So this is just turning into you saying that you're not a realist?

A number of ways, but yours doesn't tick the right boxes. You seem to purely rely on some feeling of yours without testing it properly. I might have a feeling that there shouldn't be any crimes which begin with the letter "M", but if I just leave it at that or don't test it properly, then it's no good. You'll probably next as me about what tests should be performed, but really you can and should think about that yourself. You wouldn't endorse a methodology which would allow that sort of thing to pass, would you? — S

The only thing I can imagine that would work as a "test" here is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

No, it's your subjective experience of sound.

Do you think that your subjective experience of Mount Everest is identical to Mount Everest?

Based on what else, other than a consolidation through interpretation? — Shamshir

Again, that's what we're subjectively responding to. Those pressure waves in a medium. They reach our ears and as long as our ears work--we're not deaf, and as long as they're in a frequency range that our ears can respond to, our ears respond to the pressure waves, they send information to our brains, and we have the subjective sound experiences that we do.

That's the thing though. That's not sound. That's what you interpret as sound. Just like how you interpret a bunch of pixels as a picture. — Shamshir

No, that is sound. Your subjective experience of sound is your subjective experience of those pressure waves by vibrations in a medium. It's important not to conflate your subjective experience and what your subjective experience is of.

Because sound is relative to the observer - otherwise it's just vibrations. — Shamshir

Again, sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium. Loosely, though, we could say it's "just vibrations," yes. That's what sound is.

If we want to focus on our sensory experiences, someone could say, "Everything is silent to me. I'm deaf."

It produces sound, but the sound is inaudible. — Shamshir

Inaudible to us? And the feather you mean? Sure, unless we manipulate it to be able to hear it (for example, we could mic it and change the frequency). But why would we be focusing on our sensory experience in questions like this?

It's as if we are engaged in writing a kind of essay together, — uncanni

Let's keep it to no more than a 200-word essay, please. ;-)

(I think discussions are better when they remain tightly focused.)

"Their land" at what historical point?

Yes, it produces sound. Sound is just pressure waves caused by vibrations in a medium, which any falling item (not in a vacuum) would produce.

To be clear, are you saying it wouldn't be silent in the same way a feather wouldn't be silent? — Shamshir

A feather in what conditions/what context?

Yes I would, and yes I am; so where would be the advantage in your world? — Janus

No one would be homeless, hungry, without medical care, without the education they want, unemployed (and at jobs they want), etc. You'd be able to take whatever time off you want to take off. You'd be able to consensually do whatever you want to consensually do, etc.

From premises to a conclusion. You know how reason works, so why ask? — S

How do you reason the (moral stance) premises? Or would you say that for some reason, you're simply not allowed to state premises? (For example, if not legislating with respect to psychological states is a premise)

I'm using arbitrary in the way made obvious by the example I gave. And yes, through reason. — S

How do you reason to a moral stance?

Or the tree could be very far away. — Shamshir

Not from itself and the things around it, though.

But that's arbitrary, like saying that I'd have no crimes that begin with the letter "M". — S

We'd have to define how you're using "arbitrary," but do you think that non-arbitrary stances are possible? If so, how?

I won't be taking any flights, going to the doctor, or engaging pretty much anyone's services,in your world. — Janus

You'd be free to make those choices.

Nah, its nothing to do with physics. We can all 'turn the sound off in our mind's eye'. The 'observation' has still been made. There is no way we cannot observe 'the forest devoid of humans', and it Is arbitrary whether the sound is on or off in that imagined scenario. — fresco

Why would you be talking about us?

But what does violence really amount to? Must it always involve overt physical damage to a body? — petrichor

In my view, yes. I'd have no psychological crimes.

They could be. — Shamshir

That would have to be some freaky physics.

There are no unobserved' silent falling trees in the forest ... — fresco

Well, because they'd not be silent, yeah.

As I pointed out in another recent thread about this, God could have given us free will while still making it the case that one is not free to choose to do "evil." He could have made it so that evil deeds were simply not physically possible to do, just like it's not possible to simply choose/will oneself to be invisible or massless.

I don't know if he's confused, but some combo of delusional, trolling, irrationally stubborn, etc. might be the case.

All things exist in their entirety prior to the first report of them. — creativesoul

The exception would be the report itself. That can't exist prior to the report. It would work for everything else, I suppose, since in order to make a report about something, it has to exist, you have to observe it/become aware of it, formulate the report, etc.

So given that you don't want to deny an identity, you agree.

I am saying that if Joe is a banana, he is bent and yellow. — Bartricks

You realize that if you deny that "if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then to Joe, it's morally permissible to rape Jane," you're denying an identity, right?

no, — Bartricks

So if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then to Joe it's not morally permissible to rape Jane? That's what you're claiming?

According to your view - which you clearly don't understand - if Joe values (values - VALUES - values, values. V. A.L.U.E.S) raping Jane, then it will necessarily be good for Joe to rape Jane. — Bartricks

(1) You're ignoring the question I'm asking you: If Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then is it not the case that, to Joe, it's morally permissible to rape Jane?

(2) My view is that if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then necessarily, to Joe, it is morally permissible to rape Jane.

(3) It is not my view that if Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then something follows outside of the scope of what Joe thinks.

Again, for the umpteenth time, if they were, then if you valued raping someone necessarily it would be good for you to rape them. — Bartricks

If Joe thinks it's morally permissible to rape Jane, then is it not the case that, to Joe, it's morally permissible to rape Jane?

Ok, so as to whether influence is a spectrum...yes, but your free speech absolutism is based on other things than whether or not its on a spectrum. Is that right? — DingoJones

I'd just say it's "based on" speech not being anything, or being able to do anything (like force things) that I have any moral objection to.

But that's laughable — S

It's laughable that speech could force actions? I'd agree with that.

Or you think it's laughable to only ban speech that would force actions?

Yeah, but I made it explicit in many different ways that I'd only be concerned with force.

Meta criticism drives me crazy, too. ;-)

(Critical discussion about discussion preferences)

It seems to me that we either see all argumentation as resting on truth tables for the operators/connectives we've defined, in which case stuff like modus ponens wouldn't be a form we'd specify, it's just a possible compound, or the forms would be theoretically endless.

Also, I didnt say anything about force, I was asking about influence. I think we agree speech doesnt compell/force anyone to commit acts of violence. — DingoJones

Right. So I'd never have any legislation against influence of any sort. So that's part of why I'd not ban any speech. The only way I'd ever ban any speech would be if speech could literally force something like violent actions.

Okay, but again, I don't really care about that. Why would I? I don't think that the main thrust of his opening post had anything to do with a triviality like that. Based on other comments of his, his position is more extreme than that. — S

Okay . . . I get really tired about talking about the same stuff all the time, though. So I try to focus on angles that aren't something we've beaten into the ground already.

Okay, so we're all just talking past eachother. Maybe it is overestimated. Maybe not. It's hard to judge because where do you even begin? You could look at it a number of different ways and reach different conclusions. But unenlightened is definitely right in that it's not overestimated to the extent that it's a benefit to many businesses. — S

I'm going by what businesses believe advertising can do, which I've seen many times from many different angles, including that my wife constantly deals with it as part of her work--she's a business consultant.

So you seem to imply that there is a spectrum of influence, is that fair to say? If there is a spectrum, why would you be a free speech absolutist? — DingoJones

Influence is different than force. I only have moral issues with force.

I thought I explained all of that numerous times, in a bunch of different ways.

Well I can see I'm wasting my time talking to you lot. — unenlightened

At least you're not overestimating the power of your speech there.