Total posts: 387
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, a dog, a robot and a flea have free-will.I'm pretty sure this is called "compatibilism" and it renders free-will practically meaningless (at least regarding the standard "moral" arguments).
It is similar to compatibilism. I don't believe in strict determinism nor do I find the word "freedom" appropriate as used by a compatibilist when applied to the definition of compatibilism. I am only arguing based on the definition of free will as "the ability to make a choice, unimpeded". Whether or not that renders free will meaningless is a different discussion and would certainly be a personal opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do not think that impeded is the right word. Again, influences would be more appropriate.Do you suppose your thoughts are not "impeded" by your experiences and or historical and or cultural context?Or even as George Orwell so elegantly illustrates, the very language you are taught constrains (impedes) your thoughts.
Constraint does not mean impeded. It just means options are limited, not non-existent. Impeded means prevented from choosing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is the silliest thing I've read today. You can choose to "try" to jump to the moon which does not mean you can jump to the moon. "Unimpeded" only refers to thought, not physical ability.If we use "unimpeded" in the definition of free will, it certainly is a ridiculous thing to believe, because the fact that I can't choose to jump to the moon and back handidly disproves freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd say "un-coerced" specifically by another human being (which begs the question of how we can know for certain that we are not coerced indirectly by, you know, advertising or propaganda or public relations campaigns).All of the factors limiting your options could be considered "impediments" (invalidating your qualifier, "unimpeded").
"Un-coerced" is fine with me. Those things you mentioned are considered influences, not coercions. I don't deny that we are influenced by many factors. Those influences are not forcing (coercing) us to make a specific decision. We have the ability to partially or completely ignore them or not in some cases. Again, I'm not stating that all choices fall under the definition of free will.
Limited options does not equate to "no options". All that is needed for free will, as defined, is two or more options rendering your argument invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If free-will is defined as "rational choice" then why bother complicating things with two different terms for exactly the same thing?
Free will and indeterminism describe two different things.
Free will : The ability to make a choice, unimpeded.
Indeterminism : the doctrine that not all events are wholly determined by antecedent causes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I never said it was. I specifically said that the word "free" is not included in the definition of free will. It is merely the ability to make a choice, unimpeded.A rational choice is not 'free'!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I am unqualified to say at what age a choice becomes rational. Also, I would not say that all people are capable of making a rational choice or that all choices fall under the definition of free will.Is a "rational choice" exclusive to adult humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By the definition "The ability to make a choice, unimpeded" then yes. I wouldn't say it is a rational choice though.TwoMan, do you believe that insects and dogs and robots have free-will, according to this definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Free from impediment.What exactly is free-will supposed to be free from?
Free will does not violate cause and effect.
The word "free" is not included in the definition of free will.
It is the ability to make a choice, unimpeded.
Does the human brain have the ability to make a rational choice? Yes.
The reasons why a brain makes a choice are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
Free will does not violate cause and effect.
The word "free" is not included in the definition of free will.
It is the ability to make a choice, unimpeded.
Does the human brain have the ability to make a rational choice? Yes.
The reasons why a brain makes a choice are irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
Can a concept be considered to exist?
Or can only the thought of a concept be considered to exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and macro-infinite non-occupied space both exist as what they are respectively and as complementary existent to occupied space if not specifical;y the reality we observe{ quantise }.
This is where we disagree. I contend that you can not logically say that non-occupied space exists outside of and embracing the universe (occupied space). This may seem like semantic word games but I don't look at it that way. If the universe is "all that exists" then logically nothing or "no thing" can exist apart from that. That would include an embracing macro "non-occupied space" which, by your use of words, is a "thing". I understand what you mean conceptually, I just disagree that you can logically say that a thing exists apart from all that exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Well said.The way I look at it is that now I know I don't know about things that I used to not know I didn't know about not knowing. That's progress!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
1) X is.2) X is real.3) X exists.
I agree that they all say the same thing. You can use each to describe the other. In other words, "something must exist in order to be real" or "something must be real in order to exist". Although the latter gets tricky when it is a unicorn, for example. To rectify that, you can say the thought of the unicorn exists and is real, not the actual unicorn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Yes it makes me wonder whether it is even worth contemplating something which can not be know. In other words, if I can't know the answer then is the question worth asking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I can't think of any moral statement that is universal, meaning true for every human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
No, I was referring to existence itself. That consciousness is a fundamental aspect of existence rather than an emergent property is an interesting idea to me (not in a deistic way).Do you refer to the role of consciousness in some interpretations of QM?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.
I would say very few things. While I'm not a psychologist, there are certainly lots of examples that, in part, refute Paul Bloom's theory. It sounds like he has forgotten what it's like to be a child. He seems to be saying that children "know" what is right but behave wrong anyway. Bullying is a very real and pervasive problem. Children steal other children's toys. I could go on and on. Compassion, empathy and a sense of fairness aren't worth much unless we are taught to value them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That depends on which part of idealism you are talking about. That everything is mental and immaterial, not very interesting. That consciousness is the pre-condition of the material universe, that sounds interesting to me. It's an idea that could be refined to make a little more sense.I'd say idealism is irrefutable but has no interesting consequences.
Created:
Posted in:
Is the phrase "to be real" a tautology in that "to be" and "to be real" are the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion.
Moral statements can be factually true but only when applied to an existing moral standard. "Consensus morality" exists because of existing moral standards created through learned behavior and possibly some amount of survival instinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition?
I contend that what you call intuition is actually learned behavior. Your proposition that it is morally wrong to punish an innocent person is a perfect example. Children are notorious for punishing innocent people in the form of bullying. An 8 year old child must be taught that it is wrong to do that which then serves as a moral standard from which to base all future action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm sure there are situations that are technically legal but still immoral. For the most part, laws are a way of defining and enforcing morality.Then we are actually discussing what is legal not what is moral... unless they always coincide without exception.
Like you, I don't believe that morality itself is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty.
Those are objective terms. Someone either did or did not commit an illegal act. It is the act itself that requires a standard. That standard, being created by people, is inherently subjective but can then be used objectively to determine good and bad. In other words, after creating a standard, an action either does or does not violate that standard. Some actions are more difficult to determine if they violate the standard. That's what our judicial system is for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The tiger is just a perception created by the (real) light emitted from the TV interacting with our eyes and brains.
The perception is real, in that it exists. The tiger is not.
As to your original question - I think "exists" and "real" are the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. Having good intentions or a compassionate disposition can coherently be considered morally good
Having good intentions or a compassionate heart can't be determined without an action to occur or be conceived. How do you know if someone's intentions are good if they don't take part in some action first or at least indicate a preference for some action? How do you know if someone is compassionate if they do not act in a compassionate way or indicate a preference for a compassionate act?
As far as whether moral statements can be factually true, I still believe that the answer can only be yes when using a predetermined standard. "Punishing an innocent person is bad" is a fact only as it pertains to the standard that "justice is good". Without that standard, the statement is an opinion.
I agree that, in practice, we use intuition in the way you describe but I don't think that intuition is actually a basis for facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Or do goggles, computer programming, and electricty comprise the existence of something that isn't real?
The way I see it, the simulation is real in the sense that the light emanating from the display is a real end result of those things working together. We perceive that light as a simulation. It is no different than a TV screen. The light being emitted from the display is real in and of itself even if the images are merely a perception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Punishing an innocent person is morally good" is more irrational than saying "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla."
First, that is not a legitimate comparison. Morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is not an action.
Second, you still need a standard upon which to base any moral claim. Punishing an innocent person is unjust so you must first agree that justice is morally good. We tend to think of justice as axiomatically good and injustice as axiomatically bad as you have, but it is still a standard that has been accepted for thousands of years. Without that standard, you could not make that statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
We might say a virtual reality world, seen while wearing goggles or a helmet or whatever, "exists" but isn't real. If it both doesn't exist and isn't real, then how would we be seeing it?
We can say that the goggles, computer, programing and electricity are real. We can say that those things combined produce a real simulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I might say "Truth is a property of the real; falsehood(/untruth?) is a property of the unreal". That applies independently of humans.
I would have to disagree that truth and/or falsehood is a "property". I think it is a human conceived "verification of properties" of reality.
This is probably just a semantics disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would say that a zeta partially describes me. I wouldn't say that I've completely rejected traditional expectations associated with being a man though. I still consider myself a provider and protector.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I believe that I exhibit traits from almost any category you might mention.
Created:
Posted in:
There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who place everyone into one of two categories and those who don't.
Created:
People created morality in order to peacefully coexist with one another in a civilized society. Individuals want to be able to live without fearing the actions of someone who has no regard for the well being of others. People created laws to declare and enforce proper moral conduct. God was not necessary to do that, the need to peacefully coexist with others did that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I think if used moderately and responsibly, the effects are not detrimental enough to worry about.
Created:
You could say that about anything. Internal organs, evolution, existence itself. How could anything exist without a purpose? I'm not saying you are wrong but that does not constitute proof.
Created:
Posted in:
DPRoberts has it right.
If a thing exists, nothing inherent in that thing is true or false. A statement about a thing can be true or false. Perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. can be true or false.
I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
He must be making multiple claims then. I was just listening to a podcast where he used my exact words regarding "the worst possible suffering for everyone".
Created:
Posted in:
Well surely you would admit that people can have more or less well being?
Sam Harris comes at this topic from the opposite direction. Imagine the worst possible suffering for everyone and try to work away from that. That, he concludes, is the fundamental basis for an objective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
That is Master Po from the show "Kung Fu". You were very close.Ha, your profile image I know but cant place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I agree that smoking anything has detrimental health effects. There are other ways to consume marijuana that don't involve combustion. Edible products and vaporizing are two of them. "Smoking" marijuana is intended as a vernacular of saying "consume".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
So your position is that smoking marijuana is good for you?
In certain circumstances it can be if used properly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I try to fill the finite occupied space that is my brain with common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
Not disagreeing. You can say the same thing about alcohol. Just use responsibly brother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't necessarily mean only for health reasons. One can casually enjoy pot the same way one can casually enjoy alcohol. I've read the same thing regarding vaporizing. That just means you can use less and feel the same high being both economical and healthier. Win-win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Abuse is however much is needed to negatively affect your life. That is different for each individual. It isn't one size fits all. There are other ways to ingest or inhale marijuana that don't involve burning the plant. Eating and vaporizing come to mind. A derivative such as CBD is used for many health benefits.But the OP lists 2 big negative effects of pot. How do you abuse pot BTW? How much is just use, and how much abuse?But I would guess taking smoke from burning plant material is abuse of your body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Po hopper, those are medical uses and even if it brings relief to the suffering it still has detrimental effects on the user.Opiates bring relief, but we are all aware of the detrimental effects that come with using them.
What you are referring to is "abuse", not "use". If those substances are abused, yes there are negative effects. When used properly, there are proven and undeniable positive effects. By your logic, food is not good for you because of the potential for obesity from eating too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I don't think anybody thinks smoking marijuana is good for you.
It can be if it alleviates pain, depression, nausea, insomnia etc. or even if it just makes you feel good for a while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Outplayz answer was correct given the parameters of your original question which did not specify randomness. You said 100 boxes contained 100 blue balls. What is the likelihood of a blue ball being in the 101st? Given those parameters, a blue ball is most likely when all available evidence is identical. You should have said that 100 boxes contained a randomly selected ball from a pool of different colors. All of them, it turns out, just happened to be blue. Here is another randomly selected ball in a box. What is the likelihood of that one also being blue? Then your gamblers fallacy would apply.
Created: