher mind than logic to explain the falsity of that (even though it works EVERYTIME here! Pragmatism or experientialism)