Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So then, is it possible to make a decision between pulling and not pulling the trigger, thereby presenting two courses of action?
NO.
there are only four forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear; I'm not aware of any evidence that anything happening in one's mind can influence those forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Case in point: I'm wearing a blue shirt. I could've worn a red or grey one.
It's easy for you to IMAGINE acting differently, but you cannot go back in time to test that hypothesis.
With the exact same inputs, you will get the exact same outputs.
Anything else violates cause-and-effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"I" begins with the dawn of time."I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.How do you know?
Because cause-and-effect is empirically verifiable and logically demonstrable.
The parameters denote our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And, how is it a gross violation of cause and effect?
Because, according to cause-and-effect, the collective causes, spawning from that individual's childhood, and their parent's childhood, and their grandparent's childhood, lead to a series of events that includes the shooting.
To claim otherwise violates cause-and-effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let's entertain the claim that it's primarily used to argue that one "could have acted otherwise," how does that impute an appeal to ignorance?
How do you demonstrate that any individual "could have acted otherwise"?
Do you have a time-machine?
We find it easy to IMAGINE that someone "could have acted otherwise", but it is IMPOSSIBLE TO "PROVE" SUCH A CLAIM.
It is therefore unfalsifiable, and is therefore, an appeal to ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How is a person who pulls a trigger resulting in the death of another individual not held completely responsible? What are these factors that you believe are being excluded?
Well traditionally, we (quite feebly) attempt to weigh QUALIA.
We call this "motive", we call this "circumstance".
Was the shooter legitimately afraid for their life?
Did the shooter intend to kill the victim?
Did the weapon malfunction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Sentinelese tribe make their home on North Sentinel Island, India. They're named after the island they live on, because nobody actually knows what they call themselves. In fact, generally speaking, nobody knows much of anything about them. After they survived the 2004 tsunami that swept right over their island (another thing we don't know: how the hell they managed to do that), we sent a few helicopters over the island to photograph them and make sure they were still around.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
It takes at a minimum, two too tango ---interference-----. And then, as Jackie Gleason would say, ..' and away we go'....
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So as technology now plays a significant role [for some humans] in social function, therefore technology is now undoubtedly a part of [some humans] human culture.
I think the point here is the idea that we should let a culture develop their own "technology" and not thrust it upon them.
At least, not until they wander into "international waters".
Should we intervene (perhaps with surreptitious genetic manipulation) to stop chimpanzees from eating baby monkey brains (because the practice seems repulsive to most humans)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't recall making any grandiose one-size-fits-all statements like "tech always good lul".
Except for this gem.
...plenty of time to devise a way of revealing ourselves and introducing them to advanced technology in a way that is tailored to their particular psychological and cultural norms with minimal harm...
PRINCIPLED POLICY =/= ONE SIZE FITS ALL (PROCRUSTEAN)
CUSTOM TAILORED - PRINCIPLED POLICY = AD HOC, WHIMSICAL, APPEAL TO IGNORANCE, fertile ground for corruption and abuse (no accountability)
So, why is the prime directive just?
The "prime directive" is poorly defined and even more poorly executed in the context of the show.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it conforms to all individual human instincts.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it protects every individual's autonomy.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it protects the autonomy of every individual city, state, and country.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because it mitigates coercion and promotes voluntarism.
THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGNTY is "just" because the counter option is to either force or manipulate (intentionally or unintentionally) everyone who sees things differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Everything that is unverifiable (unfalsifiable) (empirically and or logically) is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION.
When exploring a logical framework, it is important to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
DAWN OF TIME = EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS
HEAT DEATH OF THE COSMOS = EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I begin with I.This claim is provably false.
"I" begins with the dawn of time.
I end with I.This claim is provably false.
"I" ends with the heat death of the cosmos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?How can free will be defined as a violation of cause-and-effect?
"freewill" is primarily used to argue that a human "could have acted otherwise".
This claim is "unfalsifiable" (empirically, but not logically) and is therefore a naked appeal to ignorance.
This claim is also a gross violation of cause-and-effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"Human-cause"? What would be an example?
If the person who pulled the trigger was held 100% (morally) responsible (to the exclusion of all other factors) for the death of another individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
We are a collection of our body parts, our spirit, and, by the new covenant, we are also a collection of our thoughts
To everyone else, we are merely a collection of our quantifiable actions.
Intentions and thoughts and spirit are unverifiable QUALIA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Given the nature of this discussion, I understand it begs for more latitude. But I ask: what is "free-will" supposed to be other than a "feeling"?
It's supposed to make an individual "morally responsible for their actions".
It's specifically tailored to take away any "excuses" a person might present in order to argue that they are merely a collection of ever-changing reactions to their environment.
It traps people into disproportionately "blaming" and "hating" any proximate, apparent human "cause" to the exclusion of all other factors.
That's the ONLY reason we've been infected with the concept in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?Of course.
Do you also agree that "freewill" is simply a FEELING we experience (QUALIA)?
Do you also agree that "freewill" is logically incoherent (if defined as a violation of cause-and-effect)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That's the crux of the matter.
I am I.
This claim is indisputable (circular logic).
I begin with I.
This claim is provably false.
I end with I.
This claim is provably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Evidence isn't required. How does one demonstrate to another an intrinsic quality?
Are you asserting that "freewill" is QUALIA?
Because I will agree with you 100% on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
By claiming that it exists.
EXISTENCE demands empirical verifiability and or LOGICAL NECESSITY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Free will adherents don't attempt to quantify and juxtapose both internal and "external" influences.
Without some sort of quantification, how can they claim that "freewill" EXISTS?
What is the evidence for "freewill"?
What is the central premise, what is the PRIMARY AXIOM?
How does "freewill" violate (or comply with) CAUSE AND EFFECT?
How can you tell if a child, or a dog, or a cat, or a car has "freewill"?
As far as I can tell, "freewill" is just a FEELING you get when YOU make a "decision".
Created:
-->
@Athias
Yes, the self-interested babies adopt the Holacratic constitution to protect themselves from coercion.
And whenever someone attempts to coerce them, they can point out that attempts at coercion are a violation of the agreement they've all subscribed to.
It's not a "perfect" system, but it is certainly "less wrong" than most modern command hierarchies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Dispelling FEAR is even easier than that book implies.
All you need to do is investigate the Classical Problem of Identity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What are we if not a collection of our actions (reactions)?
Created:
-->
@Athias
What good is the framework if those who participate are self-interested babies?
The framework mitigates the potential harm by simultaneously limiting and also protecting the influence of individual members.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
[HATE] ...is the weapon of last resort when all other worthy weapons have failed to overwhelm a declared enemy...
HATE is the most powerful weapon of the powerless.
Loving your oppressors is exactly what they want you to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Jealousy and resentment and FEAR are necessary precursors to (often misdirected) HATE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
And does "technology" always make things (sentient lives) "better"?
I mean, just think about the Hopi. Are their lives "vastly improved" by "technology"?
Isn't "primitive" "culture" exactly how people learn to survive without "technology"?
Isn't "culture" a collection of traditions, rituals, and foods that are adaptive responses to a native environment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...is it fair for us to judge them and write them off or do we find ways to rehabilitate and hope for redemption?
Vipassana seems quite promising.
For example,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well, no because doing so would be impossible to do...All those examples would require biological uplifting of different degrees before technological uplifting would be possible, the two are very different topics.
Doesn't "technology" include CRISPR?
Skip to 185 seconds,
And does "technology" always make things (sentient lives) "better"?
I mean, just think about the Hopi. Are their lives "vastly improved" by "technology"?
Isn't "primitive" "culture" exactly how people learn to survive without "technology"?
Isn't "culture" a collection of traditions, rituals, and foods that are adaptive responses to a native environment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We’re all products of our environment, but I would like to think we have some influence in our decision making because if we don’t then can we really condemn people for their wrongdoings? I mean if they were basically doomed from the start then they never really stood a chance.
Think of it this way.
Do we hold a rabid dog "personally responsible" for their dangerous behavior?
Does this lack of "personal responsibility" keep us from restraining the rabid animal in order to protect society at large?
Does a rabid dog "deserve" to be tortured and berated for their actions?
Here's another example.
If a gear fails in an engine, causing the engine to malfunction, do we hold the failed gear "personally responsible"?
Do we punish the gear? Do we torture the gear?
NO. We remove the damaged gear and either repair or replace the troublesome gear.
Removing "moral" implications only makes us MORE HUMANE AND PRACTICAL.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Second, an event free of cause does not mean it is necessarily free of effect.
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of HISTORICAL cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Third, "random" is not necessarily related to cause. You have shown no correlative relationship between the two.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "random" as "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." [POST#25]
"without method or conscious choice"
By this definition, every action taken by an animal (lacking a pre-frontal cortex) is RANDOM.
By this definition, every event, geological and or meteorological, is RANDOM.
By this definition, the movements of every plant and every insect and every bacterium are RANDOM.
(IFF) this is truly your preferred definition of RANDOM (THEN) please explain to me what word you would use to describe something that is epistemologically and fundamentally UNPREDICTABLE.
Observe this experiment: Say we tell you to chose the red, or the blue pill, and you freely chose the blue pill, not knowing that there was no red pill. We used a hologram to fool you.
This example is the very definition of surreptitious COERCION.
This example is the very definition of a FALSE CHOICE.
Try this example.
Someone puts a loaded gun to your head and tells you to murder one of your family members with a knife, or else they'll shoot you.
This is obviously COERCION.
bUT, does the loaded gun magically strip you of your "ability to make a choice"?
NO.
The coercion "works" precisely because humans will PREDICTABLY choose to save their own skins.
ANd people are quick to feel guilt for their "choices" even when those "choices" are obviously COERCED (deflecting guilt from their oppressors).
This makes the "forced choice" (false choice) an extremely effective tool for CON-ARTISTS and MOBSTERS.
Someone's "decision" to "choose the blue pill" is highly constrained. Is the subject free to walk away and choose neither the red nor blue pills? Has the subject been contaminated with any enticements or vague threats regarding their choice? Does the subject have a natural attraction or repulsion to pills in general? Has the subject acquired a natural preference for one of these colors over the other? Is the subject seeking your personal approval and thus more sensitive to your overall tone and body-language?
All of these are just a glimpse into the complex chain of (conscious and subconscious) events that lead you to your "choice".
They are not fundamentally intractable. They are not epistemologically unknowable. They are not ultimately unpredictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...plenty of time to devise a way of revealing ourselves and introducing them to advanced technology in a way that is tailored to their particular psychological and cultural norms with minimal harm without relying on some one-size-fits-all approach...
What PRINCIPLES do you believe should guide such a policy?
Should we introduce "technology" to the apes?
Should we introduce "technology" to the dolphins?
What about ants?
Would their lives be "vastly improved" by "technology"?
Do you believe human "culture" has been "vastly improved" by "technology"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
those motivated by hate seem to be the most vocal, perhaps that alters the overall perception. though I think people tend to act out more strongly due to hate/anger than love.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Even people who believe in free will, don't beieve it's free. They just think it's the realm of spirits that limit it (as opposed to the realm of physics and chemistry).
Right, even a dualist, spiritualist who believes "supernatural powers" guide their hands from the shadows, still believe in cause and effect (contradicting freewill).
I call these people "god puppets".
Created:
-->
@ethang5
(IFF) an action or event is uncaused (100% free of cause and effect) (THEN) it must necessarily be INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RANDOM
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I haven't a clue, given what you've said, why you would think free will is nonexistent.
Because, (EITHER) your "freewill" "decisions" are CAUSED (OR) UNCAUSED (or some clever mix of the two).
(IFF) your "freewill" "decisions" are CAUSED (THEN) they are not "free".
(IFF) your "freewill" "decisions" are UNCAUSED (THEN) they are not acts of your will.
Therefore, "freewill" is logically incoherent.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Constitutional Holacracy has logic built into the framework itself.
It's designed from the ground-up to mitigate mob rule as well as preventing power accumulation by a single member.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
i hesitate to make broad statements here, but some seem to be suggesting that nobody is arguing that a human decision is free from all previous influences. i think this is a fair statement. the best attempts at explaining free-will seem to suggest that there is some kind of influence-gap. that is to say, it has been suggested that a human decision is influenced up to some unknown point less than 100% and then there is some i-gap of unspecified quantity and free-will lives there spreading magic fairy dust, however small or improbable that i-gap might be. i have never heard anyone propose a way to measure this i-gap in order to perhaps somehow gauge how much free-will someone might have, or to figure out if children have it, and if not, when do they get it? the i-gap sounds to me more like an ignorance-of-influence gap (this would also seem like the compatibilist's opinion). if this is the case we should be able to dial up free-will by dialing up ignorance.
the main problems i see with this proposal are as follows:
1) there is no way to measure the influence-gap. it is in all likelihood merely a knowledge-of-influence-gap or lack-of-precision-gap.
2) even if the influence-gap is considered to be a real thing, wouldn't that gap simply increase the value of the other influences? how could the influence gap possibly be considered an influence? it's a gap that is by definition non-influential.
3) let's consider based on at least a small shred of logic, what could be in that pesky i-gap that might actually be an influence. well, whatever is in that i-gap can't be influenced since it is inside something defined as an influence-gap. so maybe there's an uninfluenced-influence in that i-gap; we could call it something mysterious like, an uncaused-cause, or maybe a first-cause, or better yet ex-nihilo. could that uncaused-cause be influenced or originated by anything at all? no, of course not because it's in the i-gap and it is defined as being uncaused. so could a human take credit for a decision or action that emerged from the i-gap? how could they possibly take credit or be responsible for something they had no conceivable control over? anything emerging from the i-gap would be indistinguishable from a random event. and randomness is incompatible with choice (and will).
4) but what if it's the essence of "me" that is in the i-gap. are you kidding me?! i don't care if it's your grandmother, your dead child, or your ever lovin' god. if you put them in the i-gap they are at-best indistinguishable from random noise and at worst non-existent.
5) what if the gap is not an influence-gap but instead a black box? if the gap is not an influence-gap, there is no place for mr. free-will to spread his magic fairy dust because the gap instantly fills with influence and is then no longer properly described as a gap. additionally if the output of the i-gap is non-random, that is to say it emits some identifiable pattern, then whatever is happening in the i-gap must have some way of knowing what the hell is going on outside of the i-gap and this knowledge is definitely influencing its output thereby introducing influence into the i-gap which would then promptly disappear in a cute little puff of logic.
i think it's important to fully comprehend this influence-gap. imagine, if you will, that i am constructing a human being. when the recipe calls for me to add "a dash of free-will" i can't just add any old thing, willy nilly; i have to first construct a proper influence-gap to protect my human from the evil determinism. this would be some container that is impervious to all conceivable influence. i probably have a sound-proof, shock-proof, opaque, air-tight, empathy-proof, magic-proof, momentum-proof, time-proof capsule of some sort just laying around my house, i'll just set that to the side for now. ok, adding an empty box to the mix isn't going to do anything of course so we have to put something in it. since whatever is in this i-gap is supposed to advise me on important moral decisions my selection is of critical importance. well, the most intelligent and moral person i know of is my friend george, so since i don't seem to have a better option, i throw george in the i-capsule and seal him in tight. now days, weeks, and months have gone by and i've pretty much forgotten about george until one afternoon i am confronted with an intractable dilemma. i am faced with a decision with staggeringly profound moral implications and i must make a decision immediately. what do i do? well this sounds like a case for the magnificent george! so i locate my everything-proof capsule on which i have scrawled the descriptive term "i-gap" with my handy wax pencil, and i ask my question. i exhaustively explain all of the known factors leading up to and logical implications of this monumental decision to george, my moral, spiritual and financial advisor, and then i wait for an answer, any answer at all. nothing happens. things are getting desperate, so i beg george to give me an answer, to point me in the right direction. nothing happens. i light some candles and wave a magic wand over the i-gap, but still i can't divine any response from george. i realize there is a problem with the i-gap's design. so i quickly scour my garage for spare parts and retrofit a one way intercom system onto the i-gap so i can hear what george has to say. mind you he still can't hear anything or in any way perceive anything that i have to say, thus preserving the integrity of the influence-gap, but now he can speak directly to me, thus becoming an uncaused-cause. of course george has causes, he was born and raised and had both happy and sad experiences, but i'll just ignore all that for now. george is pretty much an uncaused-cause now that he is housed in the exclusive and luxurious, new and improved i-gap. so i ask george again to answer my plea for guidance. nothing happens. every once in a while george does actually say something but it's usually along the lines of "let me out of this f#cking box you god#amned muth#rf#cking muth#rf#cker!" heh, that george is such a kidder!
obviously george is constrained by the parameters of his confinement and is therefore incapable of offering any advice that would be requested from him.
the same would be true if you put jesus, or krishna, or a unicorn, or any conceivable entity or event in the modified i-gap.
ipso-facto, no free-will.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Home owner who knows nothing about wiring looks in service panel and sees disorganized mess ---especially in days prior to 80's--- and calls electrician.electrician find the order after 2, 5 10 or so minutes.
Great example.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
> Unpredictability is implied in the definition of "random".
Yes, yes, of course it is.
HOWeVer, there are a great many things that are clearly predictable to those with the tools and experience to predict them AND unpredictable to the novice.
Like a game of billiards.
Nobody believes billiard balls have "free will".
And yet, most people find that they are unable to predict exactly how the movement of their arm will set off a chain of events that leads a specific ball into a specific pocket.
And at the same time, we know that some experienced players are able to predict this chain of events with shocking accuracy.
APPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOM
APPARENT UNPREDICTABILITY = PSEUDO RANDOM
Created:
-->
@ethang5
> And you still have not told us what "pseudo random" is.
It's certainly no secret.
A pseudorandom process produces predictable outcomes given information which is typically difficult to acquire; absent such information, pseudorandom sequences of numbers exhibit apparent statistical randomness.
In general, a random process generates unpredictable outcomes: for any single event any particular outcome cannot be predicted in advance given available information. For example, consider an unbiased coin which on any given flip is either heads or tails: on a single flip no outcome is certain. Recording 1,000 flips in a logbook provides a sequence of pseudorandom outcomes: in possession of the logbook each historical outcome is known for certain; however, a person without the logbook sees only a random string of heads and tails.
To generate random numbers that can never be predicted by any observer requires a causally non-deterministic process where events are not fully determined by observable or well understood prior states (e.g., whether a photon is emitted by an atom in any given nanosecond). Due to the physical impossibility of acquiring sufficient information to predict the outcome of such an event, its outcomes are guaranteed to appear random to all.
Randomness is therefore a condition which holds of a sequence relative to the information available to the predictor, with pseudorandomness indicating that information sufficient to predict the next outcome may be acquired by the predictor under some circumstances. The most prominent example is the pseudorandom number generators used by digital computers in which knowing a starting "seed" number produces an entirely predictable string of numbers which are unpredictable without it. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The term "self-caused" is incoherent.Why?
Because every "self" is a complex collection of causes and effects.
These causes have their origins outside the "self" and the effects have ramifications beyond the "self".
Certainly the "self" changes over time, but none of the causes originate within the "self".
What are you? - 6 minutes,
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Why are you insisting on a colloquial definition of RANDOM, if not in defense of FREEWILL?
Are you accusing yourself of being "off-topic"?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
> Unpredictability is bound up in the definition of "random". Please look it up. You really need to define your terms.
ran•dom răn′dəm
- adj.Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: synonym: chance.
The weather was once thought to be "unpredictable" (Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective).
And as it turns out, our inability to predict the weather was simply a function of our lack of understanding.
Weather patterns are the result of highly complex patterns of cause and effect (just like lava-lamps).
RANDOM =/= FREEWILL
NON-RANDOM = DETERMINISM (CAUSE AND EFFECT)
Apparent unpredictability is not a sufficient definition of RANDOM.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
@zedvictor4
And something that is programmed is therefore not random, no matter how random it might appear to be.
100%
The most "random" a computer can manage is lava-lamps.
I'm not kidding, the world's most prestigious cyber-security firms use lava-lamps to generate their pseudo-random seeds.
Now do you believe the movement of lava-lamp is "uncaused"?
Do you believe a lava-lamp has FREEWILL??
No, it's just wax and water and heat. It's just a highly complex system that makes it VERY difficult to predict.
IT IS NOT TRULY-RANDOM.
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= FREEWILL
UNPREDICTABILITY =/= RANDOM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I'm not going to bring up Hamas to dismiss your ridiculous comparison. Instead, I am officially announcing that I have exposed the hypocrisy and nonsense in your theory. Post what you want, it is a right-wing echo chamber from here on out.
Hamas is a MOBSTER ORGANIZATION in exactly the same way your own government is a MOBSTER ORGANIZATION.
I've never identified as "right-wing" and I think it's hilarious you're rushing-to-disqualify me as such (another indirect ad hominem attack).
Have the Israelis used excessive force? Yes.
Have the Israelis committed war-crimes? Yes.
Have the Israelis trampled human-rights? Yes.
Does this make the Palestinian people "good"? No.
Does this mean the Israelis have committed the exact same acts as their WWII oppressors? No.
Nobody's forcing you to participate in this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I think he has some issues since hes also pushing 'The War on Hydroxychloroquine"' bit.
Hey, I've never been afraid to talk to the loonies!
You might even dig-up some great conversations like this one.
Created: