Is logic detrimental to evidently self driven organisms? With limited computing power, and environmental complexity leading to endless permutations, it is impossible to derive any logical way of living in any environment, that is not based on fundamentally irrational conclusions that happen to lead to reproductive success. Can logical systems exist within fundamentally illogical conclusions? — Grey Vs Gray

Irrational isn't the same as illogical. So yes, logic works just fine based on irrational premises.

Humans tend to own/justify actions taken and thoughts had in retrospect. This apparent illusion, which you can notice if you pay attention, possibly causes us to believe that ought statements exist. Are there any oughts? — Grey Vs Gray

Obviously ought-statements exists, because you understand what they mean in practice. As to whether ought statements can be established by pure reason (which you might think of as "logic"), I don't think so. But I think they can be established in practice. So in a way, "is" and "ought" are connected, but it's not a simple "is implies ought" relationship.

I do not believe that anyone can provide a reason for me not to end my life tomorrow (hypothetically, I'm not suicidal by any means), other than "because you may aswell live". In my personal opinion the length of one's life is not a factor when determining whether the ending of it was negative or not. — JacobPhilosophy

Well, there is a chance of there either being an afterlife, or a method of acquiring immortality, which would be an argument about whimsically taking your own life.

It took me a couple of posts to get no one seems to appreciate matriarchy is female domination, female leadership, and there are some really good things about matriarchies. — Athena

If matriarchy can take as many forms as patriarchy in practice, then talking about the benefits in general doesn't seem to be very useful to me. There are presumably huge differences between a "Victorian era, but reversed" kind of matriarchy and "enlightened post scarcity" kind of matriarchy.

So what are the specifics? Where would you start with the matriarchy?

One proof that females think differently is the skyrocketing number of bills passed to take care of children. — Athena

You're using proof very loosely here. After all the majority of MPs are still male. Though it occurs to me that the relative absence of historical examples for matriarchal societies does point towards some kind of relevant difference in practice.

Anthropology is one science that studies animals and humans to get at what is natural, and also anthropology does cross-cultural studies. I don't know what the name of the field that studies hormones but that certainly should be taken into consideration in a study of human behavior and gender differences. — Athena

Endocrinology, perhaps?

Is it possible that women may think fundamentally different from men, unless they are pressured to think like men, and that that difference is important to humanity? — Athena

It is possible, though I don't know that there is good evidence to support it. All thinking individuals have already been socialised to an extent, so it's almost impossible to figure out how they'd think without their socialisation.

But I don't think this argument actually supports his point. In fact, I think this argument actually leads towards anarchism. For if we have this natural distrust of our fellow man, and further if the natural state amongst men is that of perpetual war, then placing another man or group of men in power over us would not actually waylay the state of perpetual war. Indeed, all this would do is intensify it greatly. For while there may allegedly exist a state of 'peace' amongst the ruled, there would still be the state of perpetual war between the rulers and the ruled; in fact, it would only be magnified, since the ruled are now in a totally asymmetrical position. — Alvin Capello

I think this is a fair criticism of Hobbe's reasoning. Kant makes a broadly similar point when laying out his theory of the social contract. If the state of nature was a perpetual state of war where even the concept of rights and duties doesn't exist, not only is there no reason to ever trust your fellow man, there is also no reason to band together to change the state of affairs. The latter requires you to already have some idea how a better, more cooperative soceity could operate. So the basic concepts that underlie that society must already exist.

I'd agree to you insofar as the supposed "perpetual state of war" is not ultimately a good argument against anarchism. All humans have the desire and ability to cooperate to reach certain goals, and will do so without coercion. I think the problem that anarchism faces is a bit more down the line: How to effectively organise large-scale social cooperation without establishing hierachies and ruler / ruled relationships.

This is of course interesting. A significant reduction in the standard of living because you can buy less cheap crap. But what would a society win if it has a strong manufacturing base? That really depends on what it would look like of course. What if it comes with increased respect for the working class, better working conditions etc.? The "less stuff" may be outweighed by intangible benefits. — Benkei

That is an interesting question yes. The other interesting question is what happens to the labourers in the manufacturing countries. Unless we're planning a glorious revolution, just "getting all the jobs back" might be bad for everyone involved. Livelihoods on both sides of the membrane will be seriously compromised.

If we're willing to continue with a market based approach to labour, turning back the clock is, imho, not the right way of thinking. Why not make use of arbitrage to move jobs where they're most desperately needed. Then make sure those jobs have good working conditions and. Pay relatively well.

Yes, but that means those options available to you are, in your eyes, equal in value. Had it been that some options were more valuable than others, then you would prefer those over others and so, since the choices you make are determined by the value of the options, you are, in every sense of the word, compelled to make those choices. No freedom there. — TheMadFool

But that's the thing. I am not compelled. I can make the less valuable choice. Of course you could make a semantic argument that, by definition, the choice I end up making was the one I valued most. But then the freedom lies in assigning the values in the first place.

In other words morality is meaningless if one is obligated to be moral. — TheMadFool

You're equating obligation with force here. That is causing you to be confused. Having a moral duty isn't at all like being forced at gunpoint.

Given this is so, any moral theory that builds itself up on the premise that people should be obligated to do good and prohibited from doing bad is self-refuting for it amounts to coercion and this, in the worst way possible, nullifies moral responsibility which I referred to in a previous paragraph. — TheMadFool

Right. But then no moral philosophies that I know of do this, so the point is moot.

Therefore, my insistence that we must be free from any and all obligations and therefore my attempt to tease out a distinction in the meaning of ought. The actual moral ought that we should be guided by is the one that expresses simply a wish/desire which doesn't carry the weight of duty i.e. isn't an obligation; we should be wary of the other moral ought which is, good intentions notwithstanding, of the obligatory kind that, as I've mentioned, voids a fundamental moral principle, the principle of moral responsibility. — TheMadFool

Again, a duty is a mental thing you can ignore. It doesn't take your freedom away.

So, the moral freedom I recommend isn't random in the sense that there are absolutely no guidelines to morality and we act on whims, but is based on moral oughts that are nothing more than the wishes/desires of people to be good and not bad, possessing no power to force our hands to be moral and not immoral. — TheMadFool

Obviously it possesses no power to literally force your hand . If it did, there'd be no reason for moral philosophy. Morality would instead be a topic of physics.

I didn't think I'd have to explain to anyone that our economic system is as far from capitalism as can be. I've seen it described as corporate socialism. Not to pick one example over another but just the other day I ran across a story. Capital One ("What's in YOUR Wallet?) made a horrible bet and lost a billion dollars. If they had to declare the loss their stockholders would be wiped out. Don't worry, though. The government did some financial chicanery to protect them. — fishfry

That's the old argument of "it isn't true capitalism". But that's about as convincing as the equal and opposite "real socialism has never been tried". The fact of the matter is that capitalism has always included state intervention. Capitalists try to capture the state using their economic power. It's in their interest to do so. The mythical "pure capitalism" that has never existed is nothing but a fairy tale used to conceal the downsides of the real and existing economic system.

I call the system we have right now capitalism. You can disagree with the name, but it doesn't matter what we call it. The fact is the policies you blame on "globalism" are motivated by economic interests. The interests of the holder of capital. If you don't want to contest that point, you can call the economic system whatever you like.

Are you being disingenuous? Trump has reconfigured our trade relationship with China using strong words during his campaign and tariffs now that he's president. If you're unaware of these ongoing developments, President Xi certainly isn't. — fishfry

That's not a negotiation though. That's the administration using what tools they have to try and get a reaction. I have yet to see evidence that anything of substance has or will come of it. The hard reality is that the american standard of living depends on outsourcing production to countries with cheap labour. If you want to get the manufacturing jobs back, you have to accept a significant reduction in the standard of living.

Read your Chomsky. Or maybe this is the first time anyone told you that the CIA writes the news you read. What kind of magic fairyland do people think we live in where everything's like it's supposed to be in high school civics, which I hear they don't even bother to try to teach anymore. — fishfry

That's not an answer. Are you saying the CIA is outsourcing jobs?

Why have the media declared a national hysteria? — fishfry

It gets people to watch more media.

n another post I suggested that it's not out of the question that the response is part of a larger globalist plan. But for me, "not out of the question" is never confused with "I know." I do like to speculate, and to try to put current events into the historical context of powerful people doing nasty things for their own benefit. — fishfry

I cannot think of many powerful people that benefit from an economic downturn. Powerful people are, by and large, rich people, and rich people like to make money.

So it's not out of the question that a nasty flu came around (even Dr Fauci is now admitting that the death rate could be more like 0.1%, rather than the ten-times-worse 1% he announced last week) and the powers that be said, "This is it, tell the country to shut down all commerce, tank Wall Street AND Main Street, and Trump will be thrown out of office). I not only believe that's possible, I regard at as strongly possible. I'd go so far as to say likely. — fishfry

Right. And I guess the "powers that be" simultaneously control the US, Europe, China, India etc. Do you really believe in a world conspiracy? You're only one step away from "it's the jews" at this point.

But point being that I DO believe certain powerful interests wouldn't mind a huge financial crash this year; and certainly we didn't shut down the economy in 2016 when 80,000 Americans died of the flu (official CDC number). — fishfry

Current deaths in the US are 900 a day and rising. It'll take less than 3 months to pass 80.000 deaths.

So with that in the back of my mind, I said the hysteria was planned when in that particular context, declared made more sense. What I mean is, why didn't the media declare a hysteria in 2018? I'd really like a rational answer to that. 80,000 dead is a lot. I never even heard about it till the CDC announced the number in 2019. Why not? I'm curious. — fishfry

Because we have been dealing with the flu for centuries. The health care system can deal with infections from the flu. It cannot deal with infections from the flu and an additional viruse that is more infectious and several times more deadly than the flu. LIke, do you watch international news at all? Do you think Italy and Spain are currently putting on a show for the benefit of american voters?

I don't want another 8 years of Obama. And neither, let me point out, did the American people. — fishfry

I guess we'll never know, since Obama wasn't up for reelection.

You say disaffection and anger. Over what? The Dems will tell you it's anger over minorities and gays. That's bs. — fishfry

Aren't evangelical christians central to the powerbase of the republican party? Without their religious feelings concerning gays, abortion etc., the republican party wouldn't win a single election.

he Dems won't come to terms with the consequences of their own economic policies. — fishfry

How have the democratic economic policies been different from republican ones? Reagan is the father of neoliberalism, after all.

The Dems hate the country they claim to want to lead. Strong words. I'll stand by them. I've been seriously radicalized watching the Dems in action lately. — fishfry

I'd say you have been seriously radicalised by entering a filter bubble on the extreme right wing.

Your sophistry does not turn lies into true statements. — Nobeernolife

And your continued lack of a substantive response speaks for itself.

But yes, I was doing sophistry. I think it did a fine job of illustrating the absurdity of your standards for truth and lies. Also I won, which is nice.

I am NOT surprised.... — Nobeernolife

And I am not surprised you repeatedly post the same thing because you apparently are so happy about it.

Yes, this is often invoked for both cases. Where is the line drawn then? Who gets to draw the line? When can one culture tell another one what to do? Is it being culturally insensitive and when does that not matter anymore? — schopenhauer1

I'd say it's always ok to tell people what they should or shouldn't do. However, enforcing that is a different story.

For one, I believe that the only legitimate way to transform a moral duty into a legal duty is via a democratic process. There must be a sense in which the people subjected to the law have taken part in its formation. Then of course not all prohibitions are proportionate to the result. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are cultural practices. They have massive negative consequences attached. However, it is to a large extent self-harm, and the response needs to take this into account.

Lastly, the cure mustn't be worse than the disease. Are wet markets an essential source of food for poor people? If so, we need to address that problem first.

Cultural sensibilities can play a role in deciding what is and isn't proportionate. And this is certainly happening even in industrialised countries. Alcohol is again a good example here. It's largely accepted as part of the culture, and this is one reason why there haven't been many attempts to ban it. But I wouldn't class it as a major concern. My view here lines mostly up with that of @Pfhorrest

The "both sides" refers to pro and anti statue. — Nobeernolife

No it doesn't. But we both know we can play this game forever, since you cannot prove that is what he meant, and neither can I. Unfortunately for you, you made the initial claim that CNN was lying, a claim you have failed to defend.

I would have made a snarky remark about your reading comprehension, but after watching a few of Dr. Karlyn Borysenko video, I am starting to understand the TDS sufferers better. With your distorted filter, you really do see a different world than those of us who are not afflicted. Hope you get better sometime. — Nobeernolife

You know, the funny thing is that I knew perfectly well you'd pick up that one line about what Trump meant and try to debate me on it. I wondered if I should delete it, because it'd just give you an opportunity to change the topic to something where you can at least make some semblance of a plausible argument. But I figured you'd focus on it regardles, because clearly the injustice burns brightly in your heart. Talk about derangement syndrome.

Anyways, just as a reminder: You didn't manage to defend any of your other supposed "lies" either. Perhaps you'd need to be more strict about truth and falsehood, but then of course a lot of the stuff Trump does would suddenly no longer be defensible...

He said:
"And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

So clearly you did not not read the transcript. Well, maybe making fake claims if par for the course for believers of the fake media. Anyway, I am not your babysitter. Do your own homework. Just stop lying. — Nobeernolife

Yes, he did. As an answer to a different question, talking about a different group. After making the "both sides" statement. Which of course I would not know, had I not read the transcript. You're flailing around now. Your initial claim was CNN was lying. Now it's "well but Trump also said". Makes you look pretty weak.

He says it is illegal for unwashed to read Wikileaks. But he at CNN can. — Nobeernolife

No. He says it's illegal to own classified documents. Which may well be true. Unless you can prove its false - not a lie.

If you had seen the original raw footage (removed by Youtube) you would see the Hollywood production that CNN staged, complete with directions and pre-printed placards. Still the link I posted show some of it. — Nobeernolife

Isn't it convenient that your supposed evidence is removed? Anyways the guy in the interview you linked confirms there was actually a protest ongoing. I am just applying your own standards here - not a lie.

Nope, not an opinion. If you read the transcript, you clearly see that Trump was talking about good people on both sides of the monumet debate, not on both sides of the neonazi / antineonazi fights. This is a blatant lie by CNN, and one of the most despiccable ones. — Nobeernolife

I did read the transcript. Just before he makes the comment, he talks about "the left" attacking "the other group". It's a matter of interpretation what he was talking about, but it certainly makes sense to assume that "both sides" here means "the left" and "the other side" fighting on that particular day. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's not a lie just because you disagree.

An honest title would have been "2 idiots die from drinking fish tank cleaner". Instead of that, the fake media turned that into something like "people die from following Trumps Corona medicine recommendation" (not verbatim, but different variations of that). Trump had said that Hydroxychloroquinine could be a "game changer", which it is. — Nobeernolife

So? The media uses headlines that get attention. All the media does it. The headlines weren't lies, they just used hyperbole . According to you, that makes it alright.

He NEVER said people should drink fish tank desinfectant contining Chloroquininesulpate, with "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" printed on the package. — Nobeernolife

I guess if you had an article from, say, CNN stating "Trump literally encouraging people to drink fish tank disinfectant", you'd have a point. But you don't, do you?

Isn't it frustrating when your own bullshit comes back to bite you?

Randomness essentially doesn't favor any option among those available and freedom too means all options are equal in value. — TheMadFool

I don't see why freedom would mean that all options are equal in value. Isn't selecting an options regardless of and specific value an expression of freedom?

The difference between randomness and a good person and a bad person is in the first case, good and bad are equiprobable at 50%, in the second case probability of good is > 50% and in the third case the probability of bad > 50%. What do you think? — TheMadFool

I think that the idea of good or bad people and freedom don't mix well. If we take freedom seriously, it means there aren't good or bad people, only good or bad decisions. That's, incidentally, another key concept to remember when discussing freedom - freedom is about making decisions. If you decide to follow a rule, that's freedom.

That, in my humble opinion, is freedom. Rejecting a valuation system that makes you have a preference. — TheMadFool

Doesn't this imply that accepting a valuation system, as the equal and opposite act, is also freedom? And therefore obligations are compatible with freedom?

1. ought: simply expresses a desire/wish but lacks force in the sense it implies a certain course of action. For instance "it ought to rain" expresses the simple desire or wish for rain as expressed as "wish it would rain" — TheMadFool

The way I understand the English language, "it ought to rain" is meant to convey that there is some reasonable expectation of rain. It's not always just a wish, though of course it can be used that way.

Why are moral oughts not, as I claim here, obligatory; they are, at best, simply our wishes/desires for something better. This is because an essential aspect of morality is responsibility and to be responsible for one's actions, one must be free; in other words, there can be no obligations to act or not to act in certain ways in morality. To be morally responsible, we must be free. To be free, there mustn't be obligations. If there mustn't be obligations, the oughts of morality mustn't be obligatory. Ergo, to be morally responsible, the oughts of morality mustn't be obligatory. — TheMadFool

You're confusing freedom with randomness. If you decide to act based on an obligation, you're employing your freedom. On the other hand, if you act without considering any obligations, whatever their source, what remains is acting purely on your momentary whims. A good example of someone who acts solely based on their moment to moment whims is a drug addict, for whom the overriding consideration is always how to get the next fix. It'd be very weird to hold such a person up as a paragon of freedom.

Ergo, if one wishes to construct a moral theory that makes us obligated to do good and not bad as all moral theories so far have tried to, it would effectively relieve its adherents of any moral responsibility since they would lack the freedom to do anything but good. — TheMadFool

This does not follow. Being obligated to do something is not the same thing as being compelled to do it. All moral philosophies recognise that moral duties can be and are shirked. It is exactly the core principle of an obligation that it's supposed to guide your will. You have to will an obligation be fulfilled.

The measuring event is the act of you (or the measuring device you use) measuring the speed of the passing car. Let’s say that you use a laser speed gun, which basically measures the rate of change in distance relative to direction. — Possibility

A laser speed gun does not measure these values. It measures how long it takes for the laser to be reflected off the car and return. More sophisticated devices probably have multiple beams and measure the angle of reflection as well.

But even apart from that, your list of "dimensions" (assuming that is what you bolded) seems arbitrary. "Rate of change" already implies a measure of "X over time" and the X here can only be distance. So either we treat the measurement as "distance over time", which is properly 2 dimensional and gives us "rate of change" as a one-dimensional derivative, or we drop "distance" as a dimension and use "rate of change" directly.

How this could be relative to "direction" is a mystery to me. First of all direction would be a vector in space, so even simplified to a plane it itself has two dimensions. But apart from that it doesn't make sense to have a "rate of change in distance" relative to direction. Because distance is obviously distance from something, so it's already relative. You can't add direction to distance.

if the laser gun was attached to a police car heading in the opposite direction, it would need to take into account the rate of change relative to direction of the police car in relation to the passing car, in order to determine an accurate speed of the passing car. Otherwise it’s just a relative speed. — Possibility

Yes, but this doesn't add any dimensions to the information. You obtain the absolute speed from the relative speed via a mathematical operation.

The resulting measurement is reduced to two-dimensional information and then a one-dimensional value in relation to a value system or language (ie. km/hr), without which this value has no meaning in relation to me. So any fifth and sixth dimensional information is also assumed to be constant, and need not be taken into account if you then communicate that speed value to me. — Possibility

A language without meaning isn't a language, so it makes no sense to consider language and meaning different dimensions.

So a first question can be if it is neccessary for something to be / to exist in order to be viewed as a "thing"? If we answer affirmatively we will have to bear in mind that there are fictitous "things": we all agree that they belong to the world of fiction and thus are not "real", but that being the case is not a cause for them to lose their status of being "things"! — Daniel C

But fictious things do exist in the form of ideas about things. Dragons don't exist (so far as we know), but we all now the fictious characteristics of a dragon. So if it were to exist, it'd be a specific thing.

Is the dragon in my head a thing? Or is it just a thought about a thing?

No mathematical concept needed. That dimensions are necessarily spatial is an assumption; they’re a relational structure, applicable to all information. — Possibility

And what is that structure? I can see a basic dimensional structure where one dimension is a value, two dimensions are a list of values, 3 dimensions are a table and so on. But that doesn't match up to your examples. The distance between two points is just a value, so it's one dimension. Adding timezones merely modifies that value, there is no extra dimension.

They do have an observer - or measuring device, really - when/where the measurement is taken. But a measurement (once taken) loses a dimensional aspect: time, distance, etc. It’s confusing, but as a measuring event, it’s four-dimensional, but as a recorded measurement, it’s only three-dimensional information at best. — Possibility

Can you explain this with an example? Say I measure the speed of a passing car. The measurement is the speed, which I'd assume is one dimensional by itself. What's the measuring event and how many dimensions does it have?

Perhaps the reason for the misunderstanding is that we nowdays use the term meta- quite trivially. For example, we use the term metatext, a text that describes or discusses text. And that of course is totally normal text and nothing to do with metaphysics. Or then there's metaprogramming, where a computer running a program treats other programs as data. Again, that is an ordinary computer program. — ssu

I don't really see the issue with that usage. They all describe a situation where the operation happens on a higher level of abstraction to the usual way it operates.

If we understand metaphysics to be about the "reality behind reality", then that's exactly what we're doing - going to a higher level of abstraction.

Hence just to talk about science, use the scientific method to study the process of people making science isn't anything meta at all, and totally misses the point of metaphysics. — ssu

Wouldn't that just be sociology?

The measurement of ‘time’ that we know is a value attributed to the interval between two events. So when we measure time, this is two-dimensional information: change in relation to this ‘time’ value.

Observation takes into account the relative position of the observer in spacetime, hence the ‘extra’ dimensional aspect. We can observe events in relation to ourselves and in relation to each other.

And the fifth dimension is where I believe metaphysics comes into play. This is basically potential, probability, value: both quantitative and qualitative. It takes into account not only relative distance, direction, speed, trajectory, etc (all reducible information), but also the relative perceived value/potential of an experience. It is the fifth dimensional aspect of reality that enables us to talk about an experience that hasn’t happened — Possibility

I don't really understand how you use the term "dimension" here. Is there some mathematical concept I need to look up? I am only familiar with dimensions as spatial dimensions. I suppose you could have a system for the dimensionality of information, but I am not familiar with any specific one.

It's also strange that you apparently treat measurements as if they don't have an observer.

The possible benefit of this whole situation is that less developed countries can now clearly see what happens if you don’t stop the spread early doors. Hopefully Europe and North America’s mistakes can help those much more vulnerable countries act quickly - I really hope so because they just don’t have anything like the kind of healthcare in place that they do. — I like sushi

I wonder if that might actually somewhat lessen the impact the illness has on these countries psychologically and possibly economically. I know it sounds callous, but the poorer people in those countries often die of preventable diseases. Things that are considered only in dire situations in more affluent countries, like simply not treating people that don't have good chances of survival, are more common even under normal circumstances. Of course the sheer displacement due to illness, death, and fear of either will have a significant impact regardless.

What makes you say that? — Shawn

Scientists are not necessarily well versed in philosophy. So you often get fairly well-trodden metaphysical ideas, like the simulation hypothesis, get huge traction because it appeals to preconceived notions. It seems to "make sense". But the actual justification is flimsy.

Metaphysical information is not JUST human experience - it is from human experience, however, (ours and others) that we source our metaphysical information. — Possibility

Well then, explain how that works.

inclusive of interoceptive affect, qualitative evaluation and quantitative potential. — Possibility

Please explain these terms. I have no idea what they mean.

Measurement is one, two or three-dimensional information, — Possibility

Are you saying one can't measure time? Anyways where do you take this definition from, what's it based on?

observation is four-dimensional and experience is five-dimensional — Possibility

How does observation get an extra dimension? What's the fifth dimension and where does it come from?

It is the irreducible five-dimensional information - the uncertain, subjective and relative details of an experience - which pertains to metaphysics in particular. — Possibility

So metaphysics is just uncertain, subjective and relative physics? Sounds pretty much like random guessing.

Interpreting scientific results draws once again on metaphysical information in relation to the experience, but this is not doing metaphysics as such. — Possibility

Why not. It fits all the definitions.

And you're trying to claim that many people will think the WHO has "blood on its hands", and won't escape THE HORRIFYING SCANDAL OF THE MINOR SPREADSHEET ERRORS AND AMBIGUOUSLY WORDED TWEET because you're completely supportive of the WHO and its track record for providing excellent advice on how to deal with a pandemic. — fdrake

He isn't really trying to claim that. He's just putting the words out there so they can be found by search engines, and so other members will oblige to debate him on them so he and his posts get even more exposure. It's just trolling, and not the fun kind.

From Worldometer: there have been approx 150.000 deaths today. That site also gives various daily averages for different causes of death. We don't have an average for CoViD 19, of course. If we simply use yesterday's total (horribly inaccurate, I know) here's how it compares:

About 3 to 4 times the normal seasonal flu deaths.
About 1.5 times the deaths from malaria or suicide.
Slightly fewer deaths than those from HIV
About half the deaths from alcohol
Less than one fifth of the deaths from cancer.
About 10% of all communicable disease deaths.

As I said, a bunch of caveats applies. CoViD doesn't yet affect the whole world equally. The averages probably underestimate the deaths during winter etc etc.

But the hysteria out there frightens me. So WHY has an official national hysteria been planned? — fishfry

How do you know it has been planned? Of those members here who support Trump, you're one of the interesting one's (actually, I think you're the only interesting one). Please don't tell me you've gone off the deep end.

How do people think THAT's going to work out? The Hillary/Obama wing of the party back in power with a weak president who will do anything they say?

I regard that as a very frightening and very real possibility — fishfry

How is that different from 8 years of Obama?

I regard this as a fatal loss of vision and integrity that's led to three futile years of childish hysteria, culminating in the likely nomination of Joe Biden as their presidential candidate. That's your answer to "Trump lovers?" Joe Biden? If you made an effort to understand Trump's popularity you might have found a decent candidate. — fishfry

I think I partially agree with you here, but I don't think understanding Trump's success really helps much unless you want to emulate Trump. It's a movement borne of disaffection and anger. Hard to turn that into something genuinely positive (not that I think the DNC are a bunch of saints).

I used to be a globalist. t's only recently that I've started to question it. Globalism was a good idea for a while but now it seems to be just a mechanism for the elite to stripmine the wealth of society for themselves. — fishfry

That's just capitalism. Give me a single economic policy of "globalism" that's not motivated by the interests of capitalism.

To seriously renegotiate our relationship. I don't see anyone on the political landscape who I'd rather have doing this. — fishfry

So, what has been negotiated so far?

but rather because powerful interests planned it that way for their own benefit, and to the detriment of the country. — fishfry

And just who are those powerful interests?

Those who interpret scientific explanations are invariably not doing science - mostly they’re armchair scientists and dilettantes, popular science journalists or philosophers. It’s often like a literal reading of the Bible, devoid of context. But interpreting scientific explanations is not metaphysics, either. — Possibility

Well, then what is it? Interpreting science is evidently not in itself science, as the process of interpretation cannot at the same time be the object of itself. It's, if we use the traditional meaning of the word, a "meta-level".

The scientific method followed to conclusion is a process of reducing metaphysical information to what is measurable. Metaphysics comes before science, interpretation comes after.

The main source of metaphysical information is human experience. The human mind has been employing the ‘scientific method’ long before it was acknowledged as such, and has developed the capacity to integrate the uncertainty of metaphysical information - which scientific measurement does not - by distinguishing and relating between measurable/observable, potential/valuable and possible/meaningful information on multiple dimensional levels. — Possibility

You're throwing a lot of terms out here, which seem to lack a definition in the context. If metaphysical inmformation is just human experience, then what is "meta" about it? Experience is the base level, how things appear. Observation is merely a subset of experience, and measurement is a specific form of observation. The term "scientific measurement" refers to certain circumstances, but it's not an epistemological category. All observations, "scientific" or not, can be used as input for the scientific method. So, experience is the physical. The meta-level to that is interpretation of it's results.

Relative to perceived potential/value. — Possibility

Perceived potential or value of what?

Well, I remain unconvinced. Let's imagine the professor in the example says something like "well you should have killed your neighbors and stolen their car". This works as a case for premise 2. It's not an impossible request, just an absurd one. But it doesn't work for premise 3 for any number of realistic circumstance, like if we assume the student is an ordinary law-abiding citizen and being on time isn't a matter of life and death. In a deterministic world, the request would never be fulfilled, so in that sense it cannot happen.

It's also telling that the conjunction of premises 2 and 3 is that, if determinism is true, everything that should happen does happen. That requires us to equate "should" with "can", which turns the second premise into a tautology (and also invalidates the first premise).

How does it implies the existence of anything? Premise 2 simply says that for any x, if x should be done, then x can be done. It doesn't even imply that there is something that should be done, nor that there is something that can be done. It is simply a universally quantified conditional sentence, without existential implications. — Nicholas Ferreira

So the argument can be expressed less rigorously as:
1. We should believe true statements
2. If we should believe true statements, we can.
3. In a deterministic world, it follows that we believe true statements.
4. I believe in free will.
5. Therefore, if the world is deterministic, free will is true, a contradiction.

2. Says that we can do what we should do. That seems unwarranted. Say I am an alcoholic. I should quit drinking. But perhaps I cannot.

I think what's happening here is that two different meanings of "can be done" are conflated. 2. Would be true if expressed as "whatever should be done is theoretically possible to do". But 3. uses can in the sense of "what is practically possible". Even for a determinist, the set of theoretically possible events does not equal the set of actual events.

It seems to me awkward to say that science is devoid of metaphysics. — Shawn

It isn't, though it should be.

We have the simulated reality hypothesis, that is seemingly unverifiable yet makes total sense from a scientific perspective. — Shawn

"It makes sense from a scientific perspective" does not mean it's science. It's pop-philosphy.

Thus, is science really devoid of metaphysics? It would seem to me that no, science is not devoid of metaphysics, and also has some theories that pertain to the domain of metaphysics. — Shawn

It does have those theories, especially at the current "bleeding edge".

This means that those who interpret scientific explanations often remain ignorant, isolated or excluded from the metaphysical information available — Possibility

interpreting explanations is not science, it's metaphysics. What source of metaphysical information is there?

Science is based on phenomenology rather than metaphysics. Science deals with phenomena; in other words, science studies things as they appear to us. you can practice science regardless of what your metaphysical commitments, or lack of commitment, look like. — Janus

:up:

In my view, the structure of metaphysics is relative, subjective and uncertain — Possibility

Relative to what?

Ok. So do you think it's reasonable to speculate that the Dems might try to replace him? Or is Michael Goodwin simply trafficking in idle speculation with no basis in reality? — fishfry

Why would either the DNC establishment or the registered voters want to replace the guy they just build up? Has anything dramatic changed about his viability as a candidate?

I didnt say all they do is lie. Is that what you read in the part you quoted? I said “they lie”. If I say “they sleep” does that mean thats all they do? Lol — DingoJones

Regardless, you failed to specify. You went straight from "it's not 100% accurate" to "it's a lie". Yet you complained that all of Trumps inaccurate statements are treated as lies. That seems like a double standard to me.

Anyway, I watch CNN too. I dont hate CNN. I realise now that I should have been more clear about how general I was being, its not CNN constantly spreading misinformation, its the media in general. — DingoJones

It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on. Most media outlets have some political bias. Almost all of them have a significant economic bias. There are plenty stories that go unheard or are badly mangled by the media. When it comes to inaccuracies in major news outlets, Trump is the last thing I'd worry about. The misrepresentations about Trump are just incredibly minor compared to some of the other shit that goes on.

Within a week it went from suggesting it meant he thought it was fun to sexually assault women to calling him an admitted rapist. — DingoJones

Who called him an "admitted rapist"? Some opinion piece somewhere? Have a source for that?

Lol, yes! That is their job, not going “we hate this guy, lets just go with close enough”. Its actually very important to get it as accurate as possible, to recognise distinctions between lies, errors, ignorance etc.
Those are important distinctions and again, not being accurate or open about those distinctions is costly for any kind of anti-trump agenda. It plays into his hands, it lets him accurately claim “fake news”, which obscures the truth and any lies Trump actually does tell. It allows Trump To muddy the waters. — DingoJones

Isn't it entirely possible it's mostly lies, and claiming it's anything else is "muddying the waters"? How could anyone possibly know with certainty which statements are intentional and which are accidental lies?

I said they lie about Trump, and mischaracterise Trump. To use your term, they spread falsehoods. Thats what I interjected to discuss. — DingoJones

Wait. You just said how very important it is to distinguish between lies, repeating nonsense, hyperbole etc. And here you are, claiming all they do is lie. Why don't you apply your own standard to them and try to analyse each statement in detail?

It will be interesting though, because 'the State' in question belongs to Trump, whose balls these same people enjoy sucking on. Normally the response would be then to blame local government, except it's clear that local governments have done far more than the incompetence of the federal government. Not that they've ever let facts get in the way of a good narrative. It will be incoherence all over. — StreetlightX

The resident troll has already told us what the narrative will be. The right-wing media will blame the CDC and FDA, treating them as individual institutions uncoupled from the Trump administration. It'll be their fault for not testing enough, and not providing Trump with the necessary information. Of course, this will just be further proof that these "big government" organisations mess everything up. Thank God Trump and private entrepreneurs jumped into the breach!

All politicians spout political hyperbole. If you count that as "lying", they all lie all the time. — Nobeernolife

Oh, so if they just report the weather today, that's also "hyperbole"?

Now lies I that I am concerned about are lies that have catastrophic results, such as the lie that the Bengazi jihadis were a popular, democratic uprising against Gaddafi. For examople. — Nobeernolife

Or lying about having a dangerous epidemic under control while it is in fact spreading uninhibited across the country?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQllunHssEk
You might want to check before rushing to the keyboard — Nobeernolife

Nowhere in that video does it say that only CNN is allowed to read WikiLeaks. Is what the person is saying a lie? How about you go ahead and prove it? Or are you the liar here?

The original complete clip has been removed by Youtube and Twitter (what a surprise), but you can still find parts of it. Watch it tell us how truthful CNN is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g62_UMiv6wY — Nobeernolife

That video actually proves the protest wasn't staged. Only a specific view on the protest was created. We could call it an "alternate protest". This really just is media showmanship. Everyone does it all the time. I just care about actual, damaging lies. Like lying about climate change. If that's the best you can offer, I think I was right all along.

He said "good people on both sides" about the pro/anti statue protesters, and NOT about the neonazis. Very clearly. Which you would know if you actually read the transcript, instead of listening to the fake media lies. The fake media narrative is a total lie, and one of the most shameful ones. — Nobeernolife

Sorry, dude, but that's just like, your opinion. Opinions aren't facts, and having one isn't lying. You got nothing here.

No, it did NOT. Trump NEVER recommended drinking fish tank cleaner, like these two idiots did.
The misrepresentation by the Guardian et al is patently fake news. — Nobeernolife

Show me the report that said that Trump recommended drinking fish tank cleaner. Or the report saying the guy did exactly what Trump recommended. It's all just a narrative in your head.

Despite a global pandemic, the UN security council cannot even agree on a joint statement. That body is now, once again, completely dysfunctional. I wonder if, even during the cold war, a situation like this would have been as overtly politicised.

I’m sorry to hear about your grandmother contracting the virus, friend. I suspect we’ll all have it soon enough. — NOS4A2

I wonder how much effort it takes to suppress your conscience so much that you can offer personal condolences while at the same time spreading propaganda designed to ensure the virus spreads further.

So what do people think about Trump's new idea: — ssu

It's reasonable enough in theory. You'd need to set up something like border controls between the areas though, which might well be tricky.

Of course anything of the sort can only work if you have the testing capacity to accurately assess the risk in the first place. Germany has recently set it's minimum goal for accurate assessment at 200.000 tests a day. Scale that up to the US, you are looking at over a million.

Your claim "If the nature of the universe is established via the scientific method, whatever is the result must be finite", seems fair enough if it's a claim about the finitude of the current results of scientific method at any point in history, a claim about our knowledge. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes, our knowledge, and therefore whatever model of reality is based on that knowledge, can only ever be finite. There might be unknowable aspects of reality, but given that they are unknowable, speculation on them is moot.

Such a claim would resemble Zelegb's claim to have provided "proof that there is no infinity". Both claims purport to aim beyond what is empirically knowable. At most you can claim to show that our knowledge of the world is finite. But you cannot claim to show -- or how would you show? -- that our knowledge of the world gives us a perfectly complete account of the world as it is in fact.

By my account, those claims of yours and Zelegb's amount to speculation beyond the limits of empirical knowledge, and seem motivated by unwarranted conceptions of the relation of knowledge and reality. — Cabbage Farmer

My point was exactly that anything that is empirically knowable must be finite. I further contend that "the universe" should refer to something empirical, as a matter of practicality.

By contrast, I have not claimed that the world is infinite. Rather, I say

(i) it seems we cannot know whether the world is finite or infinite in the relevant sense

(ii) surely the fact that our knowledge of the world is finite, or that "the world as we know it" is finite, is no proof that the world itself is finite

(iii) your claims seems to contradict both (i) and (ii). — Cabbage Farmer

I just don't see why whether the "world behind the world" is or is not finite is "relevant".

Don't you agree that what is in the fact the case is in fact the case, whether or not we know it? Or do you suppose our knowledge creates reality in every regard? — Cabbage Farmer

I do not agree with that. I am a constructivist, so yes I do claim that, in a way, our knowledge creates reality. Not necessarily "in every regard" though, since I am not sure what you wish to imply with that.

Our knowledge of what is in fact the case is informed by experience and is made rigorous by scientific method. That does not entail that experience and scientific method establish what is the case and create or determine the whole world. — Cabbage Farmer

They may not create the world, but they nevertheless populate it with all the content. All we can say about the world absent experience is that it exists.

”Japanese and Taiwanese epidemiologists and pharmacologists have determined that the new coronavirus could have originated in the US since that country is the only one known to have all five types – from which all others must have descended. Wuhan in China has only one of those types, rendering it in analogy as a kind of “branch” which cannot exist by itself but must have grown from a “tree”... — Amore

That's not how viruses work.