Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Comic book? The one that made you think robots are organisms maybe?
robots can react to their environment and learn new behavior and even form representative models
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?What makes you think it doesn't have "consciousness?
the same thing that makes me think my car doesn't have a soul
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
lets define consciousness as the ability to perceive sensory stimuli and respond by purposeful action or by a behavioral change, and therefore an organism that demonstrates those abilities can be said to possess consciousness.
this includes robots
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Insects certainly display complex and apparently intelligent behavior. They navigate over long distances, find food, avoid predators, communicate, display courtship, care for their young, and so on. The complexity of their behavioral repertoire is comparable to any mammal.
There are two types of behavior that can be observed in organisms: innate behavior and learned behavior. Innate behavior is genetically encoded. Flight and mating habits are considered innate behaviors. You have probably seen a clear example of innate insect behavior called the dorsal light reaction. Flying insects will sense the direction of light coming from the sun and fly in a way that keeps the sun overhead, or on their dorsal side. This is a means for the insect to maintain a flight plan that is parallel to the ground. You may have witnessed that this innate behavior is not so helpful when a moth encounters an artificial light source and flies in continuous circles around it to keep the light on its dorsal surface. At times, the moth is not able to fly away from that light source and, in essence, becomes trapped. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Consciousness, via volitional action, increases the likelihood that an organism will direct its attention, and ultimately its movements, to whatever is most important for its survival and reproduction.
an insect is functionally indistinguishable from a robot
Created:
-->
@Shila
please explain if you intend this to be a "yes" or a "no" or a "maybe sometimes"Already answered. Depends on who hears it.
purely subjective
Created:
-->
@Shila
If one is an atheist, there is little reason to believe in an afterlife
have you ever met a GNOSTIC ?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
ATHEISM is simply "not a theist"it has absolutely nothing to do with "afterlife" or AXIOLOGY or any other ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questionsApparently, you don't know what epistemological means.
there are many self-identified "atheists" who have no idea what epistemological limits are
Created:
-->
@Shila
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?Depends on the narrative.that sounds a lot like a "NO"Depends on who hears it.
please explain if you intend this to be a "yes" or a "no" or a "maybe sometimes"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processingData processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing. Where does this data processing take place.At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?
does a dragonfly have "consciousness" ?
does an eagle have "consciousness" ?
what about an ape ?
maybe a dog ?
does an infant human have "consciousness" ?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?Depends on the narrative.
that sounds a lot like a "NO"
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell, making that standard meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
i will never go to imaginary hell no matter what i do
because i trust in imaginary jesus
Created:
-->
@Tarik
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"Parole is not a regulation dude, stop reaching.
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requestsOkay, but I never argued that they were.
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study findsPrisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchersInteresting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
enforcement of "the rules" is NOT UNIFORM
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious? Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
how can an insect interact with its environment ?
how can a robot interact with its environment ?
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know how you can come to that reach of a conclusion based off of one work example.
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds
Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers
Created:
-->
@Tarik
only if "the rules" are coherentand enforcement is uniformIf your only play here is to go in circles that’s how you know you lost, have a nice day 3.
if you can't see how "the rules" are subjective
and if you can't see how "enforcement" is also subjective
you must live in a perfect world where everyone is treated fairly
where everyone gets exactly what they "objectively" deserve
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cancel culture is a strong motivator for keeping your mouth shut. Hopefully, America's reign of terror will pass as people are distracted with the current recession.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, the point is that violating agreed upon rules of the workplace is a fireable offense plain and simple, how those rules were determined remains separate to the firing itself.
only if "the rules" are coherent
and enforcement is uniform
Created:
-->
@Tarik
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniformneither of these is a givenWhich is the proper assumption based on Double_R’s use of the term “right”, and the sole purpose of rules is to be enforced, that’s a given.
the point is
that the employer and or their proxy
SUBJECTIVELY
decides
"what is best for the company"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
and if one were to violate said rules then they are by definition wrong, there employee handbook
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform
neither of these is a given
Created:
-->
@Shila
Facts are objective when it is free from personal considerations,
please present a meaningful claim
an argument, that is important to you personally
that consists ONLY of facts
Created:
-->
@Shila
the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.
which brings us once again back to HUME'S GUILLOTINE
facts alone cannot convey meaning
facts must be colored with context
and context is by definition, subjective (sample biased)
Created:
-->
@Shila
Scientists are objective.Why is it important for a scientist to be objective?Scientists will alter hypotheses and theories when new knowledge is developed. Objectivity is important in science because scientific studies seek to get as close to the truth as possible, not just prove a hypothesis. Experiments should be designed to be objective and not to get the answers that a scientists wantsThere are some 8.8 million scientists in the world. That’s a lot of qualified objective humans.
Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.
(2) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."
(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).
(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).
The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).
(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".
(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.
"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]
Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".
"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.
In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.
"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]
"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]
The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.
(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,
"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]
"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]
The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.
One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.
But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.
They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.
