I said it was card-stacking, something you have yet to dispute. — NOS4A2

Wouldn't it be up to you to provide evidence of this supposed "card-stacking"?

The fuss is about the consistency of the will, which, although appreciated as nature's useful means toward one's survival and keeping one to basically remain as true to one's self, leaves the person to necessarily be an automated process, which is not well received emotionally, since, well, then it seems one is not in control, whatever 'control' means, really, and who knows what benefit it could confer over the quick and deep process of two hundred trillion neuron connections figuring things out quite well. — PoeticUniverse

But this is only true if you separate the person from their substrate, that is, if you hold that there are brain-states that do not represent the person whose brain they occur in. I would hold that whatever brain-states we observe are merely physical manifestations of the person.

i suppose the better way of expressing this would be to conceptualise the entire universe as an aggregate of predetermined factors, "me" being a particular bunch of such factors. Would it be a little easier to see how "living" (in the universe) then does not absolve "me" of the grasp of determinism? — ho ching leung

The question is, what would being "absolved of the grasp of determinism" even mean? I think everyone will agree that making choices is usually a combination of your past experiences combined with you current state of mind. Yet at the same time, that is exactly what people call their "free will". Hence I also think what you wrote before is a little too constructed:

However, we continue to make ‘choices’ in the less metaphysical realm and in daily life. How is this possible, you ask? This is because I fundamentally believe the notion of a ‘choice’ is tied to memory, in ignorance of the concept of determinism. Without knowledge of the fact that our actions are pre-determined, we refer retrospectively to our actions as ‘choices’ – and inherent human tendency to extrapolate past possibility to future possibility leads us to believe that since, with a cursory glance over the shoulder, we have made such ‘choices’, that ‘choices’ can be made consciously by ‘will’ in the future, rather than exist only as an essentially retrospective concept. — ho ching leung

Is your argument here that people actually think that way? Because I don't think they do. And if you are supposing some subconscious process, what would be your evidence?

You call daily life the "less metaphysical realm", but I think that is mistaken. The realm in which our will operates is the metaphysical one. Because it's within that realm that the physical exists. It's not free will that we only construct in retrospect, it's determinism. Determinism is only apparent to us by going from some arbitrary event, which we designate the "effect", to it's "causes". This is also true for us observing determinism in the brain - we can only do so from the outside, we can never just "be determined" within our own consciousness.

Hence why free will isn't really opposed to determinism.

This matters because you are one of the Ci: you were caused, but you nevertheless are a causal agent - and a complex one at that. What are you? You are the sum total of your initial physical state (the DNA that comprised the zygote from which you emerged), and the various changes to yourself as a result of living. Collectively, these result in you having feelings, conditioned responses, desires, urges, knowledge...etc. These are the things that went into making you who, and what, you are today, and your unique combination of these things are what "determine" the choices you will make. But since they are YOU, it is still YOU that is making the choice. A different YOU would make a different choice, so you are a critically important part of the causal chain. Without you being who and what you are, the future causal chain (your output) would be different. — Relativist

This is very nicely put. It pretty much encompasses the reason why I think juxtaposing freedom and determinism is a mistake.

Right, you know what Trump wants. Then why can’t you quote him expressing such sentiment? Because you are referring to fantasy. — NOS4A2

Suddenly, his words matter again.

Thats not a valid justification, it is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because the answer isnt known doesnt mean you get to just insert one, even if its possible or plausible. — DingoJones

But it's not inserting an answer. It's taking the experimental result at face value. Supposing there are unknown causal factors at work is inserting an answer.

Sure, I think it’s appropriate, but then again I don’t want a pope or a lawyer running things. — NOS4A2

This sentiment seems at the heart of a lot of support for Trump, but I just can't wrap my head around it. Basically it seems to imply there are not actually any virtuous people. Anyone who looks virtuous is merely an actor playing, and is in reality just as much of a lying asshole. So it's better to have someone in charge who is obviously a lying asshole, since at least they can't be worse than they appear.

Did I get that about right?

Besides, it pales in comparison to the scope and reach of the entire 4th estate. — NOS4A2

It's worth noting that the 4th estate also includes Fox News and Breitbart, who are hardly engaged propaganda against Trump.

Yes, and he certainly does represent the nation, whether they like it or not. — NOS4A2

I wonder why you dodge all questions about whether Trump's behaviour is appropriate, ethically, constitutionally or otherwise. Perhaps that's just your style of trolling, but I am not sure yet.

When we’re comparing the entire 4th estate to the president’s tweets? Yes. Again, one is ethically tasked with keeping the public informed, the other is not. — NOS4A2

Isn't the president tasked - not just ethically - to represent the nation?

You’re right about the genetic fallacy, though I can’t find what is bad. Beyond the words, I have trouble finding one injustice. — NOS4A2

So, pulling out of the Paris climate accord? The Iran deal?

Putting a climate change denier at the head of the EPA? Giving his relatives government positions they have no qualifications for?

Kinda halfway demolishing Obamacare without an alternative set up?

Separating children from their parents at the border (we have talked about this before, I want to know whether it's bad, not whether it's worse than under Obama)? The wall?

I think it’s for the better, frankly. He’s ridding the office of the political correctness and political niceties that we’ve come too accustomed to, in my opinion. I think it’s refreshing to know what the most powerful person in the world is thinking, even If I don’t agree with it, as opposed to the public/private views and public relations style politics of before. I think that kind of transparency is important for democracy. — NOS4A2

What I think you're missing is that, without political correctness, there is nothing keeping politics from turning into civil war. Once you think it's okay to belittle and dehumanise you political opponents, why should you then follow the rules of a peaceful transfer of power?

You'll have to unpack that a bit, if you want me to comment on it. I have no idea what you might mean by "ontologically random", — Isaac

"Ontologically", the way Terrapin tends to use it, means really, actually the case. So ontological randomness really is random, and does not just appear to be random because we don't know the causes.

As to the justification for the belief that such randomness exists: There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness.

Edit: I want to make clear that I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings. I don't want to argue on behalf of Terrapin.

So without invoking your woo, you'd have to argue that the correlation was entirely coincidence. Is that what you're suggesting? — Isaac

@Terrapin Station, as far as I understand him, has the position that there are two ways an event can obtain: it's either ontologically determined or ontologically random. Free will is possible because of ontological randomness. So, if people have free will, the decisions they make are ontologically random, and therefore not caused - by anything.

It is the nature of life, it is the entire purpose of being alive, the sole definition of life itself is to flourish competitively. — Marzipanmaddox

That's not even close to the actual definitions of life being proposed by biologists.

The nature of life is just to flourish as much as possible. Every organism has this instinct, regardless of whether they are conscious or not, all life seeks to do is flourish to the greatest extent that it possibly can. — Marzipanmaddox

What is the evidence of that?

Life spreads and consumes fuel in the exact same manner that fire does. — Marzipanmaddox

Literally in the exact same manner?

Life exists purely because there was this potential energy that could be reduced, and it exists solely to reduce this potential energy, in the same sense that fire exists with the sole purpose of reducing combustible chemicals with high volatility into less volatile molecules with lower potential energy. — Marzipanmaddox

Purpose to whom?

The natural action would be to pursue this end and only this end, to ensure our own indefinite and perpetual survival to perform exactly the process that life naturally and spontaneously arose to do. — Marzipanmaddox

What is a "natural action"? How do we establish what is natural?

I even go so far as to argue that the more we stray from this natural definition of life, the less and less the human race can truly consider themselves life. When we stop pursing this natural goal, this maximization of the reduction of potential energy induced by life within the universe over the lifetime of the universe, we stop being life all together, we simply become death, we are no longer the righteous fire that was birthed from fuel, but smoldering ashes that failed to sustain the blaze. — Marzipanmaddox

And just why should we care about being life according to your definition of it?

It wasn't precluded from happening, given physical facts as they are. Some things are precluded from happening. Those things are (and were) not possible. But not everything possible happens. — Terrapin Station

That only works if we presume ontological randomness exists though, right? Because otherwise physical facts determine all outcomes precisely.

Yes, I think the political division is a media-induced hysteria, mostly for reasons of profit, and Trump is the scapegoat for what they’ve caused. I have a dislike of yellow journalism, mainly.

