I think narrating this situation as if it’s a war is a way for frightened people to consider themselves brave.

I want to trade your will to spread your nasty, filthy germs with my will to not let you.

I'm not afraid of the virus and my language is not evidence of fear. — James Riley

You're not seeing fear from those of my persuasion. — James Riley

If you had fear you'd get the shot. — James Riley

I said if YOU had fear you'd get the shot. — James Riley

I'm not afraid of the virus or the shot. — James Riley

I said if YOU had fear you'd get the shot. — James Riley

There isn’t anything more to say about it.

If you had fear you'd get the shot. — James Riley

There it is, clear as day.

I don't believe you. No one is that stupid. — James Riley

My fear is acknowledged and controlled; this is why I haven’t gone in for the wilder theories. The fear we’re seeing from those of your persuasion appears to be unacknowledged and uncontrolled; this is what motivates the hostility.

You aren't afraid of the vaccine — James Riley

I am afraid of the vaccine. I believe the accounts (because why shouldn’t I?) of blood clots, heart inflammation, blindness, cognitive difficulty and so on; these things scare me far more than the virus does.

I want to quash your will because you are a POS. Not because I'm afraid of a virus. — James Riley

I’m a POS because you perceive me as doing something you’re afraid of, i.e. spreading my “nasty, filthy germs”.

It's a matter of will, not fear. — James Riley

A matter of quashing someone’s perceived will to do something you’re afraid of.

Yes, I deny it, for me. — James Riley

I just don’t believe you. This is from one of your posts:

I want to trade your will to spread your nasty, filthy germs with my will to not let you.

I’m not very afraid of this virus and so I can’t imagine speaking of it in that fashion.

Do you deny that you’re fearful of the virus?

I'm glad you don't hold anybody in contempt.
I'm glad to see that its just you think people are delusionally wrong.
I think people could take things the wrong way at times. — Yohan

Read the OP again, it’s full of contempt.

Then force is the only option on the table. Plain and simple. — Wheatley

Do you acknowledge your own fear? I personally accept that fear plays a role on both sides - do you?

Well I am one of those who consider it weird and aberrant; whether it needs a special explanation I’m not sure (could be another thing that just is).

There is no difference between an organism which is self-conscious and one that appears self-conscious but is not unless we can observe a difference, either physical or behavioral. — T Clark

This is an interesting one, because I think you’re right in that even if the p-zombie isn’t actually conscious it may as well be if this difference can’t to anyone be manifest—which is troubling; it makes consciousness seem less meaningful. But it doesn’t seem possible for p-zombies to exist, since there’d be no way for them to derive meaning from the “inputs” you gave them.

The only reason 2+2 means anything to a computer is that it meant something to the person who programmed it; the words and symbols mean nothing to the computer itself. A p-zombie would be a natural phenomenon, not programmed by an actual consciousness, and so wouldn’t have a way seemingly to derive meaning from words and symbols.

They can't take a shot of RNA for their nation. If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do? — Olivier5

I was slow to appreciate that you’ve inadvertently likened the *vaccine* to a bullet here. Really good stuff.

If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do? — Olivier5

The war analogy isn’t in your favour. If you liken this to a war then the viruses are the bullets and you are far more scared of them than those you criticise are.

To be clear, I disagree with the war metaphor; to be as condescending as possible I’d describe it as adorable.

Well, we still disagree here. I don’t mind believing that pure chance causes those outcomes; that they’re random and have no explanation.

Fair, guess we’re not substantially in disagreement then.

What I should have said is that I don’t accept that everything can be known such that the outcome of the roll could be predicted.

I accept that there’s physical stuff governing the roll of the dice; I don’t accept that you could predict the outcome even if you knew everything.

There is no difference. The outcome is determined bu luckily we don't know what it's gonna be. — CasaNostra

Can you demonstrate that this is always (or ever?) the case in any event?

Why they can't have an explanation? — CasaNostra

Because then they wouldn’t be chance outcomes, but determined ones we only call chance because of our ignorance.

There are no brute contingencies. — CasaNostra

Unless you can demonstrate this I’m fine believing there are.

We don't know on which side a coin falls. So each side has the same chance. More or less. — CasaNostra

Sure, but ignorance of an outcome is not what I’ve been referring to as chance. If someone believes only that sort of chance exists then I don’t see what distinguishes their view from a deterministic one.

The difference with QM is that QM indeed offers a pure chance. Without explanation there. Not in principle. But how can this be? — CasaNostra

I’ve contended that true chance outcomes are brute contingencies—they don’t have an explanation because they necessarily can’t have one.

You’re referring to it as chance, but it isn’t really chance; it’s just ignorance of a determined outcome. If true chance outcomes exist then they necessarily lack an explanation.

If there is an explanation for why A happens rather than B, in what meaningful sense is A a chance outcome as opposed to a determined one?

This seems fair. I’m inclined to accept that chance outcomes exist and have no explanation; explanation being something that appears to run out regardless of the world view held.

So it looks like the choice is between a view that forgoes further explanation and one that claims but can’t demonstrate its explanation.

What's the heart of the matter? The heart is that which is actually going on. — Zweistein

My understanding is that chance entails lots of brute contingencies. Why does A happen and not B? It just does and it isn’t possible for there to be an explanation, since this would remove the chance.

It seems to me that we’re going in loops because your view isn’t coherent and you’re being obtuse about it.

An intention really, is an organism that sets out to do something. — AlienFromEarth

If an organism is unconscious then in what sense can it “set out to do something”? Is the fact that a robot doesn’t have its own intentions not a consequence of it being unconscious?

well with unconscious beings it wouldn't be their "intention". — AlienFromEarth

This is what I’m getting at. If an evil doer is unconscious then they lack that intention.

A human can completely override a genetic predisposition and change their lives however they want. — AlienFromEarth

Even if they’re unconscious?

If evil doers are on your terms unconscious just as robots are, then they can’t actually intend anything and so are not capable of evil.

Thus, the robots intentions are not it's own, it is merely the intentions of the organism that created it. — AlienFromEarth

I agree. But I also say that those organisms providing the intentions can do so precisely because they are conscious, and intentions spring from consciousness.

Do you think deliberation can be an unconscious act also?

Evil is deliberate. — AlienFromEarth

So this appears to be your main problem. Evil can’t both be deliberate and unconscious.

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

An evil doer never considers their own actions justified, because they are not conscious beings. — AlienFromEarth

And intention in a conscious act; so if “evil doers” are unconscious then they aren’t capable of intention, and so aren’t capable of evil.

If a conscious person always considers their own actions justified but is sometimes wrong about this, then they are capable of committing an evil act that they considered justified (i.e. they’ve made a mistake). So evil doers aren’t necessarily unconscious.

Now if they make a mistake, well they were still trying to do the right thing — AlienFromEarth

I’m contending that if a person always considers their own actions justified then evil is always a mistake, never deliberate.

If they consider it unjustified, they wouldn't do it. — AlienFromEarth

It means evil people do not consider anything justified — AlienFromEarth

Is this not a contradiction?

The definition of evil: That which intends to unjustifiably harm innocent people. — AlienFromEarth

4)Committing evil cannot be considered a "mistake", as it is deliberate as the definition of evil above states. Deliberate is the opposite of mistake. — AlienFromEarth

Are you saying then that a person can commit an act they themselves consider unjustified?

...