Interestingly, geocentrism most definitely expressed anthropocentric values and Galileo paid the price for extracting those values from astronomy. In the end it's all about power. — praxis

It was actually Nietzsche who argued this in "Geaneology of Morality", that "the good people" are just the powerful imposing what is "good" on the basis of what is good for them. To me, the point of how to make life better for everyone with a loss of moral absolutism is an interesting one, yet i'm pretty it's impossible currently given that human psychology tends to be more motivated by fear and anxiety than pleasure.

It's not sustainable to ascribe to and abide by a moral system that disregards how the world really works. Idealism like that drives people crazy. — baker

I personally don't think think it's impossible for those things to happen, and it really depends on what attacking and punishing looks like. It's not idealism to know that the hierarchically powerful are not all powerful or godlike.

Maybe you can't assassinate a president and expect to get away with it, but i would suspect a president's cabinet members do hurt them sometimes, but in a much more minor way. I would argue that believing in the social infallibility of leaders is crazier than thinking it's impossible to harm them without getting away with it.

As an example: let's say a single parent is abusing their kids. Wouldn't it be possible for that kid to kill the parent and get away with it? It would be much easier for the kid to do that if there weren't police, and it wouldn't necessarily be good for the kid's future, but i'm just saying that it's possible.

This strange idea that philosophy should be cut off from real life ... — baker

nah i'm unfortunately just a sensitive person and sometimes i don't want to talk about specific things on the internet ;-) I don't think it can be fully cut off from other things you do, even though it's always the case that people are like "let's not talk about this, let's do something else", and sometimes that approach appears necessary for group cohesion. I was having some thoughts about how punishments for extreme crimes could be improved to be less harmful and less hypocritical, but i am not quite ready to start a discussion on that kind of a rabbit hole here yet.

"Anti-realism" in meta-ethics just refers to the claim that there are no facts about values; which is quite popular as a position. Plenty of people embrace this term as a label for their own ideas; I am pretty sure it is coined by anti-realists themselves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay, for me the phrasing instead would be "subjectivist", which states moral truths exist, but ONLY subjectively. So that still means i can use moral values if they are beneficial to my selfish interests, or ignore them if they appear harmful or immoral. I don't know if Ayn Rand ever called herself that, her excuse was rationalism.

I think claiming there are "no facts about values" is confusing, because facts tend to imply shared information, and there are plenty of those. However, i guess some folks see anti-realism as the best framing for their suspicions on morality.

anti-realist generally cannot justify this distinction because they don't think "moral goodness" is real in the first place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You see, this another i had with your previous discussion: anti-realism is not a coherent perspective, it's just a means of labeling a position one finds threatening. The real problem is that people are constantly what they imagine with reality, and one of the biggest ways they do this is with moral value systems.

For example, i have been having issues with social media and message boards for years. The moderators do not really care, and expect only me to behave myself. That isn't an example of anti-realism, it's just a system that makes empathy impossible.

I have tried lots of advice to deal with my nicotine and internet addictions, but none of it works better than what i have discovered. The issue isn't my anti-realism, its difficulty dealing with a reality that requires facing manipulative advocacy and facing the information super highway.

Thanks for responding to my thread everyone: enjoy what you can.

Where there are cars and other motorized vehicles and machines with internal combustion engines, there is antifreeze. Cats sneak into people's garages and sheds, and find all kinds of things there, some of them not safely stored. To say nothing of cars leaking antifreeze. — baker

I think i may figured out why my winshield wiper fluid ejector stopped working: some ice probably cracked the container. But this is false, you never strictly need antifreeze to operate a car...you don't need to mix oil with antifreeze.

It's absolutely vital to know one's place in society, and to actually internalize it. The criticism whispered quietly to the side with one's face down is a sign that one hasn't accepted one's place in society.
Those below have no business criticising those above. — baker

however, i think this would be too self-limiting, to think of this in absolute terms: it's rather easy to "punch up" in some circumstances, it doesn't even always get met with retaliation. There's also a big difference between criticizing what someone does/says (for example, i do it all the time on here, as i think it's necessary for philosophy), and criticizing them as a person, the latter often being counter-productive. I think a discussion on revenge and punishment could be interesting, yet I'm not so interested in the technicalities of that due to the emotional affect of it, and the one who punishes tends to entrench themselves in their own justifications (i think as the Joshs post shows), so it doesn't make for great discussion...

This is a good example. The philosopher character is an extreme comic example of indecisiveness. It is not excellent to have this level of indecisiveness; that is what makes the character humorous. One need not "blame" him to think he could benefit from a change. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm glad you responded to the show I mentioned. I even remember his name...Chiri. Quite a silly philosopher character, i am assuming the moral is a jab at the extent arguments can really move anyone forward...i guess ill have to ask AI about the scanlin book.

Cats love antifreeze too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

this is good to know, because i have several cats and abhor the thought of any of them drinking anti-freeze. Interestingly enough, cats do not like beer, which is a good thing because it's also bad for them. Luckily, i do not have any anti-freeze (what would i use it for, and aren't there alternatives?), but i do like beer, so this is the perfect combination!

Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin Classics) (Kindle Locations 875-887). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition. — Mark S

i'm wondering what Plato was basing this on: the book I read on Protagoras was "The Greek Sophists" by John Dillon (also published by Penguin). It's not very good to be honest with you, as the fragmented way they talk about the texts makes it kinda annoying to read, but it does comment on the evidence we have on the real life Protagoras. I would recommend ordering that book from your library, and only reading the section on Protagoras since you're unto this stuff. It does clarify where the documentation comes from, but information on Protagoras is hardly reliable or extensive(i don't think it's much more valid than your Plato account, if better at all...). I look forward to reading entire books written by Heraclitus and Parmenides (they go back even further), yet the little I learned from Protagoras was pretty satisfying.

Your use of the word morality is as an answer to ought questions such as "How should I live?" — Mark S

that is very true: morality is ultimately a "should". I personally, as "ProtagoranSocratist" do not really have strong opinions on morality. I think honesty helps, yet it can also be dangerous to be honest, so it's not really a "should". Probably the most important rule i vaguely fallow, is avoiding unnecessary harm. I do harm (the byproducts of my life are inevitably pollutants, sometimes my very presence irritates others), but if i can benefit myself and avoid doing harm to someone else as the same time, then this is desirable. However, it's still not a should, as i recognize that doing harm is part of life on this planet...and while i may judge someone for harming me, I may have to do harm in order to survive...but that is a worst-case scenario, like having to kill someone who is trying to kill me.

That Protagoras story certainly isn't true in a historical sense, but it does show that a society is made up of different kinds of people who rely on each other...the dire emotional implications of "right and wrong" (put the wrongdoer to death!)...and other things.

From this perspective, indirect reciprocity is encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense and I would say it is therefore encoded in our DNA even if no one knows how to find it. — Mark S

And this takes me back to what i was originally was criticizing: a lot more than "the human body" is encoded in our DNA (another example is the growth trajectory of a human, "the healthy growth"). Morality is clearly not one of them: the moral aspect tends to come from human creation and assent. If you look at a DNA sequence in a lab, you will see absolutely nothing about morality, religion, philosophy, or political ideology. The DNA sequence can help someone deduce reasons for human behavior, and it may be true or false, but "thou shalt not kill" did not directly come from your DNA.

What likely occurred is these moral ideas came out of desire for survival, and the instructions for brain development are in fact encoded in your DNA. That's an enormous difference from saying your culture or groups moral ideas are encoded in your DNA. I grew up with christian moral ideas being preached to me, a muslim grew up with islamic moral ideas being preached to them. Since i disagree with both religions about morality, i can't possible agree with your ideas on DNA encoding...

Is your screen name a reference to the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras? I am an admirer of Protagoras. He patiently explained to Socrates that the function of morality was enabling cooperation and, if you replace "Zeus" with "evolution," you get a remarkably accurate account of the evolution of morality. Socrates did not respond to that claim at all, perhaps because it was too common at the time and therefore not interesting. — Mark S

Yes, my screen name is a commentary on the ideas i like that came from protagoras, but also acknowledgling the inability to arrive at a neat conclusion in philosophy (socrates loved to contradict others), but your comment on Zeus and evolution seems not to be relevant to Protagoras. Protagoras largely commented on the subjectivity of all things, "Everything is true, contradictions are impossible." He also commented on civic morality, i.e., how affairs should be conducted. He also got in some trouble because he said something like "...i don't know whether the Gods exist, the matter is vague." According to writings from the time period, the greeks burned his books in response to his agnosticism, and he fled the city out of fear.

I don't know why on earth Protagorus would have, or could have, discussed the evolution of morality. It seems like you are just trying to argue your paper instead if improve it...but i could be wrong.

I agree with the basic premise that morality is a cooperation tool. However, this seems false and dangerous:

They will be more harmonious with our moral sense than other options because, for the most part, the cooperation strategies they employ are already encoded in the biology underlying our moral sense. — Mark S

I think here we risk confusing "specific x moral law is encoded in our biology" with "our biological encoding to nuetralize threats and shoot for personal equilibrium leads us to develop moralities". As can be easily confirmed, there's nothing encoded about morality in DNA. If that were the case, there would be no disagreements about how to punish rulebreakers. Things would be much easier.

Nor is there any shared sense of strategy in DNA, which is what makes that statement confusing. I ain't no geneticist, but thats not how it works...

Took out my first Opossum just a couple weeks ago. It wasn't a conscious choice to do so. — noAxioms

...and you did so with a car, correct? Then it's possumslaughter, and not murder...

You know, Ayn Rand, Gordon Gecko "greed is good." Or even a Sam Harris: "reasonable individuals want to maximize their well-being and that's why justice can be justified," or a Rawlsian elevation of the abstract chooser's reasonable self-interest vis-á-vis a wholly procedural "justice" as set over the presumed unknowability or irreducible plurality of the good. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Okay, i get where you're coming from now, but Ayn Rand posited new ethics based on her irrational arguments relating to capitalism ("self-reliant strength is good, perfectionism is good"). I think Gordon Gekko himself was meant to be the moral set up against the "greed is good" ideology. I want to point out that these are just specific kinds of justifications for selfish behavior, when there are potentially infinite possibilities...but as you say, phrasing is crucial for success.

With what, the examples themselves? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, i was saying that i highly doubt any teacher beyond an elementary school teacher would accept "we should all be selfish" as an argument on a philosophy paper...because the only way you could back it up is by giving examples of how your preferences benefit you...and schools never put individual preference over the curriculum outside a process that allows that (i.e., disability related concerns)

Are you arguing that anti-depressants have no positive effects? — Jeremy Murray

no, read what you quoted again

Tobacco is interesting - I've seen studies that suggest smoking is beneficial for the mental health of schizophrenics. — Jeremy Murray

tobacco is like coffee, it's a mental stimulant: so it's not surprising it would have benefits for schizophrenics because the source of their problem seems to be alienation from a reality they want to engage with. There were also studies suggesting that nicotine/ciggs are good for people with dementia as well, but overtime these studies are always changing in how the information is phrased: it's still argued that nicotine itself helps dementia patients, but i think the researchers argues realized the issue with damaging the body to help the mind (like is done with cigarettes, at least when it's more than a little bit every week).

Another interesting thing you might want to look into is how native americans treated tobacco: it was more social, it wasn't packaged for addiction (they didn't have the technology to do that), and i read somewhere that the elders spent much of their time smoking (because what are else are they going to do)?

As far as heroin in concerned, the origins were in temporary pain relief, and the positive effects of heroin can be rather extreme...but I wonder at what point you can use things like opioids and anti-depressants without it turning into a form of self-destruction. I have a friend who has been on various psychiatric medications for years, and hasn't been able to get off of them. It seems these medications, from my point of view (and i don't lecture him on it, even though i've gently criticized some of his other drug use) have been assisting in physical degeneration for him, even though he's a very coherent person for me to talk to.

-ethics is wholly bunk and we should just act selfishly; or
-ethics comes from God by command and anyone who tries to justify it otherwise is kidding themselves
-ethics is a wholly formal, Kantian duty
-ethics is absolutely unknowable and everyone who says anything is unjustified

Would all probably lead to fine grades if they were well written and well argued. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I disagree, because the blunt framing: "-ethics is wholly bunked and we should just act selfishly" is confused and hypocritical moral preaching. The third point about Kant is similar to what Nietzsche has argued about ethics, with the former's "categorical imperative", but overall he respected that Christianity was an origin for moralism, and Kant was a re-framer, and that is why Nietzsche was mostly respected in the academic circles he was a part of, even though i don't totally agree with his ideas...there's a pretty extreme degree of nuance that gets lost with "ethics is bunk" and "we should just act selfishly". My judgements about 1#, apply to point 4#: it can't be "absolutely unknowable" because our use of the word "ethics" proves otherwise.

[edits: i had skipped over point 2# for whatever reason first time around, probably because i was using my phone, i can't really comment on 2# as it does depend on the religion/ideology of the school, it's a pretty standard christian/judaism/muslim argument though]

The self-help industry is huge, wellness terminology has flooded our everyday speech, novels and media focus on these questions, etc. Explicit moral philosophy is banished from most curricula however because teaching any positive content is anathema to liberal individualism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The therapeutic and pedagogical discussions you bring up are a form of informal moral philosophy, but i would argue explicit moral philosophy is not taught in schools because it involves young people who don't really want to be there...explicit moral philosophy is very hard, it's spoken about with incredibly abstract terms and systems, my tiger and monkey lesson is simple and has more of a resemblance to self-help logic. The very kind of supple and valuable lessons you can learn from formal moral philosophy are swept under the rug, so to speak, because our liberal/individualist system places more value on christian-based moral teachings, productivity at work, and achievements...these have some scattered elements which prepare children for office work, hierarchies, and manual labor. I think the basic format ("go sit down in a desk, kid") is more of an issue than what is taught. Someone brought up torturing children as a vague moral example of...something...but the very school system does torture children "compassionately".

Have you seen the television show "the good place"? The difference I'm trying to illustrate between informal philosophy and formal philosophy is plain in the show: it's about questioning the absolutist notions of heaven and hell, and as a result of creator preference, the characters keep name dropping Jame's Scanlan's "what we owe each other", as an obvious attempt to get viewers to buy the book. However, "what we owe each other" is a little misleading, because the title says "i know exactly what we owe each other", yet the actual contents are very convoluted and not pleasurable to read. Much of formal philosophy is like this, and we embrace it still because of the logical challenge and desire to creatively express our ethics and narratives. Formal philosophy is for people who like to think and argue, not for people who want simple answers, not for people who launch Machiavellian schemes (even though machiavelli was arguably a philosopher). The demagogues use formal philosophy temporarily and move on, but rarely do they write a peer-reviewed philosophy publication or wind up as professors...

Thus, the real question is a more global "values anti-realism." Nothing is good or bad in any sense. Yet this is prima facie way less plausible. Is it not truly bad for a bear to have its leg crushed in a bear trap? Is it not truly bad, at least ceteris paribus, for human children to be lit on fire? — Count Timothy von Icarus

sorry, my other response got posted prematurely: i hit enter and it posted, but i was just using it to make a new paragraph. It probably has something to do with my browser or hidden setting:

the subjectivity aspect of "good and bad" also goes beyond predation, especially when it comes to situational responses. Doing one thing in one situation will lead to positive results, and other times negative responses. While i can't give any specific examples at the moment like i did with the tiger, this becomes painfully true when you consider what you should and shouldn't say to other people...but i would assume that if you're being honest, and you're not intentionally trying to hurt people with your words, there can't be anything morally wrong about it.

You also mention Plato: my understanding with him and other Greeks is they largely believed moral righteousness was correlated correlated with the happiness that you feel, and that independent of the latter factor, that there was no basis for talking about morality or justice. However, the question becomes: to what extent can this be established objectively and scientifically. What behaviors lead to happiness, which ones lead to unpleasantness? I believe it's possible to answer this to a limited degree. One could argue that the mere studying of moral philosophy could improve people's lives, but you would have to acknowledge that this lack of study in moral philosophy has more to do with people not wanting to do it more so than a systemic failure in education.

Thus, the real question is a more global "values anti-realism." Nothing is good or bad in any sense. Yet this is prima facie way less plausible. Is it not truly bad for a bear to have its leg crushed in a bear trap? Is it not truly bad, at least ceteris paribus, for human children to be lit on fire? — Count Timothy von Icarus

But who is saying that nothing is good or bad in any sense? Are you maybe hinting that someone was implying it here? Are you hinting that Nietzsche and Stirner were saying this? Because the quote Nietzsche gave that i posted directly contradicts that, and many of his other aphorism do as well. The whole reason i posted that was to advertise that this is NOT i'm trying to argue, but it seems that people try to project that onto philosophers who criticize morality in a more general sense, rather than technical issues with specific standards.

Even though i'm not willing to provide quotes at the moment, Nietzsche places a value on honesty in multiple places in his texts, so to me it would seem he thought that was one of the more important ideas when practicing a rational morality. Stirner, however, did not blatantly posit values: his style was more concerned with showing that there's a problem with assuming any of them are objective. However, you can still infer some vague things about his preferences from his philosophy alone.

My personal orientation to good and bad is that it's subjective 100% of the time: when the tiger eats the monkey, it's good for the tiger, bad for the monkey. The tiger gets nourishment, the monkey feels unpleasant and dies. The tiger can't be "morally wrong" because it can't question its behavior. However, this subjectivity gets extremely complex when you have humans who believe in free will and compatibilism.

I do take SSRI(Fluoextine) medication myself. — Jack Cummins

I tried SSRIs a long time ago, but the best positive effect they had for me was i felt a little calmer and smoothed out. There were multiple side effects, but the only one im willing to mention is it seemed to make me want to engage in other recreational drug behaviors more than when im not taking them.

Ha, you've pulled Nietzsche: each of these ideas stand on their own in a way, and they do relate to truth and identity. You've done a pretty good job of this kind of exercise as well, it's hard to argue with these (which is pretty rare for this forum).

The insuperable nakedness of existence demands the axiomatic facts of science and art. — ucarr

Yeah, it's basically like saying that to human is to need creativity, even if it seems "pointless". However, as far as science an art are concerned, to a high degree, they result from material accumulation to sound like a Marxist for a second.

But even a cultural relativist would say that moral truths can be verified simply by referring to the norms of the societies in question. — Colo Millz

Alright, this is a much more interesting and workable response. One can extrapolate a moral truth from the people they know, and even if a society violates a moral truth (two examples being: capital punishment is arguably "cruel and unusual punishment", and so is a life sentence for being found with a bag of marijuana), it's something to go on as a naturally selfish person.

I’m capable of engaging in Philosophical discourse, but I want to being able to critically engage; for my own sake, better than the above average laymen — KantRemember

Okay, here's how i look at it: there's informal philosophy. This is anything: "What is life"?

And the there's formal philosophy, related to specific thinkers, which ends up being academic philosophy.

The two are not totally separate practices, but what we can call "non-philosophy" are specific and technical matters. "Did you wash the dishes?" is not philosophy. Philosophy deals with general ideas and abstractions primarily...and that's why your "average person" tends to hate it.

It seems to me that there are moral facts (e.g., “torturing children for fun is wrong”) that are true regardless of what anyone thinks. — Colo Millz

Seems like pretty blatant emotional manipulation to me: you start by insinuating that moral truths are separate from human opinion: then you try your best to project the image of children being tortured.

What's wrong with saying that moral truths exist independently of human opinion. — Colo Millz

What's wrong?

I can't verify moral truths.

But I'm not sure how quantifiable the benefits of, say, anti-depressants are. There is no causation established, but despite not knowing why, exactly, anti-depressants help, there are clearly documented positive effects. — Jeremy Murray

There are obvious "documented positive effects" for alcohol, heroin, and tabacco as well.

It is often a combination of medication and talking therapies which may help. — Jack Cummins

that's usually what the professionals recommend, there are those who believe that the medications may have more of a placebo effect than a "correction of chemical imbalance". There doesn't seem to be any evidence that SSRIs correct neurotransmitter imbalance.

I also consider choice to be a process, not an event. — noAxioms

It can be either one: i can think about how i want to murder someone (technically, part of the choice, in the "choice is process" logic). If i decide it's the right decision, then the choice is made, and then i would start answering the question of how. I can change my mind still during this process, saying to myself "no, it's a bad idea to do this", i made a second choice, putting an end to my "how" process. Either way, i made two choices.

The question is, could the person, at the time prior to stepping into the river, have decided at that time, not to step into the river — Metaphysician Undercover

Stop trying to change the framing of OPs question: the question is "anyone". This kind of behavior is confusing. It's not a hypothetical scenario, because literally is possible in logic games and scenarios. Read the sleeping beauty thread if you don't agree.

I did my best to explain my logic. I will not repeat myself.

In the past, there was the opposition of antipsychiatry, in which thinking of RD Laing and Thomas Szaz saw psychiatry as a limiting way of trying to 'normalize' human experience. Those who were deviant were often labelled as 'mentally ill'. However, the arguments against this perspective involved ideas about the 'reality' of 'mental health' for those experiencing mental health problems, as well as those affected by risks entailed. — Jack Cummins

People are still against psychiatry: even though the whole mental health system has achieved more praise and acceptance. Now adays, the main opposition is based on the lack of effectiveness in taking the drugs. People in general are less concerned about normalization than they are about keeping their head on their shoulders. However, there will always be those who don't conform to socual norms and work performance expectations.

Psychiatry itself can't really do anything with subjective experience without patient input: "these pills are not helpful, give me different ones", and philosophy is largely unable to comment on the specific drugs, but we can talk in generalizations about them:

-is taking medication an effective way to survive? If yes, then when?

-can psychiatry exist without prescription drugs?

-Can psychiatrists eventually just make recommendations about fully legal drugs or herbal supplements?

-is psychiatry immoral, destructive, or flawed?

I'd have to say that psychiatry is very limited: it's basically just something people use in desperation, and i can't comment on how to properly administer it. You have to get a referral to see a psychiatrist, because MH proffesionals know that talk based therapy is more effective than medicating for a wide range of issues.

Now if a person is trying to avoid bullying or disrespect, they should avoid poor grammar and unclear communication. — Philosophim

Yeah, and unfortunately that is not enough sometimes. Sometimes you also need to not look "suspicous" or "sketchy".

I don't get your grammar/phrasing issues as they relate to trans though: to me trans is confusing because i can't relate to "a man being trapped in woman's body" etc., or needing to advertise pronoun preference. I can, however, relate to being deeply uncomfortable with describing myself, and that's as far as i need to go with my empathy in these matters.

2. The other person is being honest in what they tell us — Philosophim

unfortunately i have to go, but i do want to respond to this, as it's important: i tend to think of people as manipulative and sinister animals, so just because i don't question someone's statement, it doesn't mean i "believe them". The "is" and "is not" way of looking at things, without further elaboration (like definitions) is pretty empty. I think survival largely depends on what we do or do not say, and pursuing dishonesty puts one in danger, even though lying is not "wrong".

Technically you had to have people tell you that you're a human being, or at least learn it from somewhere. The OP is pertinent to telling other people who you are. — Philosophim

this is probably the most interesting criticism of my post: but it's still not technically true. Naming and labeling (yes, necessary for human interaction) does not require excessive categorization. Transgender people and their sympathizers are mostly reacting to bullying that relates to not being a "normal person" with their moralizations and positions.

For example, you know your name not because someone said "____is your name", but because you got accustomed to people referring to you that way. I don't need anyone to remind me that "i am man", overtime i just grew comfortable. This is why i'm confused by (yet kinda indifferent) to your main question, even though the topic itself is very interesting. If someone were to tell me that they were a man, yet looked like a woman, or whatever, i wouldn't be like "oh, so i don't believe you. You must must be a man because i say so."

This 'is' a statement that the transgender community insists is true, so I think its a viable thing to look at linguistically. — Philosophim

yeah that's true, i just personally get sick of the "is" and "isn't" dichotomy, and i appreciate your line of questioning for reasons listed above. This is also the case with "society", if you have a penis, you are a boy/man. If you have a vagina, you are a girl/female. Apparently, males/females are supposed to think a certain way and act a certain way. The "gender" question is extremely confusing, and these "roles" you mention largely do not exist.

The OP does not have any moral judgement on personal identification. It is a critique to note that the statement, "Transgender men are men" is an unclear and poorly phrased sentence if 'men' is intended to represent 'male gender' and not the default of 'male sex'. "Transgender men are men by gender" is the correct way to communicate the idea with clarity. — Philosophim

the transgender people seem to just want people to accept their story as true, since we tend to accept a lot of narratives as true. Those statements aren't poorly phrased to me, but i do agree that transgenderism is confusing.

Anything is true if you believe it to be.

"Is" "is" "is". Don't you get tired of that? IMO, that's part what causes confusion about sex/sexuality. I have never needed anyone to tell me what i am. Praise be to the transexuals for annoying people! But do not get all bent out of shape when i misgender by accident.

I am a man, but my avatar is a woman. Does that offend you? Does that make me transexual?

I don't see the point. I agree, a choice made cannot be changed. But this does not negate the proposition that one could have made a different choice at the time when that choice was being made. This is just a feature of the nature of time. At the present, when time is passing we are free to make different choices. So when I look backward in time, I can say that "I could have made a different choice", meaning that at that time I was free to choose an alternative. It does not mean that it is possible that I actually made a choice other than I did. That, I believe, is a gross misunderstanding of the op, due to the ambiguity of "could have". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's fine, you can believe it's you or someone else could have done something differently, but it's just an opinion. For me, i think its really important to separate imaginary from real, hypothetical from not.

I think this is incorrect. I think you simply misunderstand the op's use of "could have", as explained above. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, im not misunderstanding anything. It's a very simple logical exercise. When someone misunderstands text, it's better to just explain what is being musunderstood if you have the better understanding.

But yes, i was wrong that "if you believe that quote, you will agree with me", but to me the trains of knowledge are consistent: if i can't step in the same river twice (as the river is always changing), then i also couldn't have done anything differently in the past...but if you reason "i have a local river called river calhoun, and i have stepped in it twice! Heraclitus was wrong!", then i can see why you would believe that you could have made different choices in the past.

Maybe it's the same river if there's no current, and it becomes a different one as the current starts, but as another user has said about the "could" question, whether you can step in the same river twice is a matter of perception.

Do you deny that a person can deliberate, procrastinate, or otherwise delay in decision making, such that the choice occurs over a period of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

No i never said that, what i'm trying to say is this:

"Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made?"

It's fine and perfectly reasonable to say to yourself "i could have done _____ differently, for _____ reasons", but the phrasing of the question is "could anyone have made a different choice". We tell ourselves we should/could have made different choices as a narrative that will help us make different choices in the future, but the truth is the choice we made was already made.

There's an ancient phrase that "you can't step into the same river twice", and if you believe the validity of the phrase, then you will answer no to the question, but otherwise, you will answer yes. For me to answer "yes", it would imply that the "anyone" had different knowledge or at least knew they were about to do something wrong or imperfectly.

such that the choice occurs over a period of time? — Metaphysician Undercover

I had no idea a single choice could occur over a period of time. Could you elaborate on that? For example, what's the grey area between doing and not doing?

This is honestly one of the interesting things about "talking" on open internet forums: it always seems like a mistake because it's so open ended.

The question is not whether someone can change a choice which is already made, but whether one could have, at that time, the time when the choice was made, chose something different. — Metaphysician Undercover

We are talking about choices that could have only been made one time.

since "the past" is a done deal, then i have to answer no. Is this some sort of survey in relation to free will and determinism? "Free Will vs. Determinism" is one of my favorite philosophy conundrums, but it doesn't have a clear answer.

If you need me to elaborate, does wishing you made a different choice effect the past choices you made? If it doesn't, then the answer to the thread question and survey has to be a no. Argue with me all you like, but regret is an extremely common conundrum for humans and i'm rather experienced.

I guess "yes" is the right answer if there are alternate dimensions where people made different choices, but i don't know about those, so i can't answer yes.

you can assume — Pierre-Normand

This experiment is now becoming "beyond the pale" and "incorrigable" to me...

Coins landing Tails make SB more likely to be awakened and questioned about them (because of the experiment's protocol, in this case). — Pierre-Normand

but that's the reason why the chance of seeing heads and tails stays constant: sleeping beauty, by default, must be woken up to participate in the experiment. Every single subsequent time, she must also be reminded of the conditions because of the amnesia drug. The way they phrased the experiment initially means the 1/3 outcome is just a faith-based fantasy, and i can't empathize with people who argue continue to argue that, even though i get why with the phrasing of the experiment (the woken up two additional times with tails) logic would make the 1/3 outcome seem logical.

Sleeping beauty is a mythical character who always sleeps until she is woken up for whatever reason. However, there's not part of her story dictating what she remembers and doesn't, so if amnesia drugs are involved, then the experimentors are free to then craft the percentage that the outcome shows up...but the original logic dictates that each time the coin will show heads or tails 50% of the time, like with every other coinflip...

I guess we could start making bets on how many pages this thread will accumulate before everyone loses interest. I'm guess over 100, hehehe...

How would you know that? — Outlander

I can't know what the creators of A.I. know, but i personally know enough about computers, programmers, and computer technicians to know that humans can't handle the massive number of rapid calculations that modern computers are capable of doing. That's the whole reason humans invented computers: the latter do large volumes of rote arithmatic and logic. Humans simply are not mundane or lifeless (for lack of better terms) to even begin to compete on that level. We are sensitive and require a lot of things to survive, and we generally need narrative format and human language (which is radically from code and computer instruction) in order to make sense of things.

I don't see AI as being intentionally dishonest — Harry Hindu

It's not intentionally anything, but when it pretends to relate to you (telling you it agrees), then that indicates that maybe the creators and maintainers are engaging in deception. However, the funny thing is that even the creators dont fully understand how it works.