(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@Athias
try to imagine what that world would feel likeDoes not compute... Does not compute...
imagine if you lived on some plot of land, where you and your family could grow and store your own food, build your own shelter, and sew your own clothes
basically self-sufficient
you could FREELY-CHOOSE to travel to a factory and FREELY agree to work for some period of time
Created:
-->
@Athias
I don't understand what this trailer was supposed to indicate.
worker exploitation
Created:
-->
@Athias
an agreement can only be truly voluntary if the workers are not desperateHow does a worker's being desperate make any arrangement he/she forms with an employer less than "truly voluntary"?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Are you saying China is supporting Capitalism?
china is exploiting capitalism
Created:
-->
@Athias
Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.I'm still not seeing the implication. Did the comment I submit indicate that I would go without clothes or that my ownership of them would be qualified by some third party's assessment of "need"?
why would you express concern about qualifying for clothes unless you were afraid of walking around naked ?
Created:
-->
@Athias
imagine a world where nobody has to worry about getting decent food and shelterDecent food and shelter have expenses; if you're not worrying about it, someone else will.
the money the united states has spent "helping ukraine" could have solved homelessness three times over
try to imagine what that world would feel like
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Really? Not buying it. If a historical character is what they are, they just are, and others have no choice but to accept it. And it doesn't do "a number" on them.
there is absolutely zero chance the historical jesus has white skin and silky brown hair
Created:
-->
@Shila
That was the most unkindest cut of them all. To suggest we are all indirectly supporting communism.
almost everything sold by walmart and amazon is made in china
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I honestly don't understand why the mods allow these spam accounts to come on here and do this shit. Everybody knows that these are if not already established member setting up fake accounts idiots who come on here just to do this shit and they allow it to happen. It's why more than half the members here either high school or early college age kids because mature adults don't put up with shit like this.
i'm starting to think your account is an alt of rationalmadman
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Sure, the original story was Danish or whatever, but mermaids definitionally don't live in Denmark, so they can be whatever ethnicity or mix of ethnicities the creators want.Actually, in the original Danish story, her skin was green, the Character has been whitewashed and blackwashing, it's green people that should be outraged.
Created:
-->
@Shila
there is no such thing as "an objective person"An objective person uses reason to consider issues and understands emotion as a byproduct rather than a goal. Facts are considered and are given importance before situation and circumstance are evaluated. The objective person uses logical arguments rather than emotional appeals.
even the most rational stoic
suffers from sample-bias when considering facts
and motivated-reasoning when choosing which question is considered "important" to them personally
the standard definition of "objective" includes "without bias"
and this is impossible for a human to achieve
Created:
-->
@Tarik
So to bring this back to our point of contention, anyone that disagrees with you regarding ice cream is immoral?
every action is either moral or immoral
for example, roughly 50% of chocolate is produced with the aid of child labor
Created:
-->
@Athias
And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct?
an agreement can only be truly voluntary if the workers are not desperate
imagine a world where nobody has to worry about getting decent food and shelter
how many of those people would show up every day for a shitty and or dangerous job to be routinely insulted by a cruel boss ?
it is always in the best interests of "the captains of industry" to make the world as hostile as possible in order to cultivate desperate workers
Created:
-->
@Athias
but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothesWhere did I imply this?
when you said,
Sure I might have my "own clothes" if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The goal is to stop American troops from withdrawing in disgrace. Eg Vietnam, North Korea, USA, Somalia, Afghanistan! Iraq.
no, "the goal" is to transfer public funds into private coffers
Created:
-->
@Athias
well, it stands in stark contrast to "capitalism" which many treat as a "political -ism"True enough, but it still focuses on the management of resources.
i'm not sure what kind of family you've experienced
but it would seem to be pretty rare for a family to let one of their members walk around without clothes
Created:
-->
@Athias
if and only if some arbitrary third party determines that I "need" them.
that's already basically the case
the police force is functionally indistinguishable from a local mafia
and if you really irritate your neighbors, they will take everything from you
Created:
-->
@Athias
Communism like every other political "-ism"
well, it stands in stark contrast to "capitalism" which many treat as a "political -ism"
Created:
-->
@Athias
that's actually a bit cartoonishHow so?
communism is modeled after how a family operates
each member is motivated by a sense of loyalty and duty to the family
and not by pure profit motive
each member of the family still has their own clothes and their own room and their own personal possessions
but they also share many things
Created:
-->
@Athias
we have strong instincts to protect what we perceive as the most vulnerableAll the more reason that feminist claims that "the patriarchy" is based on "misogyny"--as opposed to protecting females--have done little to convince me.
we'll see what happens when we have an all female military
Created:
-->
@Athias
Communism = elimination of private property = elimination of free-flowing price system = elimination of individual values and autonomy.
that's actually a bit cartoonish
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'd have to read up on history to have a stronger opinion, about it and conquerors,
well, when you grow up black or latin or asian or arab and you only see pictures of "white jesus" it sort of does a number on you
Created: