A baby does in fact have the status of personhood, legally, and socially. It's a baby person. — Outlander

When, exactly, does a baby become a person? At the moment of birth? Well, what about two weeks before? A month before? Two months before? How do you draw the personhood line in a non-arbitrary way?

A CD player will still produce the air vibrations of the music. Nothing will be around to interpret those patterns as music though. Tree falls in forest. Ground shakes, as does air, but it that making a sound? — noAxioms

Yeah, the CD example wasn't that good. I think the Sherlock Holmes one is better. So what do you think of that? Isn't there information in the book about Sherlock Holmes? Can that information still exist in a mindless universe? I don't see how.

One realizes with horror that earlier, opposing one's parents because they represented the world, one was often secretly the mouthpiece, against a bad world, of one even worse. — Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia

At one point in 1984, Winston is confessing some horrible thing he did as a child that's always bothered him and Julia says: 'I expect you were a beastly little swine in those days. All children are swine.'

It's true, they are. I've worked with kids for almost 30 years. I look back in horror at what I believed and did as a teenager, but I was a stupid teenager. What can you do? Instead of being horrified, be glad you've grown up.

What about them? A number is an idea. Perfectly real as such. But have you ever seen one, ordered one at McDonald's with sauce? Seen one in the woods? And if no mind thinks two, then no two. Right? And similarly with any idea. — tim wood

I agree but mathematical platonism is very popular.

Ideas do not exist independently of the mind that has them. — tim wood

What about numbers?

Minds are not fundamental. Information is. — Harry Hindu

Let's say you have a compact disk of Mozart pieces. In a mindless universe, that disk is just a collection of particles assembled in a disk with a bunch of tiny pits. There's no musical information, right? But the CD also obviously contains musical information. Mind is fundamental viz a viz the musical information.

Or take a book about Sherlock Holmes. In a mindless universe, that book is just a collection of inks and pages. There's no Sherlock Holmes there. But that book also contains information about Sherlock Holmes which only a universe with minds could detect.

Murder is a specific type of killing, one that is uniquely wrong. It involves making the innocent one's target. — BitconnectCarlos

What about Trolley Car? The innocent is the target (or, you're slapping a big target on the innocent when you throw the switch which seems like a distinction without a difference)

Getting back to the OP, do you think it is ever rationally justifiable to dismiss or exclude someone, particularly because of some action or set of actions they have chosen? If so, when and why is this rationally justifiable? — Leontiskos

If someone is a flat earther, I don't engage with them. What's the point? Same with neonazi's, Qanon, electiondeniers, etc. They're not immoral, but they're not fun to talk to.

..I was saying, "Yes, obviously we oppose terrorists." Again, the question of the OP is, "Why?" — Leontiskos

This isn't even true. What about hypothetical Jewish terrorists in Germany during WW2? Suppose German Jews had adopted a policy whereby Jewish suicide bombers blew themselves up in popular German places (restaurants, theaters, nightclubs, etc.) until the Holocaust stopped. Should we oppose that?

Well let's keep these two distinct:

1. You should not (deliberately) harm the innocent
2. Those who (deliberately) harm the innocent should be dismissed/excluded/shunned/etc.

The thread is primarily about (2), but it may well be that (1) must be considered in the analysis. — Leontiskos

(1) has to be considered. Is it even true? What if the innocents are factory workers making bombers to be used against you? What if they're a bunch of scientists working feverishly on enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb to be used against you? What if they're a bunch of chemists at a mustard gas plant? How many innocents are you allowed to kill while going after a military target? Is nuking Berlin OK if it means taking out Hitler?

Aren't war crimes pretty much as universally understood to be bad as anything else? — ToothyMaw

I posted a poll awhile ago about whether Churchill would have been justified committing war crimes (e.g., using poison gas) to repel a Nazi invasion. The majority of respondents here were OK with it.

your reply is still irrelevant to the main point — Darkneos

No, it's not.

"and isn’t engaging with the thought experiment

Yes, it is.

I'm not doing this, it's not even related to the thought experiment. — Darkneos

Sure it is. Weren't you taking about chemicals? You just assume those chemicals exist, right? Maybe don't assume that.

Matter does exist though. — Darkneos

How do you know?

Those emotions are just chemicals in the brain, why wouldn't they exist in such a machine. — Darkneos

They're not just chemicals in the brain. All roads lead to the Hard Problem. The idea of consciousness arising from matter is incoherent, which is why there's been no scientific progress on it and there will be no progress on it. Matter doesn't exist. This is all an elaborate dream.

What's the solution to the Trolley Problem? What's your take on abortion? Should the state compel me to save the life of a drowning child, if I can do so with no risk to myself?

Since these are statements about future events, they do not constitute knowledge but rather speculation (credence), and the result is not knowledge either, as it does not necessarily and sufficiently follow from the premises. — DasGegenmittel

Well, let's take an easy case: what if I said I know that if A then B, A therefore B will still be valid tomorrow. 2+2 will still = 4 tomorrow. Water will still be wet (and H2O) tomorrow. Are you saying I don't have knowledge of these future events? Are future events, in principle, unknowable?

Vote Democrat/Green and give to charities that work in 3rd world countries, as they will be hardest hit.

The difference between proto-consciousness and consciousness is this: Proto-consciousness is the subjective experience of an individual particle. — Patterner

Isn't mind a necessary condition for subjective experience?

That's not to bring down the importance of the issue, but it is actually pretty important to note, even if the 100% were even a reasonable take, that it is a small proportion of men. — AmadeusD

It's a small percentage of men in first world countries.

To me it all pivots on the occurrence, else issue, of the inequity of power and the respect for other, or else the lack of these (in no particular order or correspondence). — javra

Suppose there's a parallel universe where everything else is the same, but men are weaker than women. Would we see the same rates of rape and abuse?

Men have been abusing women from the dawn of recorded history. I'm sure the abuse happend way before that. If you get a bunch of men and women together human nature is such that a non-trivial amount of men are going to violate the women. Tim wood thinks perhaps 100% of women can tell a story of sexual assault. I think he's right. All the women I know have horror stories about men.

:up:

Welcome to the forum!

Just as a side note, this is the intro to Flowers for Algernon, and it's always made me tear up:

Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind’s eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the den.

Don't you think men were 100% behind the two world wars? My reading of history is that Stalin and Hitler, to give two examples, were not influenced by women in their decisions at all.

Plato and Aristotle both knew—as I believe you do as well—that JTB alone is insufficient in dynamic contexts (though it may suffice in static ones), contrary to the dominant interpretation today. — DasGegenmittel

I was going to ask you if Gettier problems are really all that much different from the Allegory of the Cave, but I bounced it off ChatGpt first, and it didn't seem like I was making much of a point, but I don't know. They say all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Is there some truth to that here?

I see climate change as a threat, but not really an existential threat.

I think that there is a lot of exaggeration going on. — Agree-to-Disagree

If you mean the human species will continue, I tend to agree. I don't see us getting wiped out by climate change. But I think we could lose a big chunk of our population if we don't get our act together. That being said, I feel sorry for the developing countries that are late to the party and want to expand their middle class with cheap fossil fuel powered energy the way the first world countries all did, and now they're being told they can't do that. Well, they're going to go ahead and do it anyway.

Oh, so you agree climate change is an existential threat? Or a probable existential threat?

I thought there was a 50/50 chance it came from a Chinese lab when it first hit. Now I think there's probably a 70% chance it came from a lab.

Let's say China is to blame. What is Trump going to do about it?

Do you think we can dig up and burn gigatons of fossil fuels for 150+ years and not have a catastrophic effect on the climate? Isn't that something a child would believe? Even if you knew nothing of atmospheric science and someone said, "hey, let's dig up all this coal and oil and natural gas and burn it year after year" wouldn't you think maybe that's not a good idea?

Those loans were forgiven legally

"The Education Department said that the relief was made possible via its work to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program.

PSLF allows public employees, such as teachers, firefighters, members of law enforcement, and people who work for nonprofit organizations, to apply for forgiveness after making 10 years' worth of payments on their federal student loan balance."
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/18/biden-cancels-student-debt-pslf-program

I myself had loans forgiven that way may years ago.

I did not like that, but Biden never did illegally forgive student loans.

News Releases
Biden withdraws illegal student loan forgiveness schemes
This brings to an end Biden’s lawless efforts to transfer debt from borrowers to the American taxpayers
Post Date:12/20/2024
For immediate release
Biden withdraws illegal student loan forgiveness schemes
TOPEKA - (Dec. 20, 2024) –Today, the Biden administration’s U.S. Department of Education announced plans to withdraw proposed regulations that would have cancelled student loans for some borrowers. Biden’s proposed illegal student loan forgiveness schemes would have forced blue collar Kansans, many of whom did not go to college, to pay off the student debt of New Yorkers with gender studies degrees to the tune of at least $274.3 billion.

https://www.ag.ks.gov/Home/Components/News/News/141/1292

That's not good. I may have to hedge my prediction a little.

What I’m talking about is Trump’s efforts to agree a ceasefire. He’s been blackmailing Zelenskyy and offering Putin whatever he want’s.

If Trump wasn’t doing this, then the war would probably end in some sort of stalemate. But both sides are quite entrenched, so it would have a high cost in human lives. — Punshhh

Well, the arms shipments and intelligence sharing is back on, so Zelensky's position is status quo, and the status quo is Ukraine is not going to cede territory, not if they can keep counting on EU and U.S. support. But let's say Trump cancels all aide to Ukraine and won't offer any security guarantees for any peace deal. Would Zelensky give up 20% of Ukraine then? Why would he? He knows that Putin will simply regroup and rebuild his military and come at him again.

I live in California. There's not going to be martial law and there's not going to be a civil war. Trump can't even fire federal workers without judges popping up out of the woodwork ruling against him. If things got really bad, you might see something like Ireland's troubles, but as I said, there's essentially no political violence in this country. We're so far away from that. The most vicious thing that's happened lately is the Love is Blind bride left her conservative beau at the altar.

Here's the Italian parliament brawling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mye5TNnpHUI

You think that's going to happen here?

That's Americans total. We were talking about Democrats, remember? You claim they would support a war against Iran.

"In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Democrats: Israel 21%, Palestinians 59%.

Do you see why what you said was really stupid? Democrats would not support a war against Iran.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-toward-israelis.aspx

They would likely support a war against Iran, many of them. — Mikie

The Democrats would support a war against Iran??? Do you live in America?

Ukraine has been losing for literally years now. If you call annexing territory “losing on points,” that’s an interesting spin indeed. — Mikie

Afghanistan was losing for years too. Until they weren't. That's my point.

Russia will keep what they’ve taken. It’s not fair, but it’s what will happen. — Mikie

Maybe. Or maybe Putin has a date with an open window in the near future.

Who said anything about Democrats? — Mikie

There are two political parties in America. I'm pointing out that one of them has not lost it's mind when it comes to foreign policy.

40% voting for the resolution in 2002 is hardly what it would receive now. — Mikie

It would receive 0 support. Are you saying the Democrat party now would support a war against Iraq? Or Iran?