The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover
How do you plan to do that? — baker
Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others. — baker
And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people? — baker
and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time. — Mikie
I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology. — Mikie
We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone? — Lionino
You're inconsistent.
This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
What choice, if you plan to "run them over"? — baker
Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist. — baker
You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language. — baker
It's not "Shakespearean". Please. — baker
Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI
Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways. — baker
Cool. Proof? — Lionino
Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. — Lionino
The only debate is how much has been caused by us — Lionino
What could be the result of this if it were to spread to the majority of the globe along with the matter of global warming kept in mind? — Ege
Here I was thinking the same about you. — Pantagruel
The concept that we must put a man on the moon was a bias that flew in the face of current technology (so to speak). The resultant Saturn V project was a monument to the power of human creative thought resulting in countless technological innnovations. — Pantagruel
Who says that logic and rational reasoning are the sole measure of validity? Again, this is one of your own biases....
towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges.
— Christoffer
the exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.
— Christoffer
exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order
— Christoffer
Again, these are all scientifically biased, with respect to the role that science plays in human existence. To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel
To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. — Pantagruel
For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel
I understand your approach. However, as I said, you are generalizing both with respect to belief and bias and, in the human world, knowledge is not exclusively of the scientific kind. — Pantagruel
There are types of belief that cannot be reached through bias elimination; but which in fact function through bias-amplification (which could be described as the instantiation of value, which is one way that a bias could be described). — Pantagruel
Any creative human enterprise, for example, goes beyond materialistic-reductive facts to assemble complex fact-value syntheses. It is these artefacts which form the basis of human civilization. And, in fact, science itself is one such construct. Science was discovered through pre-scientific thought, after all. — Pantagruel
Perspective is essentially a form of bias. — Pantagruel
Belief systems are the fabric of our human reality. — Pantagruel
I didn't realize we had a choice in that? Oh wait, we do? Of course. That is the essence of belief.
Of course, if you are saying that we haven't any choice in it, then it can't be a problem or a solution, can it? — Pantagruel
Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance? — Pantagruel
which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. — Pantagruel
to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. Inevitably, my question may involve what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself? The whole area of theism and atheism may hinge on the notion of what the idea of God may signify. Ideas for and against God, which involve philosophy and theology, are a starting point for thinking about the nature of 'reality' and as a basis for moral thinking. — Jack Cummins
I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? So, I am left wondering about the limits and freedoms arising from both theism and atheism. How do you see both perspectives in thinking? — Jack Cummins
If you want to demonstrate how you've countered my argument, simply explain to me what my argument is Christopher. I'm telling you you don't understand it. — Philosophim
that you're presenting a straw man. — Philosophim
When you're over there beating an argument of your own imagination, there's really nothing else to discuss until you resolve the accusation. — Philosophim
I can take all the stuff you've already said and apply it to your summary. If you can't summarize the argument and tell me what I'm actually saying — Philosophim
after he confessed he didn't have to understand the argument. Such a person has nothing of value to add to the point. — Philosophim
Its also not control freaky to guide a person back to the OP — Philosophim
This isn't a generic open ended discussion thread. — Philosophim
then my accusation of you using a straw man fallacy is correct and none of your other points mean anything. — Philosophim
This is a lot of effort to avoid addressing the summary I put forth. — Philosophim
When the writer of the idea tells you that you're off, and tries to clarify it for you, listen. — Philosophim
A straw man accusation is serious. — Philosophim
Trolling by going to chat GPT at this point is just silly. — Philosophim
Misapplication of the Straw Man Fallacy: The argument accuses Christoffer of committing a straw man fallacy. "I don't have to, I understand the physics instead." This statement by Christoffer does not necessarily constitute a straw man fallacy. A straw man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack. Christoffer's statement could be interpreted as an assertion that his understanding of physics negates the need to engage with the argument, rather than misrepresenting the original argument.
Lack of Context: The counter-argument lacks context about what the original discussion was and what Christoffer's statement was addressing. Without this context, it's hard to determine whether his response was indeed a straw man or a relevant counterpoint.
Presumption of Misunderstanding: The counter-argument assumes that Christoffer does not understand the original point (OP), without providing evidence of this misunderstanding. This assumption may not be fair or accurate.
Condescending Tone: The tone of the counter-argument is somewhat condescending, particularly in the lines "I can help you come to understand the OP's point if you want" and "When you show understanding, then critique." This approach can be counterproductive in a logical discussion, as it might provoke defensiveness rather than constructive dialogue.
Lack of Direct Engagement with Christoffer’s Point: The counter-argument does not directly address Christoffer's claim about understanding physics. Instead, it diverts to explaining the straw man fallacy and summarizing the original argument. A more effective counter-argument might have directly addressed how Christoffer's understanding of physics relates to the original point.
Oversimplification of Complex Topics: The summary of the original argument about first causes and chains of causality simplifies complex philosophical and scientific topics. While simplification can be helpful for understanding, it risks omitting nuances that are crucial for a thorough discussion of such topics.
In summary, while the counter-argument attempts to point out a logical fallacy and guide the discussion back to the original topic,it has its own issues including a potential misapplication of the straw man fallacy, lack of context, presumptions about understanding, condescending tone, lack of direct engagement with the opposing point, and oversimplification of complex topics.
Accusation of Avoidance Without Directly Addressing Counterpoints: Philosophim accuses Christoffer of avoiding the main points of the original post (OP) without directly addressing the specific critiques raised by Christoffer. This can be seen as a way to deflect the conversation away from the substantive issues raised in the counter-argument.
Overemphasis on Understanding as Perceived by the Original Writer: Philosophim places significant emphasis on Christoffer showing an understanding of the argument in Philosophim's terms. While it's important for parties in a debate to understand each other's points, insisting on understanding as defined solely by one party can be problematic, especially if it disregards the other party's perspective or understanding.
Continued Focus on Straw Man Accusation: Philosophim continues to assert that Christoffer is committing a straw man fallacy. However, without directly engaging with the specific points of Christoffer's argument, this accusation seems more like a general dismissal rather than a response to the substance of Christoffer's critique.
Dismissal of AI Analysis as Trolling: Philosophim dismisses the use of an AI-generated analysis in Christoffer's argument as "trolling." This dismissal could be seen as avoiding engagement with the points raised by the AI, which Christoffer used to support his argument.
Failure to Address Specific Philosophical and Logical Flaws Pointed Out: Philosophim does not directly address the specific philosophical and logical flaws that Christoffer and the AI analysis have pointed out, such as the potential false dichotomy, circular reasoning, and the speculative nature of the conclusion.
Insistence on Direct Engagement with the OP’s Points Without Acknowledging Counter-Argument’s Merit: Philosophim insists that Christoffer directly engage with the points of the original argument while seemingly not acknowledging the potential merit or relevance of Christoffer's counterpoints.
Implying a Lack of Worthwhile Engagement: Philosophim suggests that if Christoffer cannot address the OP in a manner Philosophim deems acceptable, there's no point in continuing the discussion. This stance can limit the scope of the debate and potentially dismiss valid criticisms.
In summary, Philosophim's response focuses heavily on procedural aspects of the debate (such as the perceived failure to understand the OP and the straw man accusation) rather than substantively engaging with the critiques raised by Christoffer. This approach can hinder constructive dialogue and the exploration of the philosophical issues at hand.
Incorrect. I'm declaring a very real critique of his point. Look, throwing out a bunch of quantum physics references and going off on his own theories with a ton of paragraphs is not a good argument. — Philosophim
I'm not going to spend my time when I've already directed him to address particular points that he's ignoring — Philosophim
He doesn't understand. He's in his own world. — Philosophim
I answer this directly with the summary I gave. He ignores this completely. — Philosophim
Overall, while the argument lays out a structured approach to discussing causality,it has limitations. It depends on specific assumptions about how causality works and doesn't fully explore or address alternative models, such as causality as a concept that may not be universally applicable or may operate differently at different scales or in different contexts (like in quantum mechanics).
Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called a "Straw man argument"? — Philosophim
I've listed an argument. If you say, "I don't have to understand it, I'm going to attack this thing instead," — Philosophim
This argument, which aims to establish the necessity of a "first cause" in the context of causality, has several philosophical and logical flaws:
False Dichotomy: The argument begins by presenting a dichotomy: either everything has a prior cause, or there is a first cause. This framing may oversimplify the complex nature of causality and exclude other possibilities, such as causality not being applicable in all contexts (e.g., quantum mechanics), or the concept of causality itself being a limited human construct that may not apply universally.
Undefined Terms and Concepts: The argument uses terms like "Alpha" without adequately defining them or explaining how these concepts interact with established understandings of causality. The notion of an "Alpha" as an uncaused cause is a speculative philosophical concept, not an empirically established fact.
Assumption of Classical Causality: The argument assumes a classical, linear model of causality (A causes B, B causes C, etc.). However, in some areas of physics, especially quantum mechanics, the traditional concept of causality may not hold in the same way. This assumption limits the argument's applicability to all of existence.
Circular Reasoning in Alpha Logic: The argument about the "Alpha" is somewhat circular – it defines an Alpha as something that must exist because it cannot have a cause, and then uses this definition to argue for its existence. This is a form of begging the question, where the conclusion is assumed in the premise.
Overlooking Infinite Regression and Looped Causality: While the argument addresses infinite regression and looped causality, it dismisses these concepts without sufficient justification. It's a significant leap to conclude that because these concepts are difficult to comprehend or seem counterintuitive, they must lead to a first cause. Infinite or looped causality models are viable theoretical concepts in cosmology and philosophy and cannot be dismissed lightly.
Conflating Different Types of Causality: The argument does not distinguish between different types of causality (e.g., material, efficient, formal, final causes in Aristotelian terms). This lack of distinction can lead to confusion and misapplication of the concept of causality to different contexts.
Speculative Conclusion: The conclusion that a causal chain will always lead to a first cause (Alpha) is speculative and not empirically verifiable. It's a philosophical position that depends on the acceptance of certain premises and definitions, which are themselves debatable.
No Consideration of Alternative Models: The argument does not consider or address alternative models of the universe that do not require a first cause, such as certain models of an eternal or cyclic universe.
In summary, while the argument is an interesting philosophical exercise, it is not conclusive. It relies on certain assumptions about causality, does not adequately address alternative theories, and contains logical flaws such as false dichotomy and circular reasoning. — ChatGPT
Try to understand it first. When you show understanding, then critique. — Philosophim
Human minds invented math with our ability to create discrete identities or 'ones'. Just like the reason we have a Plank scale is because it is the limit of our current measurements. — Philosophim
Don't insinuate someone doesn't know something, explain why they don't know something. Otherwise its a personal attack. Personal attacks are not about figuring out the solution to a discussion, they are ego for the self. You cannot reason with someone who cares only about their ego. — Philosophim
You were claiming it came from the Planck scale, so I asked you what caused the Planck scale. This is not me asserting how the Planck scale works. But again, this is silly. — Philosophim
And what caused the big bang? Did something prior to the big bang cause the big bang? Or is the big bang a first cause with no prior cause for its existence? You keep dodging around the basic point while trying to introduce quantum mechanics. Citing quantum mechanics alone does not address the major point. — Philosophim
Yes, it is an invention by us. Its the limitation of our measuring tools before the observations using the tools begins affecting the outcome. "At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate." — Philosophim
At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate.
So either way, you're proving my point, not going against it. You're seeking very hard to disprove what I'm saying, but perhaps you should make sure you understand what I'm saying first. I don't think you get it. — Philosophim
Then you agree 100% with my OP. There's nothing else to discuss if you state this. — Philosophim
Just try to go into future threads with the intent to understand first before you critique. — Philosophim
What caused the Planck scale to exist? — Philosophim
demonstrate why. — Philosophim
You have no idea how versed I am in quantum mechanics. If I'm wrong, show why, do not make it personal please. — Philosophim
What do you mean by need? A first cause doesn't care about our needs. Its not something we invent. It either exists, or it doesn't. Logically, it must exist. Until you can counter the logic I've put forward, you aren't making any headway. — Philosophim
No, it cannot. A first cause is by definition, uncaused. You are stating that a first cause is caused by the quantum fluctuations before the big bang. That's something prior. Meaning your claim of a first cause, is not a first cause. — Philosophim
What caused it to be a fundamental absolute probability? — Philosophim
Did you read the actual OP? I clearly go over this. Please note if my point about this in the OP is incorrect and why. — Philosophim
Yes it is. Let me explain what probability is. When you roll a six sided die, you know there are only six sides that can come up. Any side has a 1 out of 6 chance of occurring. What is chance? Chance is where we reach the limits of accountability in measurement or prediction. Its not actual randomness. The die will roll in a cup with a particular set of forces and will come out on its side in a perfectly predictable fashion if we could measure them perfectly. We can't. So we invented probability as a tool to compensate within a system that cannot be fully measured or known in other particular ways.
So yes, causality still exists in probability. The physics of the cup, the force of the shake, the bounce of the die off the table. All of this cause the outcome. Our inability to measure this ahead of time does not change this fact. — Philosophim
False. Quantum physics is not magic. It a series of very cleverly designed computations that handle outcomes where we do not have the tools or means to precisely manage or measure extremely tiny particles. That's it. — Philosophim
A first cause is something which exists which has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is. — Philosophim
So what? They're not that much fun to look at in real life. Use a Cabbage Patch Kid and it won't bother me — Vera Mont
in which the child's image will be recorded for some foreseeable future — Vera Mont
and available for commercial use to who knows what entities. — Vera Mont
Yes. That's where the kid is looking - not at the actor who is supposed to be their parent. That's why they're they're unconvincing in the scene. — Vera Mont
If the kids' lives get ruined, well, that happens a lot more without any cinematic intervention, just through unfortunate circumstances. — Vera Mont
I don't see that infants are necessary — Vera Mont
lack of informed consent — Vera Mont
their caregiver is obviously somewhere off-stage. — Vera Mont
the lighting, the noise, the presence of strangers, the incomprehensibility of the situation and the irregularity of schedules has to be stressful. — Vera Mont
Those things happen one time, for a few hours, not long days of shooting. You don't know how many rehearsals, how many 'takes' and how much waiting around in between is behind a two-minute scene in which the audience actually sees the baby. — Vera Mont
Small children - depending on how small - may enjoy the limelight, but they do tend to become damaged over time. — Vera Mont
If success creates mental health issues (in adults, too, incidentally) imagine what failure does to a little kid who was promised stardom. — Vera Mont
Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different. — baker
The problem is this. What happens to your consciousness when you get transported to a planet? — Walter
How is it even conceivable? — Wayfarer
I don't accept that Biden is feeble or senile or incapable. I do accept that he projects very poorly on the podium but considering the stuff he's having to deal with, and magnitude of the problems he and the world are dealing with, any number of which could literally be world-ending, I think he's doing a quite exceptional job. — Wayfarer
That their cruel and imprudent behaviour to their brothers is now having undesirable consequences should have been predictable and should have been avoided, so perhaps they are not quite as clever and sensible as they think. — unenlightened
I'm talking about fence-sitters. — baker
It's easier on your ego to think that .. — baker
Such is democracy. — baker
The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that. — baker
I'll pick the side that is *not* cheering on a mendacious narcissist wannabe dictator. — Wayfarer
And every time you say such things, a fence-sitter is closer to slipping off into Trump camp. — baker
The people loved it. They swallowed every word, and they voted for him.
I can’t quite understand why this is. but I don’t find it entertaining. Depressing, would be one word, and scary, another. — Wayfarer