heuristic is not working without logic and probability. heuristic is an undercategory of it and is mostly using probabilitys!

u have not all info, but you still use logic and probability to come to a solution. Like trail and error, statistics and so on. all of those methods cant work without logic and probability.

​

My sentence of Kant and his Imperatives is not very precise. So im not sure what exactly you ask to be true here. A fact is the rationalistic/hypothetic system that is like causal and determiend analytics, methods that work to create truth and function. They are evidence-based but also use probability. As heuristic is also evidence-based in the end, but its only a probability where you expect the evidence to be.

so like phyiscs and math, which can prolong certain systems/facts but we cant measure them yet. Just after some years we are able to measure them and make em evidencebased. in the end

And the categoric imperative is also a method that works for moral. So both are methods/goals (rational sytems) which are not about belief, but about creating working facts and working moral - a workable and quantifiabale system for action.

So further, u can understand that moral, like all other systems, is a system of goals and methods and you can analyze goals and methods with the hypothetical/rational system (including logic and probability). And thats also evidence-based but also heuristic!

​

If people disagree with other peoples logics and conclusions, then there must be a reason for it. One reason could be, they dont have all the facts. Another reason could be, they dont have the same goals/methods (this is very important). And a third reason could be, they dont manage to come to the right conclusion, even if they have the facts and the same goals. And a forth reason could be, all first three together.

So for example, you have to jews analyzing a moral problem but both come to different conclusions. So where is the problem? They done have the same moral, they dont have the same facts or they dont understand them in the same way. or everything together.

of course its a big problem if you have two different systems, but you think its the same. this is the reason for many wars and many misunderstandings and social separations. and not just in morals.

But its not only "consciousness"!

The relevant truth must be:

We cant know without a function of knowing.

So i think you have to redefine the art of knowing.

Many dont understand the comoplexity and the dependency that is involved here.

Knowing is an (inter)action itself.

But its more then one action.

But first, of course, we must set the existentialism.

So lets say, if nothing interacts, nothing can register other beings. There must be movement and there must be interactions.

This does not include knowing so far. As knowing is a special way of interacting.

So what do we need to know, wether consciouss or not?

We need senses, that retrieve information out of the classic interaction. Its not clear if you need a conscious here or only a subconscious. Anyway, we can argue, that without senses, there is no consciousness. But stil we need to proof that!

Next, we need the memory system, which can save the information.

Then we need the rational system, which values the information.

And then we need the realization model, which brings the thought into the rest of the world.

So you need a lot to have a conscioussness and a unconscioussness. And there is more body function you need ...

Still its not clear how all these things work together, how they become one. But we can see the dependnecys much more clearly now ... after science walked on the last 200 years ... and now we see and know a lot more!

So, its not a hard probem of metyphysics anymore, its a normal problem of understanding the function of knowing and life at all and to realize the importance of empiricism and the whole informational/rational system we have. It all works together.

So, it brings us not very far to say, we need a conscious to register conscioussness. Its quite obvious - NOW.

So the hard problem of the past and classic metaphysic is and was, that they think, we can know something without a basic process of empiricism and knowing at all. and we cant know without a basic empiricism.

we dont need empiricisms actually to make deductions about unsensed objects, but we can only deduct if we have basic senses and all structures of knowing to recombine it to a new structure we havent sensed at all.

so i would say metaphysics is just a very old and incomplete system.

determinism, physics, systemtheory and all its dependencys, must be included into the philosophy, otherwise, we wont sense the whole thing and will make infinite and incomplete assumptions - called metaphysics!

6. Moloch did not have an ethical responsibility, as he is hannibal. u could say, hannibal has an ethical responsibility to keep himself alive, but thats also questionable. as i said earlier, there is nothing unethical about suicide, if u have the right moral. Which leads us agin to the question, how strong & how exactly was the drive of hannibal structured? what are the expectations of the townfolk exactly? as long as we dont know, we cant be sure here.

7. well it mostly teaches, that we must know a lot more of the categorys & movements we are talking about, before we make conclusions or ask new unprecise questions. this is no joke, this is as profound as it gets! un- & consciousness are interacting through a permanent rationalisation of all our goals. its a permanent conflict we are in. a permanent ethical managment to make things work. We must understand which goals and how the goals interact to understand and transform it - if needed. To know is the way to act better! this is a basic element of life! its our fate!

we act this way, because we dont know it better. we want certain things, because its the thing we think that makes us happy & we dont want other things, becasue we think they dont make us happy. so it is also our fate, to KNOW(experience/value which things makes us "happy". Or shoud i say, makes us as we want us to be.

What makes hannibal happy/unhapy?

what makes awen/the townfolk happy/unhappy?

why cant we combine it?

8. it depends on what hannibal & awen (and all of their parts!) want! and thats exactly what a psychologist/doctor/healer must find out! this is hopefully also what god wants us to do. fullfill our dreams without hurting each other to much. Awen was not only a healer, he was also hannibals friend. So if hanibal wanted to make suicide, awen must find a solution for his or better said Hannibals ethical problem, of helping Hannibal/himself to fullfill his dream to be dead or fullfill his dream to be alive in a different way. as this is not a very easy task, it would be best to "analyze" hannibals wish to die. as this is the only way to find out, what is best for all an gods inention in the end.

9. well, see at point 8. & all others. the problem depends on your moral standards u set for the people and if u give them their own morals. If u think, life is something that no sngle person can decide alone, then you have a resposnsibility to that law to keep the patient alive. even if he suffers and so on. but as u can see, this leads to pain and much more conflicts. specially if you cant/wont treat the pain.

If u think, one should decide for their own what is best for them, then u should help them to find the best solution for their wishes. if they want do die because of x, y or z, then its is just like it is.

if hannibal only wants a part of him to die, totally eliminated or transformed into somthing new, then we must figure out if this is possible!

yet again, it teaches us that we have to learn & solve all the different social expectations & conflicts & we life in an ambivalent world, where life and death - knowing & not knowing - are very close & that we are depending of different parts that all work for their own but also together. its not easy to make everybody happy or life healthy & a long life - but its possible in many many cases!

be aware of that dude!

ps very long work here, hope it helps

its not easy to find the relevant elements here. science is finding the dependencys of the things - their social interactons & self-constructions. So to understand the dependencys of the mind and body, u have to use all sciences youve got! So science and specially sociology includes all fields of existence. many things need more then one science to find the truth. for all biological things, u need a lot to understand it correctly & find out all movements. thats the way of science, to create the dependencys of the things to represent/reproduce and transform it correctly/efficient. So, to understand the psychology, u need philosophy, sociology, biology, neuroscience, history... u must understand how all the goals & dependencys get created and work out in the end. A consciousness isnt really the same as a puppet. so there is a lack of dependencys here. Then there are numerous problems u adress & u need to order it more, specially in a more psychoanalytic & functional way. anyway, lets learn...

1. Yes it is possible, as it is possible to evaluate many other dispositions. But it only works, if u realize, that their is a possibility to be so. So the first problem of the doctor in the tale is, that he doesnt see the possibility that the giant is a puppet, controlled by a (maybe) self-destrcutive men. So the help can turn out to be bad because his diagnostic is bad.
2. so here u get a bit metaphysical or should i say, chaotic. First of all, its not sure in which sense exactly Hannibal is self-destructive. So i think there is a good self-destructiveness & a bad one & u must find out how strong this drive is. u must differentiate here a bit more i think. And the problem that a puppet isnt a consciousness is very present here. If hannibal is self-destrucive, moloch is part of this structure, and its not the consciousness itself, its onyl a part of the actual consciousness, which is operating in a priority/fixiation to the unconscious wish to self-destruct. so why should there by another giant? because hannibal got another disposition (to life) and/or because the self-destrcution is bad? Why should a better constructed giant should help hannibal? the giant isnt his problem i guess. the conscoiusness is not the problem at first, its the material dependency that isnt working & leads to a disfunctional mind (un- & consciousnes isnt working properly or the whole social system isnt working properly (anymore) or he wants to find out what happens after death or maybe he isnt really self-destructive, only asocial and stupid). So, here u make a lot of premises that arent really included in the experiment at first. Moloch (as seen as consciousnes) is as conscious about hannibal as the consciousness is consciouss about our unconsciousness. u must be clear here in which way Moloch is really a consciousness or u get unprecise in the experiment. Our consciousness can be aware of our unconsciouss drives, but that doesnt mean, it can influence it to act differently. Of course you have to understand the precise interactions & contraactions of un - & consciousness. This is basic psychoanalytics. so its not very helpful to draw unclear lines here. The question if Awen should act differently with another giant & after finding out the truth about the first giant, is quite obvious & a part of the first question
3. this is also a question of the dependencys. as moloch cant life without hannibal, it should be quite obvoius that both are depending on each other very closely & to the basics of their whole strucutre and so can be seen as one person. so their is only one dead, as hannibals core functions get damaged, all other parts of hannibal, including moloch die too. but only as a very close depending reaction. so the problem of moloch is not the real problem (of hannibal), if he really got one beside stupidity. Privacy is a matter, u must analyse alone. as privacy is nothing that really is important in the end. specially not if u want to help somebody to transform himself (heal him). as every transformation is a death of personality & a rebirth of a new personality and privacy (parts of it). Privacy is only important, if someone want to hide something from others. this is of course not helpful if u want to understand the whole beings. so privacy/secrets (from society) are part of the problem here! as we have structures, that prevent us to transform ourselfs & help us in the end to adapt to all social things. you must analyze, how privacy is part of the problem! But well sometimes, its just natural & part of getting old. As u getting old, u want to have secrets and u want to die, because nothing else makes u happy. its nothing wrong with that. only, when it depends on some failure, u can and want to transform differently. but u must be clear here. the action here dont have to be disfucntional or as symbolic as u think.
4. Awen did everythig he was able to to help him. Its not a new problem, that help can turn out into non-help because of mistreatment. Moloch is hannibal, so hannibal/molochs death was indeed caused by a misleading helpful action & maybe set up as suicide (with a little help from his friends). thats all. for the cause, it doesnt matter why hannibal was doing it. it only matters what Awen knew. Awen knew not very much. Thats his and our all guilt, all the time with everything. But if everything is determined, its not a question of guilt, its a question of how to making it better the next time!
5. What makes u think this is non-ethically? Because of the sucicide or the help to suicide or because the stupid idea of a curious idiot & the unwanted death & killing by his friends? Suicide is ethical if everbody thinks its good. And the unwanted death by the friends is also not unethical, because they dont know what they are doing so they dont act amoral. The only one that acts amoral, is (a part of) hannibal if he really wants to be killed by his friends. As he maybe knows, that they dont want to kill him. Maybe he also thinks, that some would help him to kill him, even if they dont want it. So the moral breach isnt big here i htink. Not really the big problem here. An 100% ethical version could be, to inform all of the experiment but make em act as they would not know. but in the end, its an ambivalent situation, where u must confront yourself with the a) wanted death, b) the wrong outcome of the experiment or/and c) the unfullfilled expectations of the townfolk. u cant make it really 100% ethical i guess, when you dont share/normalize the goals between all actors.

... continue reading down under in the reply section, due to wrong character count by reddit. The whole text is under 10000 characters but i could not post it.

but its not the problem of the logic/rationalism, its the problem of the missing goal! the missing nature of things, such as humankind.

so the game theory is misleading because not all possible golas are included. so the logic must fail, becasue we miss a goal to attend.

So, yes and no, you cant work it out without logic, but the logic itself is not everything you need, you need also a reason where you can use your logic. many forget about the actual (and possible) goals that are relevant for the analytic/statistic.

This is redundant!

Nothing can be solved WITHOUT logic and probability!

logic and probability are basic elements of all actions and all analytics (of action).

So every method-goal relationship, every ethic problem and every goal atainment needs logic and probability to measure success.

Kants Imperatives gives you everything you need. The hypothetic gives you the logic and the categoric gives you the clear goal you need to attend.

Of course, if you use different, more then one catgegorys, you need more hypotheses. But the hypotheses are only able to do with logic and probability.

The problem if we safe one or 100 people is not a problem of not using mathmatics or using them wrong, its a problem of our moral categorys/not existing goals which are not set with alternatives and our wrong understanding of logic/rationalism.

its a failure to see moral as a right of nature. there are no rights of nature or mankind, there are only rights that we establish and take care of! goals and no goals that can be reached or not - function or not!

So its up to us and our "actual goals and logics" to set the moral standards. and so its up to us how many we safe or if we dont safe anybody and how we safe them. we dont have the the duty, only if we give us the duty!

SOCIAL Utilitarism, also called TECHNOCRACY is about the goal, to make everybody as happy as it gets. This is totally a logical and also quantifiable system. so for me, its not working to divide moral and logic. as you cant divide action and logic.

every moral action underlies the laws of logic and rational goal attainment. and every moral standard you set should better be analyzed correctly, which means you better use A GOOD SYSTEM of logic and other quantifiabe systems. or your truth and (social/moral) efficiency will be inprecise - not good ;)

as subjective and unscientific "logics" are mostly incomplete ;) specially when it comes to social structures ... lol

so the real problem here is imho the question, why we have specific moral standards (which some think falsly are not logic or under the laws of probability) and the other question would be about the precision of our action analytics (and why we think it is not logic or ...).

For me, mostly all defintions of freedom are incomplete. As they forget a lot of things we need to adress, if we really want to understand what freedom is. So here is my theory in addition. it isnt complete too, but it is much more complete then many other ones i think. And its one of the few, that includes determinism. Which is, lets be honest, 99% of all reality. And even the 1% is not proofed indetermined. not even acausal.

The problem with this dualistic defintion, its dualistic. Dualism only work for yes or no. mostly all other systems are not dualsitic. So i dont think there is more then one freedom. So we have to find a complete defintion of it.

Second, there is no proofed free wil. You cant take this as part of the theory, without a good definiton of it.

Its not the freedom that determines, its the movement of the past that determines!

There are no higher-order principals, its all one system of movement, which acts together. Its only seperated in their field of reaction, but it all underlies the functionality! Does it work or does it not?! our separation of the higher und lower principals just shows, that we are not precise enough when it comes to biology, psychology and the social dependency which create all beings.

SO

The most important thing about freedom (and mostly everything else) is MOVEMENT. Philosophers mostly have a problem with this, because ... many of them are no physics. Which is very sad and quite a dilemma. Movement is a value, that is shared through all systems. And we must ask all the time: how does it come so, that something moves in a speific way?

This is very important as we must combine the freedom with the determinism!!! There must be a connection! We cant postulate, that theres a free-will, this is still something that needs proof!!! or should we say, a better definition!

So the first and important thing is: the freedom of movement.

Which means not really that you are INDEPENDENT, it only mans that you have more then one option to do. And all those options are determined. Still, thats no proof for deciosionmaking!!! Because the decisioons are bound to a very rational and determined logic of values. The only problem of autority is, when you have two or more same values to decide on. And even then, it is not really a INDEPENDENCE you have here, because your decicion is mostly triggered by fixed determined and extremly dependent reactions to limited inputs.

So if you are not able to move in a specific way, this can be because you dont see the option or something is blocking you somehow. So we say, we are unfree. But its not ONLY because something is blocking us, it is mostly because we are not ABLE/SKILLED TO MOVE.

And you are unfree, no matter if someone, like a gangester, or your own limitation blocks you. We will see, its all the same. Its all part of nature.

So skill/information, our structure reforming things, is a very important factor here, that makes us free. Gives us options. But it isnt a wider room of desicionmaking! Its only a room of movement, which allows you to to different movement then before!

Our decions are still bound to the order of reason and the maximum (social) profit and efficiency. The golden rule of economy.

So now we must understand, that all our mindstates are also only reactions to other movements and so on, its also only a specific movement we do. which underlies the same rules dependencys as all other movements.

So now, we have to consolidate all those infos together.

1. Everything is determined

2. Life is a "selfpowered" system and a social system and moves and builds up in a social way, heavily dependent on their environment. It sets "its own"/"a social builded" goal of movement. As we see later on, the self and the society cant be divided here! All individuals have a necessary environment and cant be seperated in their genesis or their freedom and skills!

3. Nature, Life, Society, and so on WE cant move in all ways, so our movement is LIMITED. We know that before we know what freedom is!

4. We become less or different limitations, if we are able to move in more and/or new ways. This new (should be) unlimited movements is what we mostly adress when we talk about freedom.

5. Our freedom of movement is determined, because all our movements are determined and our search for new limitations is a biological and mostly natural sense of life - of social adaption!!! Freedom and Knowledge and Reformation of OURSELFS/SOCIETY (which is the same here) are all part of the systenm we call life (on earth)!

6. Our movement of decision is only free in such a way, as we are able to narrow down all
   possible movements before we do the decision. Every decision is a door to a unfree
   system, because you narrow it down in the end to the own way you are going.

7. So the most important things we do, is to interact with our environemnt, and get the necessary input to adapt ourselfes in such a way, that our system is as succesfull and compatible as it gets. Therefor it is the bets, to have the maximum options or the most efficient skills.

CONCLUSION:

Freedom must be part of the determined natural system.

Freedom is mostly about building up alternate (better) ways of movement/life.

The decision is not the important thing about freedom. Its the process of creating new ways! Not just with our mind, with everything we are.

Information/Interaction with the environemnt gives us the idea of what is possible and all our other (natual given) skills make it possible to reform our (old) natural given structure/movements and make new (natural) structures/movements.

This is all part of the system we call SCIENCE and FREEDOM!

It is much more complex then many think!

Enjoy!

PS

one of the most important things of life, is to recognize our environemnt and learn how it works and so on adapt our movement to these social beings. our freedom is a fundamental yet determined thing necessary for this process of adaption and ... should we say re-birth ;) or lets just say, revolution!.

The idea of expectations/suprise/incongruity, must be more precise here.

When we see a comedy a second time, we still can laugh about some scenes. Not all, but some. So the old suprised expectation can still be suprised again, even when you encountered a different solution. Because our brain is not a computer. We still associate with the same old stuff, maybe weaker but the old expectations are still there, or should we say, archived. Not always, but in some cases. Some expectations are getting shifted and you cant laugh again about the same joke. Or not as much.

So it hink its possible to remember a suprise and still laugh about it, because it is still so unimaginable and unexpected.

And expectations and suprise is not restricted to verbal things.

And not everybody got the same expectations! So some jokes must be seen in a more specified subcultural context to understand the suprise or non-suprise.

So the concept of "incongruity" seems elastic, only because our knowledge about it isnt very precise. Its a pretty complex phenomena and so on, we need a lot psychology here, to understand it fully. So i wouldnt give it up.