I don't think Trump is as bad as they claim he is. — NOS4A2

Yes, that makes sense. There certainly is a kind of hysteria around every new Trump outrage. One that Trump, or more likely people in his circle, are able to exploit well.

It's important, though, not to fall for a genetic fallacy here. If Hitler says the sky is blue, it doesn't turn red. Just because the media is milking Trump for all he is worth doesn't mean things aren't bad.

The most dangerous thing Trump is doing is eroding the traditions and unwritten rules of his office. Democracy relies on these traditions. It's what keeps the naked power play at bay.

It was a response to media reports, not to Trump. No discussion occurred, so it’s absurd to say it is “an absurd discussion”. No conversation occurred, so it’s absurd to say “that’s where the conversation ends”, before it even began. Utterly ridiculous and absurd. — NOS4A2

Now who is playing word police here? Someone misused the word "discuss", oh dear.

You seem pretty fixated on the media. Is any of this about Trump or do you just have a passionate hatred for sensational reporting?

I think that Situational Ethics are grouped under the category of something like Moral Relativism, but you may be right that there is a real distinction. I think that "relativism" just denotes that a person doesn't believe in abstract moral truths. It, perhaps, shouldn't. But, to my estimation, that is what it generally refers to.

"Relativism" can, but does not necessarily mean that you think that Ethics stem from some sort of inner subjectivity. It just means that you reject that there is something like the Ten Commandments which are necessarily 'true' in every given case. It also follows that you would reject any set of abstract Ethical truths which are considered to be 'true' in a similar sense. — thewonder

Actually I think it's fair to say that a moral relativist rejects abstract moral truths. But I think there are situational abstract moral truths. Kant's Categorical Imperative, or a similar idea of reciprocity, would be an abstract moral truth, but it's not a list of commandments. It's a guide for decision-making and in that case is absolute in it's command. But the command can be different for any given situation.

To me, it seems to be the case that no set of Ethical truths, no matter how well thought out, can apply to each and every given situation. This arises, in part, out of a preference that I have for subjectivity which is predicated upon that knowledge is situated by experience. tim wood brought up a good point in a different thread, however, that there is a case to be made for that murder is just always wrong. I think that it logically follows that it is always wrong because it is, by definition, unwarranted. I disagree with his assumption that an abstract ethic should follow from that murder is always wrong, however, as I believe for it simply be an exceptional case. To me, even though you can probably make a case for a few things that are always just wrong, it doesn't really make very much sense to parcel out an abstract set of Ethical truths as the value judgements of any given event are moreso determined by the situation which engendered it. — thewonder

I agree with this more or less completely. I think the proper use for abstract morals is as a guidance for decision making, not a list of commandments. I do think it's possible to come up with a guidance that does it's job, in the same way as the scientific method does it's job.

I don't think so. I've never really studied Ethics, and, so, I couldn't really say with certainty, but it seems like some sort of situational ethics wouldn't discount that such things are still problematic. It'd be difficult to argue that according to the situation that the right thing to do would to be a racist or misogynist. Granted, there's always the potential for a reducto ad given a 'relativist' Ethical framework, but I think that if anyone really cared to hash it all of the way out that such problems would disappear. — thewonder

There is a difference in my mind between situational and relativist ethics. Ethics are necessarily situational, because they deal with decisions you make on given information. The relativist would be that different ethics apply to different people, not based on the situation they find themselves in, but because of who they are - that is the circumstances they have found themselves in in the past.

this is what I've been questioning all along, why have a belief about something whose state you think is unknowable? — Philosophical Script

It's probably because many people don't actually have a clear idea on what the god is that they are (not) believing in. Peoples ideas on gods float around between an actual physical entity (where the answer would be easily obtained by applying the scientific method) and some metaphysical concept. The problem is that it's unclear how you could even be said to "know" anything about god as a metaphysical concept, so people come up with agnostic belief.

Fault does not require free will. We talk without any difficulty at all, about how the sun "causes" the earth to warm up. We do not get caught up having to describe what then "causes" the sun to shine. So with a human action. If someone's actions result in some consequence, it's not unreasonable to talk about those consequences being that person's "fault" without having to get bogged down in arguments about whether they were the ultimate or merely proximal cause. — Isaac

It's not necessarily unreasonable, but it's unnecessarily confusing to use "fault" and "cause" interchangeably when those words have different meanings in common language use.

I agree with some sort of "relative" ethics. — thewonder

But aren't relative ethics a problem for stances opposing phenomena like racism or misogyny?

What is my motivation in this post? I believe accepting our past mistakes as a product of past events that are outside us (partially our fault and partially the fault of others) is important in finding hope in the future. This is general philosophy or a general set of beliefs. — christian2017

How are things partially our fault if there is no free will?

A woman who does not want her husband to "rule over" her, will most likely not have one. I suspect that there is no other solution. — alcontali

Perhaps you'd like to have a talk with my wife about that. She seems to forget I am her ruler.

Since that small combat force, i.e. the Taliban, has now brought the USA to their knees, any hope of imposing western views on gender, upon other cultures/religions, had better be abandoned. These western views have simply failed the test of violent combat. The war is over. — alcontali

Western views are everywhere around the world. They're the standard according to which the upper classes of many non-western countries mold themselves. I think it's a little absurd to claim that western views have failed.

I don't necessarily agree. I think that all people want to engage in politics without coercion. The freedom from coercion is the primary demand of all people at all times. It's more or less the predicate for politics. You are at all engaged in political acts because you necessarily demand to be free from coercion. — thewonder

I don't think this is correct as a descriptive statement of sociology, though I can see it's moral appeal.

The primary demand of all people at all times is food, shelter and some level of comfort. Freedom from coercion is, historically, rarely the concern of the majority of people. Most movements for political freedoms were carried by a relatively privileged class of people. There are exceptions, of course. One can argue that this has merely practical reasons, since a subsistence farmer has little time to devote to political campaigns, but it's difficult to determine what said farmer really desires.

The thing about politics and coercion is that, fundamentally, politics as a description of behaviour, is about achieving your goals. That's more or less the only unifying factor in all kinds of "political" acts. Since there wouldn't be much need for politics if everyone agreed from the outset, politics will always be concerned with getting people to do what you want them to do. This isn't necessarily coercive. But it's clearly conductive of coercion.

Isn't the answer simply to treat religion and culture like any other sincerely held belief? I think one should always approach people and their views, especially dearly held ones, with a measure of respect. There is always a personal story behind them.

But one should also always question or criticize what one deems immoral or impractical. Why should culture and religion be accorded special status that makes them above ordinary discourse? Of course these are usually very dearly help beliefs, so one should be mindful of other people's feelings when discussing them. But to make them somehow taboo seems irrational.

Cultural relativism must ultimately lead to moral relativism. It's impossible to untangle culture from worldview. And I don't see anyone arguing we should respect and learn from the worldview of white supremacists.

The problem I have with your approach to value, in general, is that value is always value to somebody. There is no "object" involved here, no cosmic table of prices. It's not objective.

Using "market value" doesn't help, because market value is just value to market participants. An average measure of what an item is worth for an average participant. It's all inherently subjective.

Take the value of gold. Gold is an important resource for e.g. circuits, but it's also used for investment and as ornament. It's value isn't based on any physical characteristics of the gold directly, it's based on what people think it's worth to them. Market values are interpersonal and not objective.

That problem only gets worse when you get to goods that don't have a market. Sure you can come up with all kinds of formulas to establish hypothetical values. But that's all they are - hypothetical. They're subjective guesses on an already subjective metric.

And at the end of the day, there is still the elephant in the room: what makes value the objective determinant of morality? "Value is quantifiable" is not a convincing argument.

This is a fair point? So you agree that human suffering is a completely invalid metric and cannot be used to justify any argument? I reference this because human suffering, ethics, morality, and these sorts of philosophies of compassion are incredibly prevalent in Western society. — Marzipanmaddox

I am not sure I'd call them completely invalid, but I don't know think suffering is a good metric, as it leads to absurd results.

Grammar functions despite the subjectivity because it doesn't need to be objectively optimized. Optimizing grammar and language would lead to increased yield, but it functions say at 80% capacity, earning 80% creating 80% of the potential revenue it could if it were optimized. — Marzipanmaddox

You seem to be using "optimized" and "objective" interchangeably, but I don't think they're the same thing. You can optimise e.g. information density for a given purpose, but that won't make the language more objective.

As for math describing quantity. You're somehow confusing quality and attributes with quantity, these are not the same thing. — Marzipanmaddox

Actually that quantity is not an attribute is kinda my point. Quantity is not a physical property, it's a human abstraction.

Math still works perfectly. As for math creating information by itself, that's again unture. You can take pure math, existing without any relation to the real world, and then you can then in turn use this to create practical applications. The pure math still functions perfectly fine without reality, it's just that it can also be applied to reality. — Marzipanmaddox

The math "works fine", but it doesn't tell you anything about reality. There are no perfect triangles or perfect spheres. To apply the math, you have to abstract reality into a model, apply the math to the model, and then interpret the results.

What establishes value? It's cash — Marzipanmaddox

Cash represents value. If cash established value, there would not have been value before cash, but there clearly was. Humans establish value, and value is subjective. So you're starting with the way you subjectively value things and call it objective.

The market value is far less of a subjective metric than sentimental value. That's all I'm trying to say. Even if it is not perfect, it is far closer to a functional measurement than pure feelings alone. — Marzipanmaddox

And just who is using pure feelings alone? Not everything even has a market value. What about environmental degradation or climate change? What is the planet worth?

Man is not made of fire despite the fact that he is warm, this is where humans draw a false conclusion based upon their subjective experience, and this is where we draw the conclusion "human suffering is always wrong" from. We don't like human suffering, thus we conclude it must be bad, and is always bad. This is not a particulary valid point, and it is the equivalent of "A child does not like broccoli, thus broccoli is bad for the child and an unhealthy food — Marzipanmaddox

Not all moral philosophy uses human suffering as the central metric.

An example of subjective vs objective yield. Four children are suffering, you have the ability to alleviate each of their suffering. Suffering causes the child not to funciton, it produces nothing. Each child always costs the same amount to keep alive, $10 a day. You are their boss/owner, they are your property. — Marzipanmaddox

But there is nothing objective about reducing the value of the children to the value of their labor. What is Einstein's market value?

As for proper usage of words, you could still define that in a mathematical algoryhymic sense. A computer can speak in proper grammar, and this just indicates that it is dictated by an objective and empirical model, even if it is a complex one. There is no amount of opinion or feeling involved in speeking with correct grammar, when there is with philosophy — Marzipanmaddox

But proper grammar and spelling are entirely based on human convention and thus, according to you, subjective and worthless.

As for the circular aspect. I don't really know what you're trying to say. That math is "circular"? Math isn't even based upon logic, math is just a depiction and description of quantity in the world around you. If math is somehow circular logic, then the existence of quantity is equally as much so circular logic. — Marzipanmaddox

Math is decidedly not about describing quantity in the world around you, because there are no two identical apples. Math is an abstraction of such quantities that allows you to perform certain operations. I think it's a matter of some debate whether math is just a form of logic, but regardless it does not generate information by itself. Numbers are empty unless applied to some real-world scenario.

So, there has to be some use to consciousness; however, the decisions/thoughts seemingly carried out instantly therein were already finished and done beforehand. The subconscious analysis takes 300-500 milliseconds, which is a delay, along with the speed of light delay, which is quite short. — PoeticUniverse

I am still wondering why it would matter that the choice first happens subconsciously, given that it still originates in the same brain.

I was speaking of illegitimate criticism, those centred around the bogeyman “rhetoric”, and you pretended I was speaking of all criticism. — NOS4A2

And I guess that's why your post started with "All his critics have..." and then referred to "every criticism".

But sure, you were only talking about illegitimate criticism. No true Scotsman would just make a sweeping generalization like that.

They harm society, because the objective metric of benefit/harm I use is net yield over an indefinite period of time. — Marzipanmaddox

What establishes this metric as objective, and how do we calculate net yield without using subjective value judgements?

Traditional morality respected this to a very high degree, in that the suffering/death of the individual was and irrelevant when compared the well-being and success of society. — Marzipanmaddox

What are you thinking of when you say "traditional" morality?

The subjective human experience has proven itself to be completely invalid in every hard science — Marzipanmaddox

Can you give an example of this?

Essentially, the subjective experience of humans is only significant in so far that it actually produces hard, objective, and quantifiable results. — Marzipanmaddox

As before, could you give an example as to what you mean by this?

A very common example would be Geocentrism, as by the human experience, it seems like the sun moves around the Earth, and people always thought this, but according to science, this is actually false. — Marzipanmaddox

But the reason geocentrism is false because it's an unnecessarily complex model with no predictive advantages over heliocentrism. It's still entirely fine to say "the sun rises in the east" if that's all the prediction you need.

Correctness by default is not subjective. That's the point I'm trying to make. If your argument is subjective, changes over time, influenced by opinion. There is not anything "correct" about it, it is just mutual consent upon a delusion. — Marzipanmaddox

So, one cannot be correct about, say, the proper usage of words?

Look at math, something like simple addition, you can say the statement 2+2=4 is correct, because this is not subject to debate. It is correct because it is 100% valid, 100% accurate, 100% of the time. — Marzipanmaddox

It's also 100% circular.

That’s not what I claimed. I explicitly claimed “All his critics have are word policing and word politics.” Now you’re building strawmen. — NOS4A2

Which implies that Trump's critics are only concerned with his words, not his actions. You then made this implication explicit by continuing:

“Trump said...” begins every criticism."

So, why are you lying about things you said, when those things are on an easily accessible public record? It's almost like you're roleplaying as Trump.

I'm not in favor of killing 3 or 4 billion people either. So what's your do-able suggestion, aside from 3 or 4 billion people leaving the planet aboad space ships? — Bitter Crank

Transform the economy from consumerism to a more sustainable, mostly circular system. Step up efforts to crack critical (for long term survival) technological and engineering hurdles, like fusion and space infrastructure. Immediately stop burning coal as much as possible, reduce flying as much as possible. Reduce personal cars as much as possible. Have governments research sustainable food options and encourage vegetarianism. Tax or otherwise discourage any form of wastage.

So true, but just a teensy bit easier said than done. So far, a dozen people have stepped on the moon, and the moon is only 250,000 miles away, and troubled by nothing worse than a vacuum. — Bitter Crank

Much of space is troubled by nothing worse than a vacuum. All that is required to get there is scaling up the things we can already do.

Actually, this thread is about CAN HUMANITY STOP GROWING? — Bitter Crank

It probably can. It's just insane to try to force it to by killing people.

The policies are not much different, but one was fawned over while this one is demonized. — NOS4A2

You claimed it was all about words. I proved you wrong. Now you're changing the topic.

The same policies that they refused to criticize under the last president. Some pictures of “children in cages” came from 2014, but they no less turned up in articles criticizing Trump. — NOS4A2

I fail to see how what the last administration did is relevant. You are moving the goalposts.

To wit, metaphysics attempts to answer the question "physics - what is it?".

Courts deal with that problem every day. It is possible to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth, the question is how reliable that determination is.

I must assert, with all due respect, that you don't understand the physics of transporting / sustaining human life outside of Earth. — god must be atheist

And yet we somehow sent men to the moon in the 60s.

It is prohibitively expensive not only in an economic, but on an ecological scale as well. That ought to have been obvious to you. If we can't afford enough machines to deal with our plastic waste crisis, then we can't afford to send a gram of material to Alpha Centaur. IN other words, it is a smidgen to engineer plastics decomposing machines including the collection of the waste plastics, than to send anything 6.7 light years into the great beyond. Not just in money value: in consuming gas, material, food, etc. etc. etc. — god must be atheist

I am not talking about a generation ship. I am talking about orbital habitats.

It is my opinion, with all due respect, that you grossly, fatally underestimate the challenges that are presented to habiting space outside of Earth. — god must be atheist

Because I say it's possible? What challenges am I underestimating?

For those who find the Great Filter hypothesis compelling, I expect the greater the distance to the nearest extinct extra terrestrial life the better. — JosephS

Certainly an interesting take on the subject. Though I wonder if that isn't a case of gambler's fallacy.

All his critics have are word policing and word politics. “Trump said...” begins every criticism. This is just political correctness in its death throes. — NOS4A2

Sure. No-one criticized the policies Trump did implement at the southern border for example. Or the way he did replace all kinds of important agency personell with incompetent political allies.