so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data? — SteveKlinko

Can you really deprive a machine of data?

It is exactly, precisely what is happening. There are influences coming from all over the place (not just psychological) and then the mind makes a choice as to which direction to exert some willful energy. The choice manifests as an act of will in a direction. — Rich

This is a good explanation. We're constantly being influenced by good and bad.

CS Lewis made a similar argument about the difference between sickness and justice. If a man commits a crime because he is (psychologically) sick, then it is not an issue of justice, but rather treatment. Justice requires that a man be judged on his motivations and that he gets what he deserves as a consequence of his behavior. The concepts of justice and desert cannot be separated.

If we take away consideration of what is deserved, then we're no longer talking about justice, but sickness. I don't think anyone wants to be thought of as sick because they believe their choice is their own as an individual.

Wow, I just made myself conscious--for the first time--that things have me flirting with violence. It's not the kind or amount of violence that would get a movie "rated R for violence" or fill a horrible documentary or news report--it's just throwing reading material to the ground. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This reminds me of a person who worried that insulting another person's grandfather's bad back might be taking things a little too far...

"t is what is creatingthe impetus to move in a direction by use of will." - how (scientifically/mechanically speaking) does it do that? — Mike Adams

Excellent question. How does physical matter cause desire, motivation, and purpose?

if there's someone sitting in judgement over it, then it's not 'free speech'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, this is my point. "Free speech" is a convenient, lazy doctrine which requires no consideration. Without judgment, there can be no justice, which means speech without judgment will always run the risk of being unfair speech.

"Free speech" is a misnomer which appeals to incredulity, pride, self-righteousness, and selfishness. Just because you have a thought, does not mean it is right for you to speak that thought. There should be freedom for the truth to be spoken, but not freedom for untruths to be spoken. Free speech should never be used as a cloak for evil, and yet, by its design, "free" speech provides exactly that medium for evil men. "How dare you repress my freedom to speak to all good people to persecute and kill those with whom I disagree!". All humans have the ability to hate one another, but no human should have that as a right.

"You probably think this tattoo is about you, don't you, don't you..."

It is what it is. — Posty McPostface

*eye roll*

The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” — Banno

The dictionary finally catching up to reality, thousands of years later. :)

↪John Days judged by whom, and according to what? What if the ruling party decides that criticism of it is unfair - otherwise, you're free today what you want. That is obviously not 'free speech' — Wayfarer

No, of course it is not free speech, if the speech is forbidden because it is unfair. That is my point. No one should have a right to unfair speech.

it is easy to imagine it arising as a consequence of stipulating what constitutes fairness'. — Wayfarer

I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting here, but I would say that consequences are unavoidable when considering what is fair or not. That is the essence of justice.

So I'm afraid not - you can't qualify free speech that way without undermining it. — Wayfarer

If the qualification that free speech is flawed in that it does not consider what is fair or true, then it is something which I'm happy to see undermined.

Mayweather looked like he could go another 10 rounds by the end of the fight.

All the pre-fight psychological games were interesting, where they posture shirtless and get up in each others faces to trash talk etc. I wonder how much of that is actually effective.

Tbh all i wanna do is fuck bitches get money... forever...
2 hours ago ReplyShare — intrapersona

You want to be part of the rat race, forever? If there is a hell, I could imagine that being it.

Can a world exist where everyone is happy? Could happiness exist without suffering? — MonfortS26

I think so.

Would a life without either be worth living? — MonfortS26

It's a tricky question, because I think happiness is a natural bi-product of worth. If a person believes life is worth living, then that worth will result in happiness.

a perpetual sense of incompleteness at the very strongest point of knowledge. — Posty McPostface

This is pretty good summation of what goes through my head when someone uses "it is what it is" in a debate.

Any tips about comprehending concepts and playing with them would help me! Thank you. — Abeills

The trial of Socrates is pretty amazing. It's not complex reading and it touches on some pretty deep concepts.

So, you've discovered a formula for examining what things are?

I don't believe that consensus or convincing anyone is necessary. Of course often other people's opinions are of interest, maybe pointing out missed aspects of things. So one can learn from others, but when it really comes down to it, consensus or convincing others doesn't matter. — Michael Ossipoff

Convincing seems unavoidable even if we think it doesn't matter. We're all trying to convince someone of something. The economy, and the masses who participate in it, convince us that a $5 is more valuable than a gallon of water, and for the most part most people are successfully convinced of this, which is why it's called a fiat system.

The trick is in learning how to convince one another of right things. :)

Yes, but in a dialectical search for meaning, the ontological preposition to your position has to be asserted first. — Posty McPostface

Sorry, would you mind simplifying this for me?

But, really I think the saying signifies that there's something deeper than what it is. — Posty McPostface

Then the saying would be "it is more than it is".

According to whose definition of 'fair'? — Wayfarer

That's the catch with free speech. You don't have to consider each example on its own merits. It is free of any restriction. You can say what you want just because you want.

Fair speech is more tedious. Each case must be judged on its own merits to determine if it is fair or not, and if it is not then you can't say it even if you really, really want to.

It is what it is. — Posty McPostface

You're a glutton for irony. :)

It can be useful in certain contexts, like when people overcomplicate things or ask poorly considered questions. — Sapientia

Heh, I like that; the more diplomatic way of saying, "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer".

As I mentioned at the other topic where this came up the other day, "It is what it is", is a meaningless truism, conveying no information, saying nothing. — Michael Ossipoff

Hi Michael. I just noticed your post after I made my post. I see we basically said the same thing. Nice. :)

Does anyone else use this phrase? I'm trying to think of a situation where it can be used aptly. — Posty McPostface

I personally find the phrase frustrating when it comes to debates because it adds no information; it's only a rephrasing of information already explored, and it's usually done as a way of covering for a weak spot in the argument (e.g. How can you possibly conclude that the universe is God, when it makes no decisions, does not think about you, does not have any expectations for you, and is not even alive? It is what it is).

I watched the video. A problem with free speech is that it seems to have a lot of potential for confusing the issues, so that people invariably seem to think it means unconditional speech. I think a better term would be fair speech, or, as you suggested in the video, truth speech, but either of those two phrases will necessarily impose conditions on the speech, so that it will no longer be free of restrictions.

You can't tell people that their behavior is determined by things other than their own selves and then admonish them for not determining their own behavior. You can't have it both ways. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Hey wisdomfrompomo. I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between; limited free will. We can't choose to literally become a mouse, but we can choose how we behave toward animals.