I believe you are wrong. Is your belief superior to mine?
Only if Iâm right and in the case of the definition, I am.
So your problem is with the fact that we arenât talking about âemotionâ as particles and energy?
Again, I was using the common understanding of the word emotions and how they are in nature. You said they require supernatural. Theoritical physics has nothing to do with this.
If you model it right, it does. Thatâs the idea, itâs a model used to approximate behavior in a scientific way.
I still have no idea how this relates to anything regarding emotion.
I said I donât get your point anymore (Iâm not even sure if you are making one), you didnât clarify and you continue to talk about unified theory of physics. That has no bearing on supernatural, where you started (the original contention). At this point you are just trolling and you continue to try to throw out technicalities possibly in hopes that I didnât know FEA or anything about physics, which either proves you were making something up or canât back up your original point. Either way, the theory of physics is unrelated to what weâre talking about. If you donât want to use the word âemotionsâ and what to describe everything we see in behavior as materials, energies, and atoms because that is âtrueâ science be my guest but I donât think this trolling needs to continue. You can have the last word.
Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Itâs all subjective.
I cannot answer your question. If you believe even logic itself is subjective itâs a full stop. There is no possibility for objective discussion when the most basic rules of operation are thrown out.
I have a nagging feeling you are going to stand firmly by your statement that âlogic is subjectiveâ and not budge one iota from that. The consequence of that is end of discussion. Nobody can be right and nobody can be wrong. Weâre both right and weâre both wrong, rendering such binary linguistics meaningless. There is no rational, youâve done away with that term. We are merely meat robots, strewn across a random rock in the universe running through our programming at this point.
To throw out logic, is to throw out the most basic fabric of understanding anything. You donât seem to get the consequence of setting your own rules. Denying even that the effect of such a thing has real world consequences.
I will be happy to answer any question you may have, under the condition you accept the reality of objectiveness in this universe in which we find ourselves. And further at least name what this objectiveness is, so I know what type of ground I am standing on when I answer.
Gotcha. Have a nice day.
That is exactly what it means to say âlogic is subjectiveâ. You remove the substrate of what is knowable. Logic is the basis of fact, with logic being subjective, facts becomes subjective.
One womanâs rape, is one manâs casual sex. Both are right. Itâs has a name, itâs called the âBoth handâ or âtwo handâ approach. Itâs taught in Eastern Philosophy and despite being annihilated in western philosophy, people like to try and hang on to it.
In a world without logic, there is no ârightâ or âwrongâ answer. Itâs what ever we decide to make it.
You donât need to keep goin lol. Weâve reached agree to disagree territory. Have a nice day.
That really isnât what weâve reached⊠Weâve reached an inability to discuss because we have no rules on which to base the discussion.
We have to agree that something is objective, truth, logic, math⊠something in further discussion.
Otherwise, we can share experience but not exchange ideas, save for passively. There are things, like opinions, that are subjective. But logic is absolutely objective. It has to be, because it is the basis for all knowledge.
I drilling it because itâs important. And you donât have to take it from me, research it. Itâs less important to be right or wrong about something than it is to at least agree there is such thing as right and wrong. And the determining factor of that, is logic.
Did you just rephrase âagree to disagree territoryâ and use it to tell me Iâm wrong?
âInability to discussâ is not the same thing as âagree to disagreeâ. It means it doesnât matter if we agree or disagree. We can agree and disagree, itâs that neither of us can be right or wrong, so agreements or disagreements have no meaning.
Gotcha. Have a nice day
Define nice?
lol, I kid.
Thank you for actually adding to what the discussion should have been about.
There is something known as subjective logic.
This one because it irks me and I canât seem to let shit go.
My comments regarding âlogic is subjectiveâ revolved around DEFENDING those of the faith in such that if you genuinely believe something, itâs logical to practice around it. As such, society âcreated/definedâ what is logical/rational. While Iâm an atheist and others practice, it still fits that BOTH of us are being rational and/or logical, as weâre practicing in whatever rules we define our existence around.
So, again, who says 1+1=2 and not 3? We do. I do. Society does. The ones that invented math and every other concept youâve ever heard of to define the universe as we know it (since this shit didnât fall from the sky).
Society does not create or destroy anything. People discover facts be they physical or metaphysical. We can change the lingo, but not the essence.
Mathematical facts for instance, are still true even if no one is around to know it.
The irony here is that you are demanding that âsubjective logicâ is an objective truth.
Is that a fact?
The real irony is you have the power to completely destroy my entire argument by explaining (with your belief that logic = objective, not mine) which of us is being rational and which is irrational Re: our religious beliefs. If all logic and rationality is objective, one of us has to be logical and the other not in your world view.
Feel free to completely destroy my argument whenever you want.