Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
Empty Physical Space? Is that something?
Is it observable measurable and quantifiable? Then it is something.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Well I don't think we are in fundamental disagreement unless we care to become pedantic over this issue.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Why not just sell something else as opposed to wish for rape?
Indeed why not sell something other than cigarettes rather than actively adding to the rate at which humans develop lung cancer and pulmonary disease. Why not sell something other than crude oil if burning it is contributing to a planetside disaster?
Your idealism is touching but not grounded in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
A vacuum is not nothing. It is empty PHYSICAL SPACE. A vacuum is a thing we can observe and quantify. A not existing thing would not be like a vacuum because a vacuum is an existing thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
According to the leading experts you are incorrect about the 'insignificance' of human impact on the climate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I eat steak and rice may be a contributing factor too I'll have to look into it. You are becoming to focused on the specifics. The larger issue is that denying that humans have created an ecological problem that we should take steps to alleviate (or at least slow the progress of) is irresponsible and reckless. It is fine to debate about what to do about man made climate change but it is dangerous to pretend that humans are not responsible and/or that nothing significant should be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I agree that humans will not (arguably are incapable of) completely eliminating emissions. Steps should still be taken to lower them (especially from commercial enterprise whose carbon footprint makes the emissions produced any individual person negligible). Rain forest deforestation is a larger issue that the relatively small reforestation in north America does not offset. Beef farming is actually a pretty serious part of the problem. Also air conditioners use refrigerants that once released into the atmosphere are actually trap heat much more efficiently than CO2 or CH4. The effect will be exponential.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It does not in fact. Whether a scientist "chooses" to run an experiment or they are compelled to by a natural progression of cause and effect does not change the outcome of said experiment or the data we collect from the application of the scientific method.
Our freewill or lack thereof is immaterial to the findings of science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I read your whole message and simply think you are uncorrect and since you are the one claiming that the majority scientific consensus which by the way is independently verifiable by more than one method you are the one who must demonstrate that deforestation and the emission of greenhouse gasses through human enterprise is not exactly what is causing the majority of impact.
Denying human effect on the climate (and I presume by proxy human responsibility for finding a solution) is dangerously irresponsible.
This is not an argument it is an observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism does not allow for choice unless youbare defining the word differently than I. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that this "choice" is not predicated on determinism or random occurrences then there is no reason to think that it is in fact a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
A thing not being here is not nothing. Like my vacuum example. In other words you are making a distinction where there is little discernable difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is not the consensus of the scientific community and the findings straddle many different branches of science. Man made climate change is an indisputable fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
And with a flat tax, the former would be giving up much much less, numerically and percentage wise
I do not endorse a flat tax either. I am in fact uncertain what taxation precisely I would endorse or how my own economic position would change this opinion. This does not mean I endorse your proposed bracket based tax.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
we seem to agree that foundationally, en experimenter assumes they are choosing the experiment.
I have just finished explaining exhaustively that I do not make any such assumptions. Determining which actions will be most effective in accomplishing one's goals (in this case conducting any given experiment with the goal of falsifying ones hypothesis) does not require choice only an understanding of probable outcomes.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Again the problem with a meritocracy is that the onus for not being great enough is placed on the individual rather than simply being recognized as the mathematical necessity that it actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not sure if "fair" or the right term to apply to two individuals one of whom can afford to give up half of their yearly income and still have more than ten times the yearly income of the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am leery of using the words "free" and "choose". I think it might be far more accurate to say they may determine which experiments would be most efficacious without external constraints and that of course is not true as there are generally at least legal and ethical constraints on what experiments are permissible.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Control =/= choice
Will =/= freedom.
Will =/= freedom.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I speak of Rome, to describe how the small can become great.
Great is a subjective term that is useless without some context and by its very nature excludes all examples from being great since you must have a small to contrast against. Otherwise great becomes merely average. Everyone cannot be great therefore even if everyone strived simultaneously for greatness some will not reach this goal. The problem with a meritocracy is that the onus for not being great enough is placed on the individual rather than simply being recognized as the mathematical necessity that it actually is.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Understanding apparent choice, can lead to such 'realities, as a person not lashing out physically in anger. But instead taking a moment to calm down, or go for a walk.Thus not hurting others, their own self worth, or incurring prison time.
In what way does determining the course of action least likely to incur negative consequences equate to choice? Freewill is unnecessary when planning ones day. Only an awareness of more than one possible course of action and an understanding of the likely consequences of said course.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Non sequitur. None of these examples gives us a long term solution to systemic poverty.I forget what a Non sequitur is, one Google search later, ah.They are appeals to emotion, though I don't see that as a bad thing.
They are non sequitur in that they do nothing to logically support the idea that ALL individuals are responsible for their own economic and socio political realities. Could the average citizen of Japan effect the outcome of the war? Is it the fault of the average Russian citizen that they lost the war?
Is it not true that the cities and nations that rome conquered did not want or choose to be concuered?
Created:
I like the idea of my fate being in my own handsI like that idea too. The problem is that I don't think we have any evidence that this is the case.The practical nature of it exists, I would argue.The appearance of it exists, I would argue.
A mirage "appears" to exist also. In fact that is the primary characteristic of a mirage.
Created:
We've talked about that before in the past, as I recall, you don't believe in free will.
I do not
Though I don't recall the implications of such a conclusion to you, regarding morality.What 'further conclusions you might reach from that.
That only practical morality need be observed. That "justice" is an artificial construct which lends the understanding that any consequences visited upon someone for wrongdoing has the sole purpose of stopping the wrongdoing rather than "punishment" of the wrongdoer.
. . .Well, then again, I recall you being against retributive justice.Which'd imply to me, you think forgivingly towards man, as not guilty or 'all to blame for what they are and their actions.Though individuals acting out would 'still have to be dealt with.
Thay is correct. In exactly the same way that a rabid dog or a defective mechanical part must be dealt with. It is not a faulty pistons "fault" we do not assign "blame" to an animal who is being effected by a disease such that it has become a danger to others.
'Myself I'd think one would fall into a nihilistic interpretation of morality, but being human shrug and turn to practical response to life anyhow.To my mind though, such a conclusion of a lack of free will undermines solid morality, and one is left with their inclinations of nature and nurture.Present their case as they like by ego or altruism.Whatever appeals.Myself, I find it disorienting.
I am as uncertain how to address the problem of soft nihilism as I am uncertain how to address the problem of soft solipsism but since neither even if true offers any actionable data it becomes unimportant to the discussion.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
If Diagnosis could be a philosopher, If the Rome could grow to a nation from a single city, If Japan could equal the West and decimate the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War.I'd hold out hope for a socially and economically disadvantaged people.
Non sequitur. None of these examples gives us a long term solution to systemic poverty.
I like the idea of my fate being in my own hands
I like that idea too. The problem is that I don't think we have any evidence that this is the case.
Though I did not care for his interpretation, finding his words unduly harsh, and lacking an understanding that some people do not possess the capability to respond to certain circumstance or that certain circumstance can overwhelm.I can relate to that feeling right now.What's happening in life with you?
This conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Please clearly define exuberant and almost nothing in this context (hopefully taking into account the fact that if you have one million dollars and lose ten percent you have lost far less economic freedom than if you started with one hundred dollars and list ten percent).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism defeats the foundation of experimental science, which is the frontier of knowledge.
Actually just the opposite. Experimental science (otherwise known as just science) depends on a bedrock of cause and effect to have any predictive power. Without (some) determinism there is no science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Criticism of the policies surrounding man made climate change and any solution to the problem aside man made climate change is a very real and looming extinction level event which has in fact already caused multiple extinctions. My biggest concern is not how the problem is addressed it is the possibility of human extinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't know what you mean by wrong. I have made no claim that this is or is not actually the case only that it is incompatible with the idea of freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Bracket tax is avoidable by the wealthy through the use of corporations and international assets in regions with lax or even non existent tax regulations. Bracket tax disproportionately effects the poor. In order to remain consistent in your views you must not support a bracket tax either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Historically speaking all taxes disproportionately effect the poor.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
We are the Borg. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You are describing determinism which is incompatible with freewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
My view is 'intended to speak of people's 'own power over themselves and their situation.
No one has power over the situation although arguably the wealthy have more power over their situation.
Though I did not care for his interpretation, finding his words unduly harsh, and lacking an understanding that some people do not possess the capability to respond to certain circumstance or that certain circumstance can overwhelm.
I can relate to that feeling right now.
when I frown upon a community for not being able to help themselves (due to systemic poverty), but because I believe they can be better than that (being subject to systemic poverty).
Ok but communities are made up of individuals and impoverished individuals do not have the same power to enact change as wealthy individuals.
If it were a community of people possessing mental frailty and illness, I would simply remark upon it with no criticism,
Ok what about a community socially/economically disadvantaged people?
I think individuals and groups should have a sense of responsibility for how they confront existence, no matter what it is.
Yes but not for how existence confronts them.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Ok dismissed. If you ever want to discuss it seriously let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
When we say one thing is indistinguishable from a other we are ignorant of the difference between the two by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
So your argument is that apparently random may in fact be deterministic which is also incompatible with freewill. So far you have done nothing to counter 3RU7AL's standard argument against freewill.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
The universal standard existing does not depend on what we interpret it to be. That's kind of the whole point of objectivity. Some accredit it as the will of a benevolent God for humanity's welfare, others say the standard exists for human self-preservation or for no end goal at all. I'm leaning towards the former but I will admit I have my doubts. This is not something I'm thoroughly convinced on. I'm simply defending the argument to prove it is viable
This is not so much a clearly defined moral axiom as the assertion that one exists in a wobbly wobbly timey wimey sort of way. That is heartwarming and all but if you cannot actually present the standard then I will have no choice but to reject the idea that it exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Unless you can tell the difference how are you justifying hairsplitting between functionally indistinguishable from random and actually random? If we cannot tell the difference between the two then there is no actionable data. It may as well be random.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
It is an oversimplification but it illustrates one of capitalism's largest weaknesses in regards to promoting human welbeing.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I'm not looking for a list of moral edicts. I'm asking for the bedrock of your moral structure. For example human welfare but that can get into some pretty subjective territory as what is good for Peter may not be good for Paul. What are your objective primary moral axioms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Without identifying or individualizing qualities we cannot determine the difference between seemingly random (which is indistinguishable from random) and actually random (which is also indistinguishable from random). Without the ability to tell the difference I'm not sure how you propose to make the case that anything which is functionally indistinguishable from random is not in fact simply random.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Ok what is the standard? If there is an objective standard of morality what are these universal primary moral axioms? How do you prevent individuals from interpreting them differently? How do you account for the evolution of morality throughout history? (An evolving standard certainly isn't an objective one)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@logicae
It is likely beyond human epistemology to say why there is stuff rather than no stuff. I don't think picturing a lack of being is as easy as you make out however. I think what you are actually imagining in all probability is a large vacuum (a mostly empty area within physical space) which is in fact something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
being "functionally-indistinguishable-from-random" is very different from being random. A
Fine. How do we tell the difference? If we have no way of differentiating the two then there is no functional difference, no actionable data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The ancient greeks - skeptics did believe in a form of evolution. Not articulated as such like Darwin's was - but certainly a form of it.
This is a claim. Claims must be substantiated. If you only baldly assert that this is the case then I will have no choice but to dismiss your argument. Perhaps you would like to start by explaining exactly what form of evolution exactly you think they believed in. Clearly defined terms are important in intelligent discussion.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
But you (plus those who make the laws) can tell me that all human life is not equal,
Incorrect. All humans have equal right to usurp my bodily autonomy and personal sovereignty for their own benefit.
Created: