Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
Logically! The question is, [where does pure-subjectivity leave us] if there is no objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
That is why we have conversations.
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates [de facto] mercenaries).
When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates [de facto] cowards).
When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates [de facto] slaves).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is why we have conversations.Logically! The question is, why are you or I if there is not objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates mercenaries).
When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates cowards).
When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates slaves).
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
A democratic military would be a complete disaster.
So, does this mean you believe that a quasi-fascist autocracy is a GOOD THING in a military (and perhaps corporate) context?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
We are really off topic. I'm not sure that have any disagreements about the topic left.
I'm just sayin'...
If you're against fascism, you're probably against autocracy, and we're practically swimming in autocracy, so there's no shortage of targets.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It would be like giving King Henry VIII a cell phone.
If cell phones were used in ancient Greece (500 BCE).
Yes, they can have some input. It's more important decisions like "Should Daddy work or stay home and play with us all day?" that they shouldn't be making.
Interestingly, that's one of the arguments against democracy. (IFF) you believe people are idiots (THEN) democracy seems like a bad idea.
Not necessarily, but an education, whether going to a public or private school, homeschooling, or even hiring a tutor, is very beneficial in the long run.
Perhaps, but the greatest businessmen of the 20th century, like J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt all began working full-time at age 11 and never went to college. Thomas Edison was taught reading and basic arithmetic by his mother and only attended school for three months as a young child. And more recently, high-school drop-outs, Bill Gates and Richard Branson among others, seem to be doing ok for themselves. [LINK] and [LINK]
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That's due to nostalgia, rose-colored glasses, and the fact that it makes next to no sense to have the main character swing a sword and then go to a voting booth. In order to do medieval fantasy, you need to at least be realistic enough to have a monarchy rather than interjecting republics where they didn't exist.
Oh, you mean like the republics in Ancient Greece?
And dragons?
Are dragons more realistic than representative democracy?
A democratic family, for instance, would be foolish because the children have undeveloped brains and a lack of experience which would lead them to make bad decisions like not going to school.
But don't you think children should have some input into the decision making process?
I mean, should you force kids to eat broccoli (for example) if they're perfectly willing to eat peas instead?
And I almost forgot, do you believe "going to school" is really the best use of their time?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Eh, I'm not defending fascism, I'm questioning it.
Isn't it a little strange that we love to blather on and on about "democracy" and how great it is, but our literature, especially for children (inculcation), is riddled with Kings and Queens and Princes and Princesses?
Isn't it a little strange that we're born into families that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Isn't it a little strange that we idolize the military which is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Isn't it a little strange that we work for businesses that are generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Isn't it a little strange that we're taught to obey a god that is generally Autocratic (quasi-fascist)?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It suppresses dissent with violence. It denies people rights such as the rights to bear arms and have free speech and press. It fosters xenophobia and racism that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It promotes extreme nationalism that led to wars of conquest, ultimately killing tens of millions in the European front of WWII. It is frequently centered around personality cults that exalt dictators, which we saw with Hitler, Mussolini, and Francisco Franco. Its economic policies are unsustainable and would have lead to recession without the war. It is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. The secret police assassinate or imprison those who disagree. Fascist governments rely on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.Shall I go on, or is that enough?
Everything you've mentioned is bad-fascism, like having a bad king.
What about good-fascism, like having a benevolent king.
For example,
The Catholic Church has no tolerance for criticism (blasphemy). The Catholic Church fostered xenophobia and racism (antisemitism) that lead to the Holocaust in WWII. It is centered around a cult-of-personality (The Holy Pope). The Catholic Church is dictatorial and its elections are rigged through the suppression of dissent. Historically, The Catholic Church has imprisoned and burned-at-the-stake anyone who dares to disagree. The Catholic Church relies on manipulative and blatantly false propaganda to deceive the people.
But they're the "good guys" so, doesn't that make it ok?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'm serious. Please explain what you think is wrong with fascism.Are you serious, or am I missing a joke somewhere?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection.How about the objection of being opposed to fascism, whether regular or quasi?
That's an interesting question.
What's wrong with fascism anyway?
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Here's another conversation on the same topic, [LINK]
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I said "antifa in America has some fascist characteristics." I am aware that they are not full-blown fascists.
What fascist characteristics would those be? Pro-censorship and pro-violence? Let me know if I've missed one that you object to.
Even if you oppose quasi-fascism you still need to be specific about your objection. Are you pro-unrestricted-free-speech (including hate-speech)? Are you anti-violence (pacifist)? Are you against all public protests (de facto supporter of fascist tactics)?
Again, you are confusing legality with morality. However, I do agree with you on a legal basis.
Morality is personal, subjective, experiential, and Qualitative.
Legality is (should be) impersonal, independently verifiable, logically coherent, and Quantitative.
If you object to anti-fascism for personal, subjective, experiential, and Qualitative reasons, please mention that.
To be clear, I prefer generally, to examine ideas in an impersonal, independently verifiable, logically coherent, and Quantitative framework.
I object to the term hate-speech advocate because it is unclear.
Certainly, I'm just trying to avoid the opposite ambiguity of the term "pro-free-speech" from which most people intuitively exclude "fighting-words" and "hate-speech" and "profanity" without any explanation whatsoever. I'd probably say "pro-unrestricted-free-speech-including-hate-speech" if that sounds more acceptable to you.
(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.I disagree, but that is another can of worms that is totally irrelevant.
Ok, it seems pretty straight-forward to me, but we can skip it for now if you'd like.
I am aware that direct physical harm isn't a completely coherent standard, but I didn't have time to work out a legal philosophy that I could boil down into a few sentences.
Perhaps, "individual sovereignty"?
Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream. There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.
...fascist countries have nationalized major industries, which doesn't qualify as "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned" and therefore is not capitalist.
In the United States it is common for government entities to own stadiums and public utilities and even forests and other public lands that are leased to loggers and oil drillers and natural gas drillers and gravel haulers. 75% of Lockheed-Martin's funding comes directly from the government (making it a de facto government owned corporation). Boeing is heavily subsidized. The government picks winners and losers all day every day.
Free-market-capitalism is a pipe-dream. There are no free-markets, only regulated markets.
“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners ”were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.” [LINK]
The same thing is happening right now in the United States. There is no free-market. For example, exhibit A: [LINK]
I appreciate your scathing critique.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Even the worst Anti-Fascist groups are not properly fascist, because they are not a formal government (please observe the definition of fascism), at best they might be considered "quasi-fascist".The problem is that antifa in America has some fascist characteristics, so your logic cannot be used to defend them.
Simply because someone opposes all censorship does not make them an advocate for hate speech.
(IFF) someone opposes all censorship (THEN) they are a de facto hate-speech-advocate.
I agree that one can support a principle without explicitly endorsing/defending the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles, however, if you support a principle, then you are IMPLICITLY ENDORSING/DEFENDING the specific policies and or individual actions that manifest from those principles.
For example, I may not believe that abortion is a good idea, and I may try to discourage people from having abortions and I may be personally averse to having an abortion myself, HOWEVER I defend people's right to make that personal decision for themselves on the PRINCIPLE of personal-PRIVACY.
(IFF) someone supports personal-privacy (THEN) they are a defacto abortion-rights-advocate.
...I do not think the law can be used to enforce morality. Obviously, the law does need to enforce aspects of morality...
The Law is codified mob-rule. American law is based on British-Common-Law which is simply a loose collection of regional social norms that have been written down independently by local judges in villages, towns and cities. I believe the law should be logically-coherent, but whether or not you think the law is (or should be) a "moral instrument" depends on whether or not you believe "social norms" are distinguishable from "morality".
...because those things do not cause direct physical harm...
Playing your dance music at high-volume in your back yard at 2am on a week night "does not cause direct physical harm" either. I'm not sure that "direct physical harm" is a coherent standard.
...while it is true that opposing public protests is a characteristic of fascism, having one characteristic of fascism does not make you a fascist.
Great point! What about,
(IFF) you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests (THEN) you are a de facto supporter of FASCIST tactics.
If an economy is capitalist, it doesn't have strict government controls...
Eh, not necessarily. You might be conflating capitalism with "free-market-capitalism" or "laissez-faire-capitalism".
CAPITALISM:
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital. [LINK]
And,
There are a lot of flavors of SOCIALISM:
By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned [worker-owned] enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend.[26][27][28] The socialist calculation debate concerns the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system. [LINK]
Here's an example of an Employee-Owned (market-socialist) corporation, [PUBLIX]
Created:
Let's approach this with pure logic.
The term, Anti-Fascist does not specify what it is FOR, only what it is AGAINST.
The term, Anti-Fascist implicitly endorses any conceivable action (censorship/protest/violence) that impedes perceived Fascism.
(1) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against violence, then you are a PACIFIST.
(2) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against ALL censorship, then you are a HATE-SPEECH-ADVOCATE.
(3) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests then you are a FASCIST.
IF you call yourself an "Anti-Anti-Fascist" then you must specify which of these 3 options you are supporting.
And just a reminder,
FASCISM IS:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a (de facto) dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Source
This seems to accurately describe China and Turkey and Russia.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
On God's being and omnipresence -Exodus 3:14 (NASB)God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now (Psalm 139:7-10; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24).
I've read all of those scripture references and they only support the assertion that god is everywhere-that-humans-are. It never says that god is also on Mars or the Andromeda galaxy for example. It only implies that humans (more specifically the author of that passage) cannot escape god.
The specific claim, "transcending all spacial limitations in that He is, and He is omnipresent by transcending past present and future in being eternally here and now" does not appear in any of those references.
AND, what makes your god a "he"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You know that truth is reality [QUANTA], falsehood is unreality [QUALIA].
Got it.
And surely you can tell, because as a human being you have inherited the knowledge of good and evil. Besides, you demonstrate that you know the difference.
I was born with social instincts. Just like rats. Just like dogs. My social instincts may or may not be exactly the same as yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Awesome! Spinoza was right!Creation itself is the flesh of God
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I agree 100%.The Ultimate Reality is incomprehensible
I'm not so sure about this fleshy-god-flesh thing you're talking about. I've never seen one of those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
God certainly is independent of the mind, and is therefore not noumenon, which by definition is NOT independent from the mind.
NOUMENON = INCOMPREHENSIBLE
The word "incomprehensible" is technically comprehensible, however, the word itself "incomprehensible" demarcates the limits of what you can say about that "thing".
It's an exclusive definition instead of an inclusive definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The point is that the difference between truth and falsehood is discernible.
Not always.
You know what truth means.
REAL-TRUE-FACTS are Quantifiable and or logically necessary.
You know what falsehood means.
Qualitative, personal, experiential phenomena are neither strictly true nor strictly false.
Some (most) statements have no "truth-value".
You can tell the difference between these two. You know that if you say "The coin is under this cup" and it is not, what you said is not true.
Your example is a CATEGORY ERROR.
You're basically saying (IFF) 1 + 1 = 2 (THEN) I love you.
You can't use cups and coins (QUANTA) to "prove" "sin is real" (QUALIA).
Please provide a concrete demonstration of how I can know (for certain) if I've personally "missed god's mark".
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you saying it is necessary for the deistic argument?
The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is correct.Without an objective absolute, universal reference point, everything is relative and subjective, mere preference.
(IFF) you define god is an objective absolute universal reference point (THEN) this particular version of god must be incomprehensible (independent of the mind).
Objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real. [LINK]
I mean, unless you personally prefer some alternative definition of "objective".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The perfection of God.
How do I quantify "the perfection of god" and how do I compare myself and others to "the perfection of god"?
How do I know if I've ever "missed the mark" if I've never seen "the mark"?
Do you have access to some sort of chart perhaps? A chart would be amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I consider a veiled threat (perceived threat) an initiation of violence.
Someone pointing a gun in my face is an explicit threat.
Someone showing up at my home at strange hours with a gun strapped to their hip is a veiled (implicit) threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Where/what is "the mark"?Sin literally means to miss the mark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
Step one, explicitly define "sin".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Truth is what we fight for, not indoctrination.
I agree 100% and I do the same myself.
If God exists, He is good, and He has revealed Himself then we can know the truth.
(IFF) god exists (AND) god is good (AND) god has comprehensibly revealed itself to humans (THEN) we can know the truth
You're missing a few definitions here. Please explicitly define god, good, and truth.
That is the biblical claim, that God does exist, that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and has revealed Himself to humanity.
I'm actually pretty sure "The Bible" claims no such thing. The "omniscient" claim is extrapolated from "god knows when a sparrow falls" which simply means that god is obsessed with sparrows. The "omnipotent" claim is extrapolated from "our god is an awesome god" which simply means the Jews thought their god was pretty cool. The "omnibenevolent" claim is the weakest of the three "omni" claims because even by "the fount of all gospel truth" god is a vindictive, murderous, and jealous thing. Even the "revealed itself to humanity" is highly suspect, because even the holy scripture itself claims that "no one can know nor has anyone ever known god".
Thus, it would be good to teach your children the truth.
It seems we need to define Standards-of-Evidence.
As soon as you raise this red flag it brings to mind why what you believe is true and how you teach the truth to children?
Precisely.
Thus, how do you justify your epistemology?
With logic.
To get to that aspect we would have to examine your belief system/worldview. Care to divulge what that is and why it is true?
I am a logiczombie.
I seek logical coherence in all things.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.How can this be a case for deism? For all we know there is simply a causal reality before the Big Bang that explains everything without the need for a single entity to start it all.
It's a case for the logical necessity (NOUMENON).
There must be some-thing (not a no-thing) and theists try to argue that this logically-necessary-some-thing is their version of god (although it only "proves" a DEISTIC god (ontologically) because this argument does not make any attempt to tie the logical necessity to their particular god(s).
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Also known as, "the ontological argument". Spinoza makes an airtight case.Are you saying the argument is good?Can you present it as well?
Spinoza makes his case in his masterpiece, Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata. [LINK]
(IFF) god = omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent (AND) (IFF) god = real (THEN) everything that is real must necessarily be god (or parts of god).
This is a purely ontological argument. You define god, then you link that definition to reality by equating the two, which logically means you've just defined reality as god (and god as reality).
It also works if you examine the Catholic concept of "Ex Nihilo". (IFF) no-thing existed before god and no-thing existed parallel to god (AND) god is the sole creator of all things (THEN) all things must be created out of god-itself. That is-to-say, everything must be made of god-stuff, since there is no other material other than god, as per the primary statement.
Also known as, "the logical necessity". Kant makes an airtight case.Are you saying the argument is good?Can you present the case?
Kant makes his case in his masterpiece, Critique of Pure Reason. [LINK] and slightly more in-depth [LINK]
(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.
(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.
The things you will never know are NOUMENON.
What happened "before" the Big Bang is NOUMENON.
What is the fundamental mechanism that "causes" phenomenal reality?
NOUMENON.
Can't we reverse engineer what we observe in order to decipher the underlying mechanism?
NOPE.
Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".So they can't make a case for the current interpretation of the Biblical God?
Nobody can. All definitions of "YHWH" are incoherent.
The closest you get are, as Mopac likes to say, "god is the ultimate reality" (which is NOUMENON). But Mopac objects to the word NOUMENON.
And even if you define god as NOUMEON (ein sof, magnum mysterium, ultimate reality) it still doesn't explain all that "rule-book" stuff.
I mean, if god is unknowable, then how could bronze age fiction writers compose a rule-book about it? [LINK]
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Deflecting from his well stale position that God exists because the definitions said so.
Also known as, "the ontological argument". Spinoza makes an airtight case.
No what caused the big bang no infinite regression can't be possible angle instead defaults to 3-4 words.
Also known as, "the logical necessity". Kant makes an airtight case.
Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Start the indoctrination at a young age and you more than likely have a convert.
Good point. Perhaps Christians should wait until kids turn 18 before teaching them about the holy scriptures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Okay. Are you forced to use tautology because of the lack of things found out in quantum mechanics?
Those "lack of things" may be beyond our epistemological limits.
We may never find non-local-hidden-variables.
We may never be able to perfectly predict all future events.
However, that does not mean we can't grasp the philosophical and practical implications of determinism/indeterminism because one of them must necessarily be true and the philosophical and practical implications are identical.
I guess I should have said, I must believe in tautological-indeterminism/determinism. That would more conclusively cover all options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
HoWEver,we can't say 100% for certain either way.
Since determinism and indeterminism are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL (AND) the opponents of determinism (free-willies) incessantly argue in support of indeterminism it makes no sense to debate them on this point because there is absolutely nothing to be gained philosophically or practically by insisting that pure-determinism is true. Indeterminism has all the same philosophical and practical implications as determinism, EXACTLY like how DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
DEISM (intelligent-design) does nothing to support any particular THEISM in the same way that INDETERMINISM does nothing to support FREE-WILL.
I guess it's more of a strategic tactic.
If it doesn't matter either way, meaning if there are no philosophical or practical implications, then the option that your opponent supports becomes common-ground and you've essentially turned what they thought was their sovereign territory into your domain.
I guess what I'm calling a "tautology" is when two ideas are "functionally identical", if the philosophical and practical implications are indistinguishable, then it seems to qualify as "true by definition" at that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Don't you think we would see something breaking the cause and effect rule by now or maybe Quantum researchers don't have the evidence yet to state that?
I agree that our inability to predict quantum fluctuations does not necessarily mean they are "fundamentally-unpredictable", there may be some "hidden-non-local-variables" but at this point, we can't say 100% for certain either way.
tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.I didn't see the tautological part of it. Do you want to explain that?
A logical tautology is a statement that is necessarily true in all circumstances.
For example,
In the realm of logic, a tautology is something that is true in all circumstances. A common example of a logical tautology is the following:
- The dog either has 100% brown fur, or the dog does not have 100% brown fur.
This sentence is always true because one or the other must be so. This is different than a statement that says, "The dog is either brown, or the dog is white," because dogs can be black, gray, or a mix of colors. Note that when you put both halves of the logical tautology together, it feels a bit redundant, just like a verbal tautology. [LINK]
Another common example of a logical tautology is something that is true-by-definition.
For example,
(P1) alligator is one of many sub-categories of crocodile
All alligators are crocodiles, but not all crocodiles are alligators. This statement is true-by-definition.
Back to the indeterminism example,
Tautological statement (1) (EITHER) determinism (OR) indeterminism is TRUE - this statement (1) must be true in all circumstances.
Tautological statement (2) In the absence of demonstrable god-like power to accurately and infallibly predict all future events, determinism is functionally identical to, and scientifically indistinguishable from indeterminism - this statement (2) must be true in all circumstances.
Tautological statement (3) Perfect-determinism is incompatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeterminism is compatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) perfect-determinism cannot be true. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) indeterminism is true - this statement (3) must be true in all circumstances.
Based on our current scientific understanding, indeterminism must be true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Perfect-determinism is unprovable.Do you the example you use that states tautological determinism?
In order to prove perfect-determinism, you would have to perfectly predict all future events.
The fact that we cannot currently predict all future events does not in-itself disprove perfect-determinism.
HOWeVer, we can predict some future events and it is conceivable (although not actually provable) that there may be some "fundamental quantum unpredictability" in the otherwise concrete-causal-chain.
And since perfect-determinism (without perfect predictions) is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to indeterminism, tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I believe in tautological (in)determinism.What would you call yourself a determinist or person who takes the position of free will?
Free-will is logically incoherent (provably false).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Would you say that is at fault if you believe in determinism?
The only "fault" is the Big-Bang.
The cog is not "responsible" for its own creation, function, or failure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
In a hypothetically deterministic universe, EVERYTHING is the "fault" of the initial-singularity (Big Bang).Outside morality. I am simply saying did x occur because of x's fault or because of something else.
Imagine a world exactly like the one you currently know.
Everything is exactly 100% identical.
Now imagine that every human and every animal is a robot.
These super-lifelike-robots are indistinguishable from real-human/animals, even to the world's greatest scientists.
How would you define "morality" in super-lifelike-robot world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You're extending merely the reputation of Eugenne and arguing that his words are threatening without any solid connection. (While that makes for good drama, it doesn't necessarily convey anything.) Now if Eugene were to have encountered Danny and shot a man in front of him and afterwards stated "this man didn't do the 'right thing'" then Danny can presume he was threatened because he can then associate "the right thing" as a statement of intention to initiate aggression since the statement of "the right thing" is immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression (the shooting of the aforementioned individual.)
This is a simple matter of Standards-of-Evidence.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Faith? Please tell me what this has got to do with faith.
I believe the standard theist attack is, "you have faith in your ability to reason", "you have faith in science".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why did you define the cog as an individual?
To illustrate how justice is still fully-functional in a hypothetically deterministic universe.
I did state you had no connection to it so why did you state it as potentially dangerous?
When you say "judge" and "blame" it strongly suggests there has been some level of infraction.
I wasn't making a metaphor. It is simple a machine.
Great, why do you want my opinion on a machine that has nothing to do with me?
It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.Wait I am going to bring up something else you said:
Ok,
TRN:Determinism as an axiom, do you consider judging people based on actions they have no control over fair?3RU7AL:Yes, 100% fair.In exactly the same way that it is fair to incarcerate a rabid dog.There is no reason to "blame the dog" for its rabidity.There is no reason to "punish the dog" for its rabidity.But it is imperative that we facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society, and a small part of that involves mitigating public risk.You say you have no reason to blame the dog but you say it is imperative to incarcerate in order for us to live in a peaceful society. Excluding the imperative of it facilitating a livable society would you still blame the dog?
If the rabid dog had no way of damaging myself or any members of my society, I would be perfectly content to let it run its course in the wild.
I'm not sure what you mean by "blame the dog" or "judge the dog". Dogs don't have free-will and rabid dogs doubly-so.
Is the imperative to facilitate a functioning society an axiom of yours?
It's a primary axiom of all humans who wish to contribute to the gene-pool.
I'm still not sure what you're asking.I think I gave a question earlier that might help you understand what I am saying.
Please try to be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please be slightly more specific.Basically a cog is broken and the machine breaks.
The "cog" is a "potentially dangerous individual" and the "machine" is a "peaceful and civil society".
You have no connection to the cog or the machine and you believe in determinism.
Ok.
Do you still judge them like would you still blame the cog for breaking?
If I have "no connection" to either hypothetical objects, I have no logical motivation to "judge".
And why would I bother to "blame" or "punish" the cog? It's merely a practical matter of either repairing or replacing the cog.
I stated no connection so that you can't use potential threat.
I'm still not sure what you're asking.
If I know the expected operational life-cycle of this particular cog is three years, and the cog has been operational for four, and I have some reason to want to keep this particular machine in running condition, I might want to order a replacement cog and schedule a maintenance window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
But I cannot (ought not) violate a property right without moral accountability.
In practice, does this "property right" provide an implicit right-to-privacy?
And an implicit threat of what?
Violence.
How does Danny know Eugenne?
By reputation.
Has he ever witness a violent act by Eugenne?
Not personally.
Were those words ever associated with Eugenne's violent acts?
Unknown.
Where in Eugenne's statement can his intention be deciphered?
The apparently spontaneous personal interest and the direct reference to jury duty.
What is Eugenne intending to do?
Intimidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?Not judging based on threat.
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If they pose a credible threat to themselves or other members of society, then they should be isolated and treated humanely in order to facilitate the function of a peaceful and civil society.How about outside a credible threat?
Like what? A conceivable threat? A probable threat? A hypothetical threat? An empty threat? An implicit threat?
Even a comical threat could be considered harassment (or assault in some cases) and might warrant a stern warning or a restraining order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
How is that beyond my epistemological limits?
There is no way for you to know what your neighbor is doing on their private real-estate-territory without violating their personal-privacy.
Does your "individualism" include personal-privacy protection?
In your example, where in that coded message do you believe the threat is being made? Where is the statement of intention? And exactly what is he threatening?
If a person, who has a reputation for violence, shows up unexpectedly and demonstrates they have personal knowledge of and a particular interest in you and or your loved ones, this can reasonably be interpreted as a credible implicit threat.
The key difference between the mafia threat and the insurance salesman is that only the mafia threat demonstrated personal knowledge of and a particular interest in the individual in question.
In the same way, if you received a notice that a warrant for your arrest had been issued, this would carry with it an implicit threat of violent coercion.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe however I prefer to identify as an avoltronist
You might be inadvertently asking for some serious trouble from the hordes of Voltron fanatics!!
Created: