Probably in no terms that come from a purely logical standpoint, there is a limit to my views and then I stand on what bit of faith I have found from time to time.
Mostly personal experience both as a medical worker and incidents that have happened throughout my life that have lead me to believe that there is so much more to this world than meets the eye.
And lastly, I feel it intrinsically…that there is a mind/brain dualism.
I never answered this, did I....I'm really sorry.
Being a "meat computer" isn't that big of a problem if it is strictly in the sense that we exist within the causal workings and physical parts of the brain. We just need to establish that the kind of things we talk about when we talk about as important to us can be entirely grounded in this context. We need to account for perceptions, sensations, awareness, intentions, reasons, whatever other psychological states, and free will.
[MENTION=12103]Erlian[/MENTION]
Lol, I have looked into that paper before, but it has been a while. As for the Pinker quote, he has misrepresented free will. Free will is not uncaused willing. While that was similar to Descartes' view, it isn't a modern view.
Speaking of it, is there a nessecity to have "created it yourself" for it to be a relative truth, or can you create an abolute yourself? Is there a relative truth that hasn't been created by us humans? I don't know if my thoughts make sense.
This is an excellent question dude. A+ for sure. This is a question that leads one to the ethical/metaethical view called Constructivism or Constitutivism (different name by author, but same idea really). Korsgaard is the one I'm most familiar with here, and she is a genius. Btw, she did her undergrad philosophy degree at my university, just saying......>_>
Of course that was like 30 years ago.....
A quick blurb about this view is that morality is constituted by us in the sense that we have agency, a self, and action. Within these features there is entailment of evaluative facts, and these facts are morality. I won't get into it a bunch here cause it is off topic, but I can explain it some time if you want
.
That's what it's called. It's called absolute because the 'reference' is always from a zero point, and the zero point of the screen never moves. The zero point on a screen is absolute and when you factor in the aspect ratio, you always know where a coordinate falls on a given screen. It's never different. That is why it is absolute.
It'd be relative if it were say arbitrary position x+5 y+7. For example if you right click in a browser you get a little popup next to the pointer - that's a relative coordinate because it is next to the pointer and the pointer can move. Absolute coordinates never move relative to their immediate surroundings - their 'universe'. What happens though if you move the universe?
A thing can only be absolute by virtue of not being immediately relative. Which means a thing might be absolute, but not absolutely. Things can happen to make it relative.
We can make absolutes, relatively.
Sprinkles, this is begging the question. You have already framed the question of your absolute system within a relative frame! Of course it will be relative, lol. The absolute can only exist, therefore, within the relative frame. Any question outside of the frame will be begging the question, and so a fallacy. You can question the absolutism with the game (to reference game formalism, for it address this kind of idea), but to question outside the game is utter nonsense (to the question). Basically, it doesn't apply.
Here's the quick google definition of absolutism:
the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters.
It says absolute principles in X. You can't question the absolute principles that are in X, outside of X. That's like playing a game of checkers, and trying to figure out how to move piece P[SUB]3[/SUB] vertically or horizontally any number of spaces (like a rook). It would be nonsense.
If there's an absolute that is above all else then it is only purely absolute because there's nothing bigger, and not because of any special quality of being absolute.
A rock that is too heavy to move is only immovable because nothing can move it. That has more to do with the surroundings of the rock than the rock itself. If the rock could be moved even hypothetically then it is not truly immovable.
You can have logically entailed absolutes. For example, tautologies. A bachelor is an unmarried male. Other definitions. Arguably, chemical compositions (water is H[SUB]2[/SUB]O). Deductive truths are also the kinds of entailments that can give us what we are looking for. In response you might say that logic only works "because there is nothing over and above it", but this is almost nonsense. You can't just reframe the question like that, because this is a red herring. We are talking about absolutism within rationality. You could be an extreme skeptic and say why make that jump to rationality, but then you are departing all rational discourse, and reject the tautology of logical entailment. This is a radical step.
Edit: I also think this is what [MENTION=13285]Oscillation[/MENTION] was getting at
