I want to point out, this is now quite off topic. It will become clear I see no reason to continue this, so take these responses and understand I wont be coming back to this. It's clogging the thread, and is a serious bore.

Your purist argument is true, but I don't believe one person in ten thousand would enter a courtroom as a mute defendant without a defense attorney. — ucarr

Then you do not know a whole lot about court cases.

If the defense could win their cases with simple denial, who would ever need a defense attorney? — ucarr

This is so disingenuous It's really hard to give you the time of day. I did not intimate this was the case. I did not intimate this was 'common'. I did not intimate that this was even relevant.

The answer to this clearly irrelevant question though is thus:
In almost any case that might eventually require a trial is preceded by several hearings. Probable cause, disputed facts, standing etc.. etc... all need sorting.
The Judge actually has to decide whether or not the prosecution even has a case, given the evidence they want to present at trial. If the evidence isn't good enough (depending on the type of charge, the burden of guilt (probable, reasonable doubt) etc.. etc..) the judge will simply throw out the case. A plain denial is a full response, and a vindication in those cases.
In a situation where it's somewhat marginal (i.e several circumstantial pieces of evidence) it is not entirely unusual for a defendant to simply allow the Jury to see the prosecution evidence, confident it doesn't prove the charge, and twiddle their thumbs while the prosecution makes their case. What you've asserted is that I must think that there are no cases in which the prosecution has a good case. That is not the case. I did not intimate that.

I would urge you, as I did several times last year, to carefully read posts prior to replying. You often say things that aren't easy to reply to, because they aren't sensible in the context.

Both the prosecution and the defense make claims of fact they must prove — ucarr

No. The defence will only do this if they feel the need to offer an 'alternative theory' to the prosecutions theory that they committed the crime. If there's decent evidence to support the prosecution theory, defense needs to get into gear. Otherwise, why bother? No jury would convict. A single judge might have thought the evidence was compelling. A jury may not.

they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime. — ucarr

This is a clear example of you misunderstanding the basic tenets I pointed out. No, They do not need to 'prove their absence'. If the prosecution has no evidence they were there, the prosecution has no case. End of. Defense need do nothing. It's in cases, such as above, where there is circumstantial evidence they may have been there that the defense will bother with an alibi. Even in those cases, It's entirely possible for the defendant to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" and present nothing. Risky as fuck though, to be sure. Most attorneys/solicitors would not want to do this.

You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant — ucarr

False. Cases are often thrown out because of this, or at least don't make it to trial. I would add, the types of cases you're talking about are almost always private prosecution. Those lawyers love money. That isn't the State v XXX its XX v YY. In those situations, its usually a he-said she-said. Your position would amount to every single prosecution being successful, prior to trial. Which is as ridiculous as the notion that no defense case requires evidence. Neither of us are actually pretending we think that, I'm sure.

Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial. — ucarr

This is how you lose a case, as a prosecutor. Are you under the impression that all cases come with overwhelming evidence? Or that evidence of presence could somehow be rebutted once produced at trial? Neither of these things make sense, my friend. Cases require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof. Defense does not hold this burden as they are responding to a claim. They need prove nothing. While this is obviously not relevent the USA which may be where you're basing your claims, the quote from this link is telling:

"As a defendant, you are not required to present evidence (see section 25(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). You are not required to prove that you are innocent; it is the prosecutor’s role to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of committing the offence(s) you have been charged with."

No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound. — ucarr

False. You are pretending I have made a claim about all cases. Not so. And I wont take too seriously a bare assertion to the contrary. Go read some case law (this is rhetorical - you probably don't have data base access). As I said above, and you seem to have missed, Judges regularly instruct juries to make nothing of the defense producing no evidence or not testifying. This is not uncommon. This literally happens weekly, possibly daily, across various courts. Lawyers often instruct their clients not to testify because they risk saying something dumb, or revealing some secondary crime, or at the very least hurting their own credibility. If you simply don't believe me, that's fine, but you're wrong here.

Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it? — ucarr

This is just as disingenuous as the previous part of your reply which was just so.

No. If you've made that of what i've said, that is a misinterpretation. One that seems, I am sorry to say, purposeful.
You made a claim. I denied it. That's the end of that, unless you want to provide support for your claim.
You failed to provide any support for your claim(on my view, to be sure). I am free to walk away denying it.
That's how it works. I am not required to answer to a claim which has not been supported. That is also how courts work, to the point that what's called "summary judgment" has been invented to cover this common circumstance. This is different to our situation though, which would be called a 'disputed facts hearing'. In this case, we would both provide evidence of hte 'facts'. The judge decides which is more likely, and from there it would perhaps be possibly to apply for a summary judgement if all facts fall on one side of the dispute. IN this case, all I need do is provide MU's statements and right-thinking person would clearly note there is no contradiction without interpolating. This is something you do with almost every post, so I am not particularly concerned there.

In this case, there is no judge. In my view, you failed to support your assertion. Therefore it was dismissed. Hitchens Razor.

These are all standard concepts. Your position is counter to them. Therefore, I am confident in leaving it here.

Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability. — ucarr

Once again asking the wrong question. This has nothing to do with what was disputed. THe dispute has to do with your erroneous claim of contradiction. It was erroneous. I do not need to clothe the Emperor.

MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous. — ucarr

No. That is not hte case, from any reading I can make (including several fairly pain-staked clarifications on MU's part. I fail to see how you are not understanding those). He is saying that probability (not a distribution there of) gives an illusion of continuity between T1 and T2 where in fact, there is a gap. There was no contradiction.

Your final two paragraphs are, in this context, incoherent to me. I leave htem be. Thanks for you time.

I think Quine is just massively overthinking it — Darkneos

This is most philosophy. I think the opposite can be true, to a risible degree though (see: Searle, Austin). We need the mean (thanks, 'Stotle).

LMAO. Same shit different page.

He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling. — Relativist

Sure, but I doubt it.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine.

In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial. — ucarr

Absolutely not. BUt if this is how you feel things go, then I am not surprised. Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go. In court, particularly important. Judges remind juries constantly that a defendant not providing any testimony or evidence does not indicate anything whatsoever. The entire point is that the prosecution prove their case, either on probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage, ever, does a judge require proof of denial. You're talking about disputed facts.

As you see at the top of this post, I reposted MUs statements I find contradictory. — ucarr

They clearly are not. I cannot say more.

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability? — ucarr

You're not asking close to the correct question to address the issue. The distribution and the relation are separate properties/elements. Obviously. So, yeah. Not much else to say

Sorry I didn't include this in the earlier reply, felt it needed its own.

Re: DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. Otherwise, thank you.; Hadn't seen things quite so direct before.

The birthright thing... I have thoughts. I don't think that's capable of use as a cudgel.

Cancelling refugee status already granted, while adminstratively kind of sensible on paper given his differences with the Biden admin, is absurd and bordering on evil. What a shame..

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either.

No, "DEI" is just a three-letter word to these people — Christoffer

Are you specifically referring to people for whom this is the case? Cause otherwise, you're shitshooting.

I don't know anyone who thinks DEI is a good thing, or has resulted in good things for the institutions and governments who have brought it on. I don't think its fair to simply say these people aren't thinking. I happen to agree with them, ad have quite a bit to say abnout it.

For some people, the principle of not having race-or-sex-based policy is enough. And i think that's reasonable.

That may be your experience. Plenty of DEI courses/resources/people(and some i've been forced into undergoing) are extremely discriminatory. There is a reason people aren't that keen on being told their skin colour means they are unable to do X, or cannot avoid thinking Y etc.. etc.. The very concept of 'Whiteness' in this context is despicable. You can't reverse the behaviours minorities have felt the brunt of and call it "inclusion". I think most telling, is the extreme anger and abuse that comes the way of people calmly trying to discuss this (outside of this forum).

You've also made a claim. — ucarr

No. I've rejected your claim. It does seem, unfortunately, that you misunderstand basic tenets of exchange, reason and relation. It is making things difficult. We ran into this last year, and it seems MU is getting it now. Perhaps reflect on some of these criticisms with an open mind. It seems your entire mode is to simply push-back even when things you say aren't relevant.

Why are the calculated probabilities of possible values of a variable not part of a relation of probability of possible outcomes? — ucarr

a probability distribution is not a relation of probability. MU is trying to point out that the actual probability isn't relevant to his main thrust. The thrush is that your conception of continuity is nothing but close-nit probability giving hte illusion of same. Your comments in terms of the probability issue don't seem to actually address this. They appear to claim that, despite MU talking about two aspects separately, having different consequences to the argument, that they are contradictory. I told you they are not, as did MU.

I'm not sure more can be done.

he's a naive moron who buys into ideological stuff that suits his personal beliefs. — Christoffer

That certainly seems apt. I guess I just don't heap a load of.. idk.. vitriol? On it. I recognize stupidity/awkwardness/autism and find it hard to 'charge' someone with their behaviour in that regard. That said, his position is.... making that very difficult.

Bottom line, if he continues down this path, he will become a full blown nazi. — Christoffer

I think that, however, is utterly ridiculous. The comment on him being a 'trans hater' does make clear where we might diverge, interpreting things though so no issues with it as a position in light of that. Its just ridiculous to me.

Robert Reich (someone who i think rarely says anything sensible) has penned a very good piece about Musk's issues here . I think, wildly, I agree with everything here.

His apparent logic: because some immigrants have killed people, no immigrants (nor LGBTQ) are worthy of empathy. — Relativist

Are you able to quote something that indicates any of that? I couldn't care less for the guy, but he's been pretty clearly interested in illegal immigrants, no? As for LGBT...when has he said he has lack of empathy? I'm genuinely interested. These are fairly specific claims.

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

probability distribution — Metaphysician Undercover

is not

of probability — Metaphysician Undercover

a relation of probability — Metaphysician Undercover

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other. — ucarr

Third party here - no, they don't.

Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. It couldn't. It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. You're then insinuating something "without" has a mind to consider the question. Otherwise, its nonsensical. I'm not pointing at God here - the guys who run the simulation is more likely IMO anyway hehe.

Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. I understand that, spring-boarding from that question, there's a lot of work that can be done which might eventually result in a bridge between existence and morality - But i am sorry to say none of that is present here (i have read the OP...). I genuinely think I am not missing anything and you're barking up the wrong tree here, despite it being quite interesting generally.

Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. — Philosophim

Hmm, right.. so, then

"Why should anything exist at all?" — Philosophim

Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell.

If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it. — Philosophim

I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it.

Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) — Philosophim

I see where you're going. Hmm. Ok, sentience might be the be-all there rather than human. But, i think it's quite hard to see a singular act by a singular bear as moral. There's no deliberation I don't think. It may have been visually annoyed. But you're right - that line of thinking is taken seriously in the Lit, so I was probably too quick there. Still, prior to sentience, I can't see room.

I apologise, But i cannot understand the relevant of hte remainder.

Hmm - while I see the temptation, I think that's probably not a good piece of reasoning. I also thing: Almost certainly not on this occasion. If it doesn't profess to be a Nazi, or actually espouse any Nazi ideals, I refrain from entering such a claim.

FWIW: I live in a country which is plagued by gangs. One of which is called the Mongeral Mob constituted almost entirely of Maori and Pasifika criminal elements. Their salute.. .is the literal Nazi salute. Seig Heil and all. Hard to think they're Nazis.

Hmm interesting. I had seen a few minutes of this (though, it was clipped into several items). I thought it was preposterous (one of hte claims tacitly supported is that someone with Bi-polar doesn't do what Elon did - therefore it's a Nazi salute... can we not?).

I think part of me is of the view that a Nazi will not deny it. That's part of the identity. I think if you're hiding that you're a Nazi, you can't have much faith in the tenets of Nazism.

what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I am speaking to my experience/reading but this struck me as a really profound treatment of determinism. Thank you for that. Much thinking to do..

I think there are fascists in the US. Left and right. Is the actual country - the infrastructure and government going to turn fascist? No. There will always be elements, but as an actual driving systemic element? No. Don't think so. That said, I think what a lot of people call fascist is patently not fascist, so ... tough one.

There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question — Philosophim

But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all - I think asking the question is a farce, in some sense.

I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. — Philosophim

That's a fair charge - but I don't think I'm quite doing that. I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. I can't see that it's an object or fact to be discovered.. That said, I don't fault belief generally.

That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully — Philosophim

Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? There are no morals outside of human minds, so I'm having a hard time understanding something other than mere projection. Could you specify where/in what you speculate morality obtains outside of human experience?

Almost entirely agree with you both, fwiw. Thanks for your responses :)

fo' * surely.

I would humbly disagree. But neither of us are timebandits, i'd think :P :P

LOL extremely enjoy this written southern patois.

Yes, fair. I agree - probably why it hasn't been done. I think if one were to adapt, and remove that word, one is not fit to adapt it.

I agree with those points. It seems a risible misunderstanding of reality to prefer Gaza to Israel.

Curious due to several exchanges i've seen/had in the last few hours:

Is anyone here prepared to claim Elon Musk made a Nazi salute?

Why not?

You could add to this that fully half the country disagrees with much of the conceptual basis for those policies. Like, regardless of the pro/con table, it's morally wrong to do X.

I think that is going to be an issue for social liberalism across time. Optimism is usually not the worst thing int he world though

Trust in the processes which glean the information that I can piece together to understand the curvature, shape and orientation of the Earth in relation to my position on it.

The propensity evidence of the rest of the Solar System being spheroid (generally) is also helpful. I believe it because it would be pointless and time consuming to question generations of astronomy based on the fact that I don't personally know astronomy maths.

Numbers are markers of their predecessors.

2 means "1+1". 4 means any of "1+1+2". "1+1+1+1" etc... So not sure cause is the right word.

Thoughts are not facts, and neither are minds. I say that in the same sense that a table is not a fact. An apple is not a fact either. — Arcane Sandwich

It might be worth pointing out that these things are "states of affairs" which I think can be distinguished from 'fact's. That said, they are suspiciously close in concept. But "the table" is a state of affairs (with regard to its atoms, i guess) and "that there is a table in X position" is the fact about hte table as you point out. But hte table itself is a "something" in existence. A "State of affairs" seems apt.

Ah piss... And I used to read French (literally 25 years ago). Perhaps I can find a translation somewhere.. Thank you for the tip!

While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, .... and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society. — Philosophim

I may not be getting what you want me to get from this paragraph. I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. I mean, we could just drill in on the word 'success' as used here and be at a loss...

Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it. — Philosophim

With you so far.. I agree with this, as a description of what objective could mean here.

I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y — Philosophim

Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? I'm unsure you can continue down an 'objective' path in this case, but that's preliminary thought.. Onward..

You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. — Philosophim

I'm looking for something that ties your belief to something objective (i.e what do you see which leads to this belief). I cannot see it I suppose. It seems to be reiterations of your belief/s in relation to morality.

If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be — Philosophim

Huh? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. It seems helpful.

It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. — Philosophim

It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. I would add to this (as, imo a fairly knock-down type of point, to be sure) that if humans did not exist, there wouldn't even be the concept of morality so it stands to reason (in my mind) that existence itself carries no morality. It couldn't. It's chance, for lack of a better term. It doesn't act. This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points..

People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience — Philosophim

That is the only context in which morality obtains. So, I not only could I not blame, I couldn't argue with them. It is the only known place moral thinking exists. Not getting past this isn't a flaw, it's a correct reading of that position (whether you agree with the position or not!).

Likewise. :) — Philosophim

Yaaay! :)

fwiw, I think these types really mean something a lot more nuanced that amounts to "the election was unfairly influenced by XYZ..." which I think is fair, and probably true of many elections. Thems the breaks bucko.

Thank you :)
FIrst response is out of order, for good reason:

Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it. — Philosophim

Ok, right, I fully misinterpreted what you were saying in this case, so please sit with this part of my response first. Yes, I think there's a very good reason to pursue it. My outlook as a philosopher is that "I am sure there must be an objective morality, because of the bullets I have to bite" but in reality, I have no reason to think there is one.

doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist. — Philosophim

I think you've captured my point while rejecting it - viz. yes, but that isn't redness/red - it's a wavelength. Otherwise, I agree with what you're getting at.

As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication — Philosophim

This doesn't, as far as I can tell, provide any reason to think morality is objective. Could you perhaps tie the point you're making (that there are objectives in the universe) to morality? I guess, hang about as further comments below will be relevant..

Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures — Philosophim

That is true. Hmm. I guess I think some of these are demonstrably destructive (eye for an eye is, at least socially, almost ubiquitous). Some are demonstrably the result of outside influence (judeo-christian Morality). But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here?

The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures. — Philosophim

Hmm. Some are completely foreign, as between cultures. I think this is quite intensely overstating the overlap between various moral thought. Some of which is codified and hasn't 'developed' in any real sense. But, I take it the point is that your view is that these are actually extremely closely aligned, and so somehow speaks to an objective moral. I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it?

No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. — Philosophim

Its possibly, but equally I probably misread your intentionality. No worries - a good exchange imo :)

Fwiw, Yes, the OP is fun. Doesn't bear repeating for me.

It's possible I'm misinterpreting or taking too seriously what you're saying but I don't think I have any views here.

Some people think T is an existential threat. Some think he isn't.
SOme think Biden was a threat (though, not many have said existential in the way they have for T).

I don't care. What will happen will happen, and there's literally fuck all anything I do could possibly change about it. I enjoy my life and choose not to fall into the kind of paddling pool arguments being had here.

Definitely a good move!

Suffice to say I don't agree with much of that :) Glad we're at least in the same areas of taste though

Ignoring that it didn't come close.... that's a fucking insane move on day one.

Not sure I understand this question enough to even come back with a quip..

Maybe. But playful Gods. Not angry ones.

Power Metal is the most technical subgenre in Heavy Metal. — Arcane Sandwich

I think the correct genre is 'Animals as Leaders' hehehe.

Not sure what the rant about Dragonforce is for haha. I said they were awful.

I think Dream Theater are the absolute epitome of tasteless wankery. And I still enjoy a handful of their tracks. So there you go lol.

I've now been briefly entertained for several exchanges, while bored at work, in the lounge, in a thread full of absolutely wild comments. Don't think its peculiar at all :P

Finally :sweat:

Responded to like a true thread-enjoyer :P