Eh? — Isaac

Your inference regarding my statement was absurd. Which is understandable when maintaining an untenable position. But, to say I'm suggesting

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

is almost child like, so my complaint concerns the quality of the evasion. Eh?

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

I'd expect better obfuscation from a tenured poster. I've rested my case.

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? — Cheshire

Strange how the supply of evidence vacillates between being a marker of one's sanity to being entirely optional depending on which side of the debate one is on. — Isaac

↪Banno As soon as there's an approved (in the US or any other developed nation for that matter) vaccine, I'll get the stick. — 180 Proof

↪coolazice Well, you got me, I hadn't realized that those countries (fully approved?) the Pfizer vaccine. Still the overwhelming majority, including my country the US, haven't and that's reason enough for me to continue to hold off from vaccinating. — 180 Proof

Your response didn't make sense. You stated the population wouldn't feel the side effects; ignoring the population includes a majority that also takes a vaccine. Your analysis doesn't get past your own desire not to feel the discomfort of an immune system response. Neither did I, but I did it anyway. Didn't feel a thing.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

So, about 70% of the population should either take the vaccine or be certain of their acquired immunity. — Isaac

Agreed.

The issue isn't really with how many though so much as who. — Isaac

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. In order to allow for the 30% that either can't take it or don't respond to it. But you suggest otherwise,

Some people are massively more at risk from the disease than others and some people are massively more at risk of spreading it than others. — Isaac

The elderly and the unvaccinated.

If we simply assume that there is a moral obligation not to put your community at too great a risk by your lifestyle choices, then you should take the vaccine... — Isaac

Agreed.

....if you feel (after listening to expert opinion) that doing so would be necessary to absolve that social responsibility. — Isaac

Add a rationalization.

That's simply not going to be the case for everyone. — Isaac

And all of a sudden; the directive toward 70% from your stated sources no longer applies?

It is either 70% or it is each person based on their personal interests. Because data suggest it isn't both.

How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion?

I'm not buying into that. It's a mess. It's not physics, and it's not philosophy. It's nearest parallel is theology.

This is what happens when engineers try to do metaphysics. — Banno

Is this the product of determining the standards for utterance? The posters account is in English and follows a consistent theme. Faking bewilderment to prove a point and creating it to sell one seems dubious.

Ok, so, can we agree that information is "an idea that can be conveyed that may or may not be subject to error"? aka flat out wrong? — Outlander

Yes. A lot of what we know is what people tell us and some of it isn't correct.

basically a flat out lie is information, though wrong, remains equal with an absolute accurate account? alongside a deeply held belief of something that just so happens to be wrong? — Outlander

Equal in the sense of a subjective experience. Absolute accurate account should correspond to some state of affairs if it's indeed absolutely accurate. We don't place the same value on both types for obvious reasons. But, if information is an unknown error, then it is experienced like information that is accurate by definition.

I think there may be a speculative sense of information that directs space and matter apart from our observations of it. But, generally people talk about information as in the sense of human knowledge.

Yes, from my perspective, it seems your implying being subject to error implies everything is an error. Which is absurd. How could we be wrong about everything? Just because we can make a mistake does not imply Santa Claus. Who clearly exists and shepherds us to the land of the dead.

But does it have to be imagined? Perhaps the person who describes the bottle in the room as blue did in fact see a blue bottle in the room that was subsequently replaced with the green bottle the first man saw? — Outlander

So, the assumption of 1 bottle is an error.

Perhaps he has some odd eye condition or whatever that made him simply see it as blue. — Outlander

Then, an explanation of an eye condition was needed to account for the difference.

But it was, everything, even assuming they were complete lies, were equally information until investigated. — Outlander

Yes, information is subject to error when it is human knowledge.

So does that mean information not personally confirmed are but clues? Lies? Possibilities? Relative? — Outlander

I don't see how the confusion persists. I'm not trying to evade any example but they seem consistent with my account. Did I miss a chance to be confused?

Without getting into QM, etc. I think you are agreeing that the integrated laws of nature do that. — Pop

I just know the speed of light is a measure of resistance, so something going faster isn't resisted. Yeah, everything is aware and we're like a node. So, show it beautiful things.

To me it's whatever informs the spin of an entangled particle when another is observed. It travels faster than light so it isn't going through our space.

There's a bottle that is, by all widely accepted views green, that happens to sit in a room you've yet to enter. One man informs you the bottle in the room is green. Another tells you it is blue. And still another tells you there is no bottle whatsoever. Are these not all bits of information? When you enter the room and confirm whether said bottle is green, blue, or even existent for that matter, does that change? Why? — Outlander

Some of it's information about the other room and some is imagined. One or more is inaccurate. When I enter the room I make my own assessment and compare notes. The part that doesn't change probably isn't imaginary.

Notice the similarity between information and god?
Are you are inventing a new theology? — Banno

Arguably correcting one.

General methodology question. I get the point is to arrive at a new frame of reference that supports some set of conclusions. Wouldn't this guarantee the near impossibility that some one reads it and realizes that its in error; supposing the mental backflip is always mandatory. If I always made sure people saw the world exactly as I did, before telling them what I think no one would ever be in disagreement. But, this just creates an illusion of truth brought on by manufactured consensus.

Only if the resultant group exceeds the inverse of the proportion required for herd immunity. If not, it really doesn't matter at all. If they adopt other strategies to minimize transmission it also doesn't matter one jot. If I'm healthy, live alone, remain masked in my occasional public visits, sanitise my hands regularly and remain a few feet apart from anyone I meet, explain to me how I'm going to have a higher probability of passing on a virus than if I did none of those things but took a vaccine at 70% symptomatic effectiveness... and yes, I will expect you to cite sources, not just make it up. — Isaac

You recognized the populations need and then described an individual strategy. It proves my point better than I could.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

The above replaces the term 'me' with the term population and continues on as if that changes the perspective. It proves my point; that hesitation is a miscalculation that results from point of view.

The "better for the population long term" argument should also support non-intervention for anyone that is suicidal as less individuals would mean more resources for others, less environmental damage, more job availability, etc. And yet, we are not advocating suicide, despite being able to spin the positive effects for society. — Book273

If I produced this paragraph I would question what else I was willing to rationalize. It's not a compelling argument. We aren't discussing suicide.

The general consensus is that they would. — Isaac

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? There is a mutli-billion dollar industry built on products that aren't FDA approved for medical treatment. But, are consumed without hesistation.

Yes. Basically the whole of the point I've been making recently. That a policy is a good public health initiative is not the same as it being necessary or even appropriate for every individual. — Isaac

Rather, I was acknowledging the intuitive rationality behind hesitation. If I perceive a vaccine risk higher than my perceived virus threat then the decision is do not take. If every decision is made from this subjective view then no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. "every individual" is a bit of an empty term in a medical context beyond we all need air.

Consider the harm of vaccinated 1 too few versus 1 too many. Over-shooting is the reasonable target.

What's even in the logic for highlighting doubt in efficacy. I'll suppose your correct and percent of preventive protection is lower than reported. The counter balance is higher uptake. Not taking a poorly working vaccine would make an unfavorable situation worse. I don't see how the speculation improves an anti-vax position.

It's not like people are suddenly going to rush out and get it upon finalized approval. It's not rocket surgery to imagine the effect of with holding a vaccine could be worse in some cases. If everyone gets a virus before a vaccine can be approved then what was the point of the approval process. It's a simple risk/reward analysis, but it has to be made from the point of view of a population. Looking at it on an individual level is misleading.

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you? — frank

I am suspicious of the logic one has to employee to come to this conclusion. A vaccine is the opposite of a money maker; because it is a preventive. It's like claiming dental floss is a trick by the dental cabal. There is no logical connection. A single/double dose per person versus a bottle of pills sold every month for a lifetime. It's not rocket surgery. It eats up there production capacity to produce drugs that aren't price negotiated with the government. They had to use a wartime production act in order to get more made.

The ones profiting are the ones profiting off the fiction. People eat up controversy and so the internet profiteers keep cooking it.

I feel similarly. It is the primal stuff, as a co-element of any stuff. But it is so hard to pin down. If you have a simple definition I would be interested to hear it? — Pop

The simplest is what we call data. The origin of data is information. It's what differentiates something from empty space upon experience. I think people are a type of animal that have the capacity to reflect this "thing" and it takes the form of a metaphysical object that itself can be manipulated. We can record or imagine data.

Your real power is in your ability to adapt to the change. — hope

Leaves room to correct some mistakes. I can't imagine what it would be like if my first impression governed every experience completely.

Reality is eternally changing and if you were not also you would be soon dead. — hope

Technically correct, but skating on out of scope. If you ceased to travel with the planet through space it would probably crush you. Speculating to be fair.

How limiting is it if it's constantly changing?

I was going to say our differences of opinion imply something is subject to a degree of interpretation. I think that's what you are saying except with only one person involved.

It's something. We've done well to infer here and there. How else would we know there is a limitation.

then its not immoral — hope

The subjective experience is of "not immoral".

if your alone on an island everything is a-moral — hope

The

and objective simultaneously — hope

is immoral but permissible. We are allowed to do some immoral things; which is how people screw up in the moment.

if youre alone on an island there is no morality — hope

Thoughtfully disagree, you can still harm anything you value, it's just permissible to harm your own things.

its nothing but fairness between people — hope

Yes, this is the innate understanding of morality and ethics. It's how the court knows you are sane.

everything is subjective relative and objective simultaneously — hope

Yep. As far as I can tell participatory realism is the way to go.

Clearly it's the currently unassailable missing dimension which directs the stuff of existence; of which we can certainly discuss; if we choose to.

:rofl:
Should have it sorted by Monday morning.

This does not make us unable to talk about the rest, just that the discussion doesn't meet his standards. — Antony Nickles

Precisely what I needed to understand. Thanks.

Sometimes philosophy is about changing your mind, not about knowledge, but, thinking in an entirely different way--that's hard to tell someone to do, or get there by just saying things that are right. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the source of dissonance at least in my experience. I'll gladly adopt a new frame of reference to kick around an idea. But, if I'm listening for the idea and just getting my bearings crossed...complaints aside. It makes sense now, appreciated.

↪Cheshire Talk to yourself anyway you like, but not to me like that.
Noted. In fairness if I was claiming to possess important insight that defies summary I'd be laughed out of the room. It appears as if some one thought they could be vague enough they would overcome the unattended baggage sold with a lexicon, but instead of realizing this wasn't the case; it was concluded that things can't be communicated.

It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions. — Banno

The Kant ball(thing in itself) was called into question.
Found to meet criteria laid out in the Tractatus for things that can't be discussed.
The things that can't be discussed are derived from an abandoned system of simple truths.

Probably the grossest over simplification to date. But, I was trying to get at the timeline.

Of course this derivation from simples is later ejected in Philosophical Investigations. — Banno

So, originally it failed to be a possible truth.

What are the conditions for determining whether or not something can ever be discussed? The argument is an assertion followed by an empty pause, but it seems like there should have been a time when the matter was uncertain and criteria was an issue.

I would suggest this is a confusion that "meaning" is assigned to a word, so when we put words together, it is easy for you to see how they are supposed to be important, the point in saying them. But "this is not how it works". What this expression is doing is only able to be deciphered from the context of the text, the evidence of how it relates to the rest. — Antony Nickles

Oh, it's like a magic phrase that is unintelligible unless other magic phrases activate it.

It seems like a tactic of argumentation not to simply state your point. No one talks to themselves this way.

It would make for some interesting poker games. I think the things people do have a reason. Not always a good reason but a reason.

I'm split on the matter. It is like philosophy splits into an activity of inspiring a new frame of reference or old fashion rigorous debates concerning over simplifications that parade as knowledge. Both seem like healthy mental activities; but I'm still attached to the perhaps naive idea that philosophy can still discover things. Like, it will be needed to make sense of things. In order to do that we need cooperation; and I'm sure that would even have to be argued for first. Holding argumentation over content brought us the flat earth society. I don't think there is perfect point of view or language that is going to transcend the bias of confrontation. However, I do think there is a way around it. Namely, every disagreement implies some other fact that must also be in disagreement. Once philosophers are in opposition they can then seek to agree laterally. Discover the mutual implied disagreement. Has anyone pitched that idea yet?

I don't think I mentioned anything about imagining things ... Such things would not be part of my world. Part of my wolrd are only things that I can experience, that are real to me.. — Alkis Piskas

Precisely the implication that I was suggesting follows from the statement in question. Mentioning anything imaginary is outside said limit. I might very well be off the trail at this point. Thanks for the response.

Food is so necessary to our lives that we have to pay some money to get the average calories per day and then have the body ready. — javi2541997

You would ignore that consuming food is a response to hunger in order to maintain some position held dear.

But, there are some aspects which makes us being totally humans: uncertainty, sadness, pain, weeping, etc...
I would never pay for quitting those emotions. The opposite is becoming a robot or just a program. — javi2541997

How much not to hit you with a hammer? I'd clear my checking if the fellow looked angry enough. Eliminating the ability to suffer is a different, but perhaps confusable matter.

I understand it is quite miserable when we are living an experience like these emotions are meant to but thanks to this, philosophy and other knowledge development is when start to flourish — javi2541997

I think we are discussing similar words in different contexts.

It appears morality is probably closer to other types of information than we realize. Which means we are correct about a lot of it and mistaken about some of it and which is which isn't always obvious. I'm not looking to lay out a prescriptive framework. I think that is where talk about human suffering really applies. Instead I was hoping to isolate a common thread in all acts that could be seen as immoral. Or point to some fundamental element.

Reading over W's lecture addresses a point that it is part of our innate framework. In a legal sense morality can be seen as a measure for sanity. Here W is correct if he is implying we might be limited if the question is how do you describe sanity to some one. But, I think I've narrowed it down to a matter of value and permissibility.(with a lot of help from anyone willing to take credit)

I think every immoral act includes a reduction in value. The value of even the human condition in it's present state in the same sense a vandal devalues a car with a key. It is the only answer I've found for the OP that seems to fit without a struggle. It also accounts for the difference in perception of morality. We value things differently so once outside the measurement of human suffering the question of projecting beliefs about values onto the world creates room for a subjective type of morality.

In support of this I'd point to the way prisoners guide their institutional society. The primary rule among criminals is the maintaining of a level of respect and enforcing it; demanding it. To me this says that preventing others who are believed to be immoral actors from devaluing you is the primary way to guard against immoral acts. It is a proactive defense based on innate understanding.

Secondary to value is the observation that some things are immoral and we are allowed to do them anyway. Here I think a lot of confusion could be resolved. It explains how people come to do things that seemed reasonable at the moment, but that they later regret. It suggests an explanation exist for rationalized immorality and other fluid elements. But, this is mostly just me riffing on some ideas. Objective morality exists if value exists and we act as if it does; even suffering correlates to value otherwise extortion wouldn't work.