Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
My arm is strong enough to push the button, and no other factors are involved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If there are two buttons on a table, and I push the green, then I have made a choice. It was indeed possible for me to push the red, but I chose not to do that.
My choice was free, there was nothing preventing me from pushing the red button, but I chose to push the green one.
I have thus made a free choice. But if you could read my mind, you would have anticipated my choice -- because my free choice wasn't random, but logical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
you did not choose it freely because you had no other choice
OBJECTION: This is not true. You had other choices, but you chose the one you did. Since your choice isn't random, you can predict your choice by knowing your though-process
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If you have the ability to choose freely, then you have the ability to choose otherwise than one does
OBJECTION: Choosing freely means that your choice is not going to be hindered by external forces or people. Where do you get this strange line of reasoning from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
P1 fails because one can choose to not change one's future, i.e., choose to not choose; to remain static.
One can choose not to change one's future? No, one definitely can't. By merely moving you are changing the future position of your hand. My merely thinking you are changing the future of your character. Not changing one's future is impossible, and choosing to remaining static would also be to change one's own future.
P2 fails because one has an array of choices not necessarily ever embarked upon and experienced before.
P2 is 100% unshakeable. Tell me which other thing than your choices and your experiences can affect your choice. Nothing but randomness, mind controll or divine intervention, the things that would prevent free will from existing.
I have the choice to begin smoking; something I have never done before; totally lacking that choice and experience.
Whether or not you chose to smoke depends on your morality and your character, which again is based upon your previous experiences and choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
1: If Free will is true, then one has the ability to choose otherwise.
As you define free will, it's the same as randomness. You are saying that if I have free will, then there was a possibility of me suddenly choosing to be a cold-blooded killer, simply because I chose not to become one. This way of defining free will is fundamentally flawed.
Here is a more correct way of looking at the term:
Free will: voluntary choice or decision
Choice: power of choosing :
Freely: of one's own accord
Free will, in its original meaning, means that your decisions are made of your own accord. It doesn't exclude your own accord being shaped by your experiences.
2: It determinism is true, one does not have the ability to choose otherwise.
I disagree.
Ability: : the quality or state of being able
Able: having the freedom or opportunity to do something
If you have free will, it means that your choice is based on your own accord. Even if you lacked the ability to chose otherwise, a choice made by your own accord IS free will.
Created:
Posted in:
Free will: voluntary choice or decision
Choose: to make a choice about what to do
Determinism: a theory that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
Consider my syllogism:
- P1: Free will can only exist if my experience and choices affect the future state of myself
- P2: If choices and experiences affect the future, then every choice was affected by previous choices and experiences
- C: Free will can only exist if every choice was affected by previous choices and/or experience
If you apply this logic to every human, one has effectively proven that free will requires determinism to be true. Unless there is some inherent randomness in how the present affects the future we know for a fact that free will is true, due to free will being a product, not antithesis, of determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Again, I said TIKTOK TRENDS, not TikTok itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
TikTok TRENDS made this happen. And I am pretty sure this kind of stuff is only viable on a platform like TikTok, where only ultra-short videos are viable.
Created:
Posted in:
One often hears about domestic violence. The brutal practice of beating your loved one for more or less trivial issues.
TicToc trends have taken this to a new level.
Abuse is now applauded if you manage to smile and dance while doing it.
Personally, I have never used TicToc. I were shocked to discover this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Women DO exist.
Here is adequate proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_ZEZO7HBEI
TicToc is awesome. Not only does it entertain kids too lazy to watch quality videos on youtube, but it also creates an opportunity for women to use violence for a change. LOL.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Congratulations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Norwegians and Swedish are good friends. We even understand each other's language for the most part. Ironically enough, the hardest communication achievable in Scandinavia is between Norwegians and Danish. Danish people simply speak in a way that Norwegians simply can't easily decode. 100% open borders make sure we can always take a trip to Sweden. Close to the border Norwegians even go to Sweden just to buy different products at a lower price. With Denmark, I doubt there is much conflict with Sweden. Maybe historians might argue about history, but there is a lack of any conflict I am aware of. Furthermore, we Scandinavians often feel like one entity: Scandinavia. If we travel abroad and meet another Scandinavian we feel a connection that isn't too common between people of two countries.
With regards to the industry, there is some overlap, but not much. Of course, the generic industries are somewhat similar, but the iconic ones differ greatly. Swedish industry like IKEA represents Scandinavian architecture and furniture design. In Norway, the three most well-known industries are oil extraction, fishing and tourism. Norway has a lot of mountains, allowing us to generate electricity from waterfalls and rivers. What I find very strange is that we are building windmills, not because we need them, but because some people and politicians would benefit from building renewables.
Scandindavian countries, due to their relatively small size and good economies, are some of the richest countries in the world per inhabitant. In fact, Norway has been deemed the best country in the world many times. The welfare system is up and running efficiently and our population is generally speaking in the middle class or above. All in all, I think Scandinavia is truly a paradise on Earth, only paralleled by countries like Switzerland. I guess this is due to our neutrality (or occupation) in war, coupled with a small population in a big country with many resources. I also can't deny that oil made Norway rich, or that our success is only possible due to the efforts of other nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Stop talking about belief, and start talking about logic.
P1: empirical evidence reflects truth
P2: science is as valid as the empirical evidence it is based upon
C: science reflects truth
Debunk this syllogism using logic. Alternatively, prove why the current state of the world doesn't tell us about the past.
Please do this before you present your religious views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Nukes prevent an all-out war between equals. Small wars backed by superpowers is the worst that could happen. Diplomatic and economic sanctions precede wars, and will often be enough to cripple a nation. You can watch kurzgesagt's video, is war over, if you want to learn more about this topic.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
- peculiar to a particular individual: PERSONAL
- //subjective judgments
- modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
- //a subjective account of the incident
how does you point out that me saying that morality is subjective have anything to do with the interpretation?
Hear me out. You claimed that moral axioms are subjective while their interpretation is objective. This makes no sense. An interpretation is always subjective, regardless of which thing is being interpreted. Even if all humans agreed that morality is about the axiom "reducing harm" the interpretations will be subjective. There are different measures that can be made to reduce harm, many of which contradict each other. Socialism and Capitalism both promise to do the same thing, and both have their upsides and downsides. This also applies to moral standards -- it's a trial and error process. Therefore, no moral standard is objectively right, we can only call them different in effectiveness. This means that any fair punishment might seem unfair from a different perspective. This is what happened to LGBT people in the past, and this is how the future might look at our current treatment of criminals.
The conclusion is that our judgement of the past is a judgement of their standard, not their actions.
We cannot call the actions of a person immoral if they conform to the moral standard of his society.
Even Christianity, which claims there is a divine moral standard, acknowledges this.
"To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law." [Romans 5.13]
Nobody can be charged for breaking a moral law they were not aware of. Your condemnation of people in the past is not valid if they were ignorant of the standard you use.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Now you appeal to determinism
OBJECTION: you are the one that appealed to determinism. Proof:
you do not "choose" you gender identity - just like you do not choose your sexual orientation...we do not know 100% of the cause of such things
In other words, you previously claimed that (1): you do not choose to be LGBT, (2): you do not know the causes for people being LGBT.
These claims of yours cancel each other out. If one cannot predict or explain the process by which a person finds himself to be LGBT, then you can't deny that choice is involved. Unless your genes pre-determine you to become LGBT then the choice is involved. But you claim that people don't choose their gender identity -- (which sounds absurd and requires evidence of gay people in the past never being married to a woman). If by "gender identity" you mean your genes, then yes choice isn't involved. But we are talking about de facto sexual expression. One's sexual expression IS a choice, this is a fact unless you can prove that gay people in the past never married a woman, effectively choosing to be straight.
the things that we want - they can change - and even if it in accordance with something else you have still done something which is "willfully".
Are you claiming that one chooses to be a criminal? What if one is born a criminal, being trained by one's own father. Have you "chosen" to" be a criminal? Do you bear personal responsibility for your own path of life? Of course not, your father figure chose to make you a criminal. Your "will" was being manipulated by the pre-determined world around you; more specifically, your father figure. Turning away from being a criminal might happen as a result of interacting with society and being exposed to the law and moral standards.
Your claim that being a criminal is in any way more in your control than being LGBT has no basis in reality. We know for a fact that there are multiple scenarios under which becoming a criminal is basically predictable. We have no such situation for gay people. There is also the fact that criminality is not eradicated by societal norms, while the number of gay people depends on how accepting society is towards the said group. Take a look at ancient Greece where at one point gayness was basically seen as a status symbol, and look at the number of active gays as compared to those in today's Iran. This correlation between societal acceptance and numbers is not present in criminality.
I, therefore, refuse to accept your line-in the sand describing LGBT as a group while a criminal is "an individual". The action of "oppressing" LGBT people is no different from our oppression of criminals. Stop calling red herring. This is a branching forum, not a debate.
LGBT people don't cause any more harm than the average citizen
Harm is the moral standard of today. In the past, the moral standard was more based on religion. The same way harm is punished today, breaking religious rules was punished in the past. LGBT people were punished for breaking the moral code written in the Bible (or Quoran). My argument still stands. The actions of people in the past were no less moral than the actions of police officers today. You judge the actions of the past based on the moral standard of today -- which I refuted by pointing at future moral standards.
My argument still stands: any accusation you raise against past oppression of LGBT people can be raised against our society as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
As I said, we have nukes today. We also have extensive trading between all nations. There is NO incentive to start a major war for anybody. Even if it did start, the US has more airpower on the sea than any other nation has in total. It also has even more on land, and they have an extensive navy. Not to mention the technological advantage by always being a few years ahead of its competitors. America IS ready for WW3, no matter how its gonna be fought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In Norway, we don't do that. We prefer paying for their housing while letting them or forcing them to do nothing. We also disallow people to work at all until they get accepted as Norwegians, which can take many years. I guess its the fault of our system and not the immigrants or immigration in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I live in Norway. We pay money to shelter refugees from the middle east. This is expensive, and doesn't help the economy. Other types of immigration might be economical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
All world leaders are aliens anyways, so it really doesn't matter how we structure our world. Nah...just kidding. I support global trade and international cooperation. I do not support a world government in any way whatsoever, apart from a magical version of the UN that would actually work. The current nukes are important for world peace, but I don't think the production of new nukes should be attempted at all.
Immigration is a split topic for me. I know the economic downsides of immigration, and the moral questions associated with those poor countries. In the end, though, I think it would be best if qualified people can study in another country to then return and rebuild their own country once the fire's out. This plan is highly impractical though, so I doubt I have any actual policy suggestion.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the axiom itself is subjective, not the interpretation of that axiom
Subjective axiom... hmmm... interesting.
Wait, what did you say again?
Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective...there are certain axioms that we must accept
If we must accept an axiom it isn't subjective. Explain to me how an axiom can be subjective. Furthermore, your assertion that interpreted morality is not subjective makes no sense. If the axiom is subjective, how does it have an objective interpretation? This line of reasoning simply falls flat when confronted with basic questions. I get your point despite of this problem, but you really need to find a logical way to describe the standard you argue for.
oppression of a group and the punishment of an individual who did something wrong are two very different things
We oppress a group called criminals. This group was born with the specific genes and in the specific circumstances that shaped them into criminals. We also oppress a group called LGBT. This group was also born with the specific genes and in the specific circumstances that made them LGBT. Both of these groups had little control over how their lives turned out.
You are arbitrarily creating a divide between criminals and LGBT. I do not deny that there are differences, but your choice of wording shines through here that this particular one of your arguments is flawed and reliant upon rhetoric alone. First of all, you are referring to "oppression of a group", nothing wrong here. But you then go on with "punishing an individual who did something wrong", which is arguably an attempt at scaring me from making that comparison. Your attempt failed.
First off all, criminals include all sorts of people, with a lot of different actions leading up to their arrest. Secondly, you are completely ignoring both the fact that criminals is a group, and the fact that they are far more oppressed than any other group, including LGBT. Thirdly, instead of calling prison oppression, you called it punishment. This strongly suggests you think that these people DESERVE to be in prison, and that their inhumane treatment is not an unjust use of power. You then refere your subjective axiom.
In other words, your moral standard condemns murder as immoral and justifies the inhumane punishment of murderers. As you might know, the moral standard of the past condemned LGBT as immoral and justified the inhumane punishment of LGBT, for example through oppression. These situations are the same situation, there is no difference. The people in the past had religious beliefs, they didn't think they were oppressing innocents, they thought they were serving justice by punishing sinners. My point wasn't that murderers and LGBT are remotely similar. My point was that the future might condemn our moral standard and our treatment of "immoral" people, without us even having a clue that our actions aren't justified. Therefore, it makes no sense to condemn the actions of humans in the past when we ourselves are repeating or continuing this trend.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
COME ON!
Recall:
By the same logic, a criminal using his bodily power to steal a car is "oppressing" the owner. This doesn't make any sense (if you disagree, please explain why it makes sense).Real power, as in "being in control of someone else". Only the government and similar institutions have the ability to oppress.
"Power" in the definition of oppression neither refers to electricity nor individual autonomy -- it refers to POWER --> the courts, the congress, the government. You said that 10 years ago gay people were not allowed to marry, that was oppression. But today, that law isn't there anymore. The problems of LGBT people is not government oppression, but general prejudice and discrimination. The reason a gay person might be denied medicine is not due to any abuse of power, but because the individual responsible for serving him refuses to offer his services. If anything, the doctor is DEFYING power by discriminating (I assume Americans have laws against discrimination).
The ability to deny another person your services is a case of discrimination, not oppression. Your appeal to personal power as a fulfilment of the definition isn't worth anything. That's because the word "oppression" clearly describes the actions of the government and powerful institutions rather than individual workers.
to use that authority by purposely not picking certain workers for something they have no control over
Again, that is called discrimination. I have made it clear that oppression requires general control of a person life. A single denial of a job isn't even close to having power over an individual. Furthermore, to compare oppression (prevented from marriage) to discrimination by using the same word is wholly misleading.
You are smart enough to realize that I have laid out very obvious cases of oppression here.
Your argument is merely semantical. There is no difference between the proper word discrimination and your word oppression, except that one sounds scarier.
This discussion is a waste of time, lets just use two words:
Oppression1: Government abuse of real power
Oppression2: Any other abusing anything in order to discriminate
bullshit conclusion
It is not a bullshit conclusion to state that LGBT was oppressed1 in the past, but now things have improved, they are only oppresed2 today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
In our class, we mainly study biology, but also chemistry, biochemistry and a few other subjects like radiation.
Line-by-line rebuttals use a lot of space for repeating my opponent's arguments. They also take a lot of space while offering little room for blending arguments into your rebuttals. I also find that they break up the flow of my argument, making it very hard for the readers to follow. This is an unprecedented problem considering these few lines contain the crucial key to debunking your opponent's arguments. The result is that you don't sway voters and YOUR voters have a hard time rewarding you for making important points.
I have switched to more of a blend. I make paragraphs with rebuttals and have the titles be quotes from my opponent. Like this:
"a is true because c":This assumes that b is true, which clearly isn't the case given that blah blah blah...................paragraph with rebuttals and arguments.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
would you say that purposely not hiring people because they are LGBT is not an unjust exercise of power?
Hiring people isn't an act of power. Employment is a contract, a dual-sided agreement. You don't force people to work for you, and you can't control their lives in any way.
Power: possession of control, authority, or influence over others
In a free market, an employer doesn't possess any control over the lives of their workers. Calling their ability to make agreements "power" is a purposefully wrong way to use the word. By the same logic, a criminal using his bodily power to steal a car is "oppressing" the owner. This doesn't make any sense (if you disagree, please explain why it makes sense). Similarly, it doesn't make sense to claim that discrimination in the hiring process equates to oppression. It is still a bad thing, but it is just discrimination, not oppression.
Or realtors doing the same for selling houses, or SOGIECE doctors refusing medicinal service to these people?
I can raise the same objection. These people can't control the lives of people. They are merely refusing to serve a particular group. This is the definition of discrimination, not oppression. For something to be called oppression, it needs to be real power. Real power, as in "being in control of someone else". Only the government and similar institutions have the ability to oppress.
Morality, as a principle, has to be subjective...certain axioms that we must accept
You mean that people have a responsibility to follow moral axioms but that any conclusion is necessarily subjective. I see...
In practice, this means that society can interpret the axioms in a subjective manner to create a moral standard, but they cannot change the axioms themselves.
they have to necessarily accept that what they did was wrong
They have to accept that maltreating people is morally wrong. But even today, we lock people up in prisons and kill people for being criminals. Why? Because we have other moral axioms in addition to loads of other factors contributing to moral prioritization. Imagine if humanity in the future reaches a "higher" moral plane where they despise our treatment of criminals, concluding that nobody should be treated badly, even if they do things we today considered immoral. We would call out their judgement as unfair, as they were not considering the other factors contributing to today's moral standard. Would you disagree? Do you think our treatment of dangerous murderers is morally wrong? I don't think so. From our perspective, it is most beneficial for society to imprisson criminals. This principle can be applied to any historical period and its respective moral standard. Therefore, it makes no sense to judge the moral standards of the past. It only makes sense to judge people in the past using THEIR moral standard.
I conclude:
A: Punishing immoral actions is not immoral
P1: One can only judge the actions of a people by their own standard
P2: The moral standard of the past condemned LGBT as immoral
C: People punishing LGBT in the past were not immoral
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Let me get this straight:
There has been and still is a negative attitude towards LGBT people, resulting in maltreatment of them by society at large. This group is being treated as moral wrongdoers because people have a moral standard deeming LGBT as morally wrong. You are of the opinion that morality is subjective, and I mostly agree. Would you say that the moral standard of the past was objectively wrong? Was their treatment of LGBT people a moral wrongdoing? Are abandoning your position of morality as subjective in favour of objective morality? If you don't, then the maltreatment of LGBT people in the past was not morally wrong, because the moral standard was different at that time.
Regardless of how you answer this question, we still have the issue of today.
We know that moral standards are changing, and we see that society changes its laws and attitudes towards LGBT. What you are saying is that schools ought to forcefully accelerate this change in moral standards by teaching "LGBT issues" to children. If you are backing this claim by moral duty, then you are necessarily asserting an objective moral standard.
I fail to see how your sources describe scientific principles. They are merely statistical studies of social issues, not anything like magnetism or another scientific principle.
Your argument regarding neurology doesn't prove that LGBT issues specifically are a scientific principle, just that personality is a scientific and biological principle.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oppression: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
Your sources document discrimination, not oppression. The only actual oppression mentioned by you is the laws restricting sexual freedom -- the laws that were removed. So no, LGBT people aren't being pressed. They are being discriminated against. These two things mean completely different things. Oppression can happen to the majority, discrimination can't. Oppression requires authority or force, discrimination only requires majority support within a group, no matter the size.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I am studying science.
I am eager to try to debate some moral questions. I like religious and scientific debates a lot, but it might get tiresome.
My greatest strength as a debater, I think, is the critique of sources and arguments. I find it easy to pinpoint the underlying assumptions of an argument and attack the foundation of my opponent's case. I think it is actually called Kritik. My greatest weakness is my focus on rebutting everything. I end up "destroying" my opponent's case simply to find out that voters only cared about a few key arguments and their impact. Had I actually made a solid positive case, I might win more often. Instead, I get dragged into a loop of endless critique. I guess anyone with good debating skills could pull out a red herring on me without me even noticing. LOL.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Discrimination isn't the same as oppression. Those words aren't synonymous. However, I still get your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks.
Were you convinced by my impressive arguments that the earth was flat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
I agree that Norwegian fjords are spectacular. However, them being magical is simply a legend. Scientists have yet to confirm the existence of magic in these fjords.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the principle of "gender and sexual identity" has been an intrinsically psychological and neurological - a scientific fact- for a long time
Yes, the state of your mind is in the brain. If you are gay, that identity lies within your brain. The same argument could be made for any preference being a scientific fact.
Your sources only prove what we already knew, that discrimination against LGBT is a fact. It doesn't prove that oppression of LGBT people is a fact.
I get your point, although you are mistakingly exaggerating the problem through your choice of words.
How do you translate that into the need for LGBT topics being taught in schools.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
both most definitely fit the definition of oppressed you've provided.
10 years ago gay people were oppressed, I know that. I know that gays in modern history were an oppressed group. However, the same can be said of other groups. Please provide me with an example of real-time oppression of gay people, and I will fully support your condemnation of that. Just as you do I hate to see discrimination and mockery of individuals, so I also condemn breaking relationships with a gay person. But I have yet to see evidence of oppression. I do not believe such practises to still be upheld in law.
we are discussing the broad range of sexual and gender identities - these are scientific principles -
I see you using the words "gender" and "identity", neither of which describe scientific facts, but actually subjective experience and social constructs. If what you are referring to has any scientific merit, please post a link to a scientific source for me to analyse.
the mere fact that we do not know 100% of the cause of such things does not make them "not" scientific principles
I didn't ask for a rebuttal. I asked "What principles? ". I am curious as to what answer you can give. I am not against science, I simply want the word "scientific" to actually have its original meaning. For you to claim that something is a scientific principle, you must provide some kind of evidence or explanation as to what principle you are talking about and why it is worthy of the exclusive label "scientific".
Recall:
"you are not talking about principles, but simply mere facts, graphs and studies"
I am not being unreasonable.
I simply want to know the difference between the sexual philosophy of the LGBT community and the "scientific principle" you mentioned.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Theories? These things are scientifically authenticated, rigorously tested and demonstrated
Exactly.
that would be extrapolating general principles and coming to a conclusion based on evidence - these are just the principles themselves
What principles? Have anyone created a set of principles describing how sexuality works? Can anyone say with any certainty that a given baby will be gay? If not, you are not talking about principles, but simply mere facts, graphs and studies. This doesn't automatically translate into one group being right in their sexual philosophy and doesn't justify any group getting their views into the curriculum. If you mean that schools should merely show kids the graphs and studies and facts collected by science and explain possible interpretations, I am ok with that. But don't tell me that "LBTQ+ topics" are to be treated as scientific principles. Please show me a source, at least, so I can properly analyse your claim.
These people are still oppressed.
Oppression 1a: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
These people aren't being oppressed in the classical meaning of the word. If you talk about broken relationships and "hidden" mockery of LGBT people then that is a whole other issue. I still have not gotten an answer as to why other persecuted groups aren't equally as important.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just ask why these topics should be included in the curriculum. We don't teach kids about Christians being crucified for their beliefs in ancient Rome or by Islamist extremist today. If you wanna define mean comments as "persecution" I still don't get why LGBT is any different from other minorities. I think LGBT people are far down on the list of groups that need more acceptance and understanding from society. Especially since they even have their own parades, where non-LGBT people participate.
My answer, as of right now, is no.
Those arguing that children need to learn their expression can teach children about their sexual theories AFTER they leave school and are ready to make their own judgements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Sum1hugme
IF you accept that empirical evidence represents truth, THEN science is already validated. [If you don't, then the Bible isn't valid either, as it is made of matter]
The validity of science is established before you can even open up the book you use to critique it. If science isn't valid, then the Bible isn't either.
Science, by definition, is more valid than the Bible.
I find it peculiar that anyone of such high intelligence would use the Bible to critique science. It's literally to cut off the branch on which you stand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - we think our qualia exist
You are saying that the brain thinks that qualia exist. In other words, you say that the movements of atoms in our brains create qualia (or at least the illusion of it.
Let's say there is a brain with a property: thinking
Also, there is a computer simulating a brain with a property: thinking
Both the biological and the simulated brain think the same way. However, everything from the materials to the way they process information is different. Does the computer perceive qualia because it "thinks" it has qualia? If that is the case, then your argument from chemistry falls apart. However, if the computer brain doesn't perceive qualia, then qualia isn't merely an illusion brought about by "thinking" it exists.
My point:
- IF qualia is an illusion, THEN a computer can have qualia
- IF a computer can have qualia, THEN qualia isn't a property of chemistry
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A single bacteria can replicate on its own. There is only one bacteria sex. However, two mammals are needed to replicate. There are two mammal sexes.
We find that the DNA of most people match their ability to replicate with other humans. So what? Sex is defined as a method of replication, not as a measurement of DNA.
Again, how many humans do you need to replicate? That's right: TWO.
Of course, there are 7 billion versions of human DNA. However, there are only two human genders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Here are my picks.
- Health, sanity and age. The ability to serve consistently without unnecessary personal problems.
- Character (trustworthiness, loyalty and wisdom as the most important traits)
- Good policies and ideas (hopefully backed by an agreeing congress).
- Skills (diplomacy and crisis handling as well as charisma and ability to create agreement)
- Background (experience in politics, having useful knowledge, a solid grasp of the past to avoid making the same mistakes in the future)
- Not being an alien from space
If someone fulfils these criteria, they are objectively the most qualified person to be the president.
Apart from me, nobody fulfils these criteria. LOL.
Created:
Posted in:
I am Benjamin, I live in Norway.
Apart from my illogical logic, strange topics and mallplaced confidence, you don't know a lot about me.
You might already know this, but my debate topics don't always accurately depict my views. Here is your place to ask me about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, we know for a fact that our own qualia exist. I can't be sure about yours anyway, but I know that I exist and have qualia.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the chemistry is the entire point of all of this
Chemistry can in no way create a mind. All of the molecules in the brain that you claim to create "I" exist in cells. If your argument is that chemistry creates "I", then any cell also exhibits the "I"-ness. Your argument regarding chemistry creating new properties we already agreed on. As far as I remember, we just agreed that structure, not new underlying properties, is the cause of new behaviours we merely CALL properties. To be honest, your argument CAN'T be that chemistry creates "I". You mean that the structure of neurons create a system capable of intelligence and storing knowledge about itself. In other words, your point is that "I" is nothing but a specific structure of molecules.
So no, chemistry is not the point of this discussion. The point is whether or not "I" is merely a structure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Exactly. Whatever is the nature of our universe, it is going to be physical. If the brain is the mind, then that means that the mind is ultimately physical. But if that is the case, then the mind is the brain. But our experience of reality isn't physical, there is no particle called "experience" that is created in the brain. Thus, the brain and the mind can't be the same, lest one wants to argue that the position of atoms in the brain is somehow the secret structure capable of summoning experience.
One thing is for sure, the brain has no non-physical properties. The mind, on the other hand, could potentially have that. We don't know, but it makes no sense to equate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If what I said was a fallacy, it would be a fallacy of division.
I didn't say that a rock can think. I said that if the interaction of elementary particles in the brain makes it a mind, then anything with those interactions has a mind-ish.
My point is, the mind isn't simply the interaction of particles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
There is nothing in the laws of physics that work on large scales, on huge chunks of matter or objects as a whole. The laws of physics work on each individual particle, and the large scale effects only occur because of the massive amounts of smaller particles. Thus, the brain doesn't have any property not coming from its individual parts and their interactions.
The brain is just a word drawing an arbitrary line, diving some atoms from the rest of the world. Physically speaking, on the fundamental quantum level, there is no difference between a brain and a rock. The division only makes sense from a large scale perspective. The brain is made up of the same quarks and elementary particles, but their structure perpetuates a specific set of movements. Biology is merely the perpetual motion and replication of specific structures -- whose building blocks are no different from the building blocks of rocks and alike. It makes no sense to claim that the movement or reactions of individual particles in the brain are different from those in a rock. The same particles and interactions on a fundamental scale happen both in the brain and the rock.
Logically speaking,
IF the brain is a mind due to the interactions of smaller physical particles, THEN a rock is just a different mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The reason why you don't hear quality arguments for a flat earth is that FBI eliminates anyone smart enough to come up with those arguments.
- Stereotypical conspiracy theorist
Created: