Total posts: 258
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
hahaha amazing.
"In the details" sounds like a concept album.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
1. God made the world. The devil did not.
Ok, but how do you know that the devil wasn't just masterfully disguised as god claiming to have made the world?
How would you tell when the devil does something disguised as god and when god does something?
How would you tell when the devil does something disguised as god and when god does something?
2. God is divine. Satan is an angel who has fallen because he wanted to be God. God is omniscient and all knowing. Satan is neither. Neither is Satan all powerful.
How do you know that what you're calling divine isn't the devil disguised as god, and what tells you that this entity is divine?
Before god created satan, did god have the foreknowledge that this creation would spawn the devil?
If yes, then why didn't he stop it?
Before god created satan, did god have the foreknowledge that this creation would spawn the devil?
If yes, then why didn't he stop it?
3. What an interesting question? God does have the ability to destroy Satan, whatever gives you the idea that he does not?
Well, he created satan knowing full well what would happen, therefore god allowed for the devil's existence or couldn't stop it from happening, and the devil apparently still exists today, yet goddy god is either choosing not to stop him, can't stop him, or, as I keep alluding to, the devil and god are one and the same, because there's no way to tell the difference between the two characters.
God could also destroy all of humanity quite justly. Yet, he is also merciful and patient. Satan knows his end.
Why is he so merciful to satan?
Is it because he created satan and evil and wants those both to remain?
Is it because he created satan and evil and wants those both to remain?
Whenever God eventually destroys Satan will be the perfect time.
How do you know that god even has the ability to destroy the devil whom he knew the future of before creating?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Shiny happy people holding hands...
Created:
For people into old goddy god,
1. Can you explain how you know when things have been done by god and when things have been done by the devil who has masterfully disguised something to look like it was done by god?
2. How do you tell the difference between god and the devil in general?
3. Why is it that god had the ability to create the devil, but has not the ability destroy him?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
That was fucking amazing!
Well done, sir.
You even managed to make a Fallopian tube looking thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Set up a debate and hash it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Guys.
Have a debate on it, I will gladly vote on it, so we can put an end to this.
Debate it and have the people vote on it.
Debate it and have the people vote on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Here is what really makes a mammal a mammal.
( o Y o )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Does the word "unlockable" mean unable to be locked ([un]lockable), or does the word "unlockable" mean able to be unlocked ([unlock]able)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Saying insects have nociceptors is like saying mammals lay eggs. It's just the monotremes that lay eggs, all of the rest of the mammals don't, so you don't say that mammals lay eggs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Ok, well except for the fucking fruit fly, no insects have nociceptors...besides we'd need to get into what suffering actually means for me to fully answer your original question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
To what extent do you think insects suffer?
They don't have nociception-response-causing neurons, so probably not at all.
We'd have to get down and dirty about what suffering means, but I'm going to associate it to the types of neurons we generally associate with suffering.
We'd have to get down and dirty about what suffering means, but I'm going to associate it to the types of neurons we generally associate with suffering.
Do you think earthworms increase or decrease the amount of carbon dioxide trapped in soil? Why/why not?
I would imagine that they would increase it, because they create little carbon traps being that they have mitochondria and release CO2 and are living inside of the soil trapping all of that in there.
Thoughts on the RNA world hypothesis?
I believe it is more than compatible with the formation of amino acids for abiogenesis to occur.
More of a question related to philosophy of physics -- and not really related to biology -- but do you think a B-theory of time is incompatible with the existence of an intelligent cause of the universe? Can you explain why you think that, if yes?
To me, first off, the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves A theory to be correct, but B theory is compatible with an omniscient cause of the universe, because all tenses would be one tense-less block to the intelligent universe creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Right and I'm willing the cause, because it's clearly going against instinctual inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, and you can quell your reactions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm saying if my choices weren't free, wouldn't I just make the deterministic choices that the cells of my body are inclining me towards?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No, I simply can do things for ANY reason, not just because of some deterministic physical law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why I do things is irrelevant to whether or not I'm free to do them.
If I can go against the inclinations of deterministic laws of physics, how do I lack free will?
If I can go against the inclinations of deterministic laws of physics, how do I lack free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Right but we can't measure morality only with the physical but prettiness we can, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Ok, well one could make a prettiness judgment only based on physical parameters, but one could not do that with morality.
That's what I was pointing out, not that all instances of prettiness are physical, just that they could be exclusively physical.
Morality, not.
That's what I was pointing out, not that all instances of prettiness are physical, just that they could be exclusively physical.
Morality, not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think morality considers much more than just physical parameters, and so to me morality is like neither prettiness or weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Oh come on I was having fun, the discussion's still fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Suppose I were to ask if morality - in your view - is like prettiness or like weight.
Prettiness is a measure of physical beauty.
Weight is a measure of physical mass.
Weight is a measure of physical mass.
These are essentially only physical properties.
Morality is like neither, because it weighs both physical and conceptual properties.
I don't know how much, say, Anjelina Jolie weighs but we can't disagree about it and both be right.
Yes we can.
Weight fluctuates and so while you would have been wrong at one moment about her weight (you say it's higher than it really is) during your argument claiming her weight, she could easily eat a heavy meal and by the time you finished your argument declaring her weight, you could then be right, and while I was arguing about her weight with you, during my argument I'd be wrong, she could take a massive dump at the end of my sentence declaring her weight, and then I could be right.
Weight fluctuates and so while you would have been wrong at one moment about her weight (you say it's higher than it really is) during your argument claiming her weight, she could easily eat a heavy meal and by the time you finished your argument declaring her weight, you could then be right, and while I was arguing about her weight with you, during my argument I'd be wrong, she could take a massive dump at the end of my sentence declaring her weight, and then I could be right.
We can disagree about her weight and both be right because weight fluctuates.
A broken clock is right twice a day or something...
A broken clock is right twice a day or something...
But we can disagree about about how pretty she is.
We can disagree about her numerical weight too.
Which sort of thing is morality like - prettiness or weight?
Neither.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We can indeed. But when you see a pretty girl is that what you are doing?
Yeah, I can even tell when other people will find that pretty girl attractive too.
I suggest that you (or of course I or anybody) don't actually know what objective criteria are used to evaluate prettiness. The most important thing might be eye diameter to nose length ratio!
Not knowing the objective criteria is irrelevant to whether or not you are inherently physically attracted to particular parameters.
With morality it is - if anything - even less obvious what criteria we are using to come up with a 'morality score'.
Actually it's more obvious, because with prettiness, you may not be pretty yourself, so you don't have an everyday representation in the mirror of pretty, but you do have a homeostatic body that is seeking to do what all other bodies are seeking to do and with this daily representation, recognizing others homeostasis being similar to yours and recognizing others' well being is second hand.
In othe words no two people will agree on how moral or immoral in all cases.
Is it the case that there are objective facts, not moral, just objective facts that no two people will agree on in all cases?
Whether or not people agree on things is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally or factually correct.
Whether or not people agree on things is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally or factually correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Objective morality makes as much (and as little) sense as 'objective prettiness' - for much the same reasons.
Except there are objective standards of prettiness to be used like facial symmetry and overall proportional body size ratios.
We can measure symmetry and proportion objectively.
We can measure symmetry and proportion objectively.
There is considerable agreement between people about who is pretty and who isn't, just as there is good agreement about what is moral and what isn't (not withstanding there are individuals with weird views on both!).
Right, having that symmetry standard is an objective way to measure prettiness.
I can imagine a computer program that could scan a photo of a person and give them a 'prettiness score' that matches up well with most people's idea of prettiness. We could call the computer's output the person's objective prettiness.
Ok...proving my point here?
It would be much harder to write software that scans the CCTV video of a rape or of helping an old lady cross the road and correctly determines which act most people would class as 'moral' or 'immoral', but in a thought experiment we can do it!
I agree, because morality, unlike physical attractiveness, has non-physical variables when considering it and software on a camera, that detects physical things only, would not account for those non-physical variables.
But is the output of that program the 'objective morality' of the vidoed act it scans? I bet most people would say no. But if it's not that, what is 'objective morality'?
See above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The theory on its face sounds bunk, and its stress on hallucinations I think misses the mark...while I agree that language is necessary for subjective consciousness, I don't agree that speaking and listening are on two separate sides, in fact, the Language Acquisition Device or LAD is on the left side of the brain, so if anything, listening and speaking are a unicameral activity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"I gather from your response that you assume freewill. That may have something to do with our disconnect. Until you can establish freewill there is no reason to accept that we make "choices". In any case you are using harm/wellbeing as your standard of morality which is fine but wether or not that us an objective standard it is only a subjective opinion that this standard is directly interchangeable with moral/immoral."
Are you able to hold your breath, avoid eating food, avoid drinking water, cause damage to your cells, fight falling asleep, and if desired, kill yourself?
Every deterministic physical law, fact of physiology, fact of biology, and fact of neurology is working against these actions, yet you can freely choose to do them...how?
Every deterministic physical law, fact of physiology, fact of biology, and fact of neurology is working against these actions, yet you can freely choose to do them...how?
Created:
-->
@Reece
What's Your Most Extraordinary Fact About the Animal Kingdom?
The animal kingdom produces the largest single, non photosynthetic, organisms on earth, neurons, and the prefrontal cortex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Probably could have just written your own RFD, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Wait but what about occupied space /\/\\/\/\/\/\/---/\/\/\/ 1.......3........5.......7.......5.......3.......1 /\/\/\//\/\//, when unoccupied space acts as anisotropy
_-_-_-__<><><><>?
_-_-_-__<><><><>?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
"Okay... so i have to understand quantum fluctuations before proceeding bc it feels like i'm missing something."
They are fundamental to the universe.
"In regards to particle annihilation, i think i get that. Anti-particles annihilate particles... but these particles, as i am saying, could be a part of space and happen within space."
This is most certainly true, because we can only detect them with all of this remaining expanding space around us.
So, since there is space remaining and expanding, the particles will be detectable only in empty space.
So, since there is space remaining and expanding, the particles will be detectable only in empty space.
However, when space was zero, quantum fluctuations were still fundamental and space fluctuated in and out of remaining existence along with the particles.
"So, i'm left with understanding quantum fluctuations. What i know from a quick search is the QF's are a change in the amount of energy at a certain moment. So how does changes in energy mean QF are fundamental to space?"
Quantum fluctuations are inherent in empty space, because the fluctuation of the particles composes the empty space.
Empty space is a material of these changes in energy.
Empty space is a material of these changes in energy.
"From what i'm saying, there could be no energy in space at some point and no particles to interact or annihilate."
No remaining energy, no remaining space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
"Yeah, but why do you say objective reality? How many sorts of reality are there?"
exist - have objective reality or being.
Ask Oxford Dictionaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Dude, I would love for you to vote on the debate, you can do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?
I'm saying the two are inextricably linked.
And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.
Those who have very little cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Those who have more than enough cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Those who have more than enough cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Both of these types of people can behave towards others.
Both of these types of people can consider others' strive to maintain homeostasis to be universal with respects to actions towards homeostatic others.
Both of these types of people can consider others' strive to maintain homeostasis to be universal with respects to actions towards homeostatic others.
Both of these types of people can determine morality objectively with this principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Sorry, I'm not understanding you, could you reiterate closed observed sine wave function collapse?
I didn't get that part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it."
The body maintains homeostasis whether you value contentment or not.
Your body values contentment.
Your body values contentment.
Not really.Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Both of those types of people, whether they strive for materialistic products or not, are inherently trying to survive on the cellular level and this is universal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The homeostasis principle is a nice general outline, but it is by no means comprehensive.
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Ok but what makes a thing immoral if not humans judging it immoral?"
The effect on the net well being of those toward whom the thing is acting.
"What non subjective standard is at work here?"
The measurable effects on the well being.
"It is not generally considered immoral to harm a human (or a non huuman) accidentally."
That's because intending for the maintenance of well being isn't immoral.
"A crocodile is rarely judged as immoral even when it does great harm to humans (or non humans)."
Crocodiles make moral decisions too, and if it's the case the crocodile could have maintained more well being by not consuming the human, then it would be immoral, if it's the case that the only way for more well being to be maintained was for the crocodile to eat the human, then it would be moral.
A volcano is even less often judged by this standard. Doesn't that sound like a subjective standard to you?
Well, the volcanoes can't make a decision between what activity would bring about the greater maintenance of well being, so whether or not its "behavior" can be considered moral is in't indicative of whether or not the volcano is actually behaving towards others.
"If harm were an objective standard unintentionally harming humans (or non humans) would be immoral."
Except that intending to maintain well being is moral.
If we learn that particular actions, though well intended, are harming the well being of others, then when one intends to behave towards others and doesn't consider this fact, one would be behaving immorally.
Truly intending, with the best of your knowledge and ability, to maintain well being is moral, and learning about actions that impede this end is moral, because it serves to avoid that recently realized detriment to potential well being for the future.
If we learn that particular actions, though well intended, are harming the well being of others, then when one intends to behave towards others and doesn't consider this fact, one would be behaving immorally.
Truly intending, with the best of your knowledge and ability, to maintain well being is moral, and learning about actions that impede this end is moral, because it serves to avoid that recently realized detriment to potential well being for the future.
"and if intention is a part of our standard then crocodiles harming humans (or nonhumans) would be immoral"
It depends if there were other options of greater well being.
See above.
See above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I had said:
"Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself."
"Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself."
"And again this would be considered immoral by humans and as far as I know humans only. That makes it subjective. An objective standard would be independent of human opinions."
The status of the others toward whom we behave is objective and the others toward whom we behave don't have to be human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Wait, I didn't catch that, can you repeat it differently with new numbers and synonyms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Oh i'm sorry were you saying something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again, you have to understand that morality is about the others we behave toward. If our actions destroy the others toward whom we behave, then it's behavior detrimental to morality itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Are they? If I think violent video games are harmful to a young person's psychy and you disagree how do we go about determining which of us is correct if indeed either of us is?"
Psychological, neurological, and behavioral assessments of a young person's psychy from video games.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Aren't those constantly evolving standards just evolving with our understanding of well being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah but if we're discussing morality between humans, we have standard that always remains true, no?
Created: