No scientist is going to prove to you in a lab whether or not you should dump a baby in the trash. It's not a scientific question but a social and moral question. — Olivier5

What should be done is irrelevant and imaginary. All that matters is what is done, and what is done by humans is ultimately dictated by natural selection. The fact that most mothers do care for their babies is the outcome of natural selection.

I agree, but it goes both ways: the state of my mind also determines what I will physically do, like when one decides to do or write something. — Olivier5

I don't understand what you mean by "it goes both ways". The mind, like everything else is both a cause and effect. So the state of some mind is both caused by the state of the world, and the mind can be the cause of some state in the world. That is what I said.

I don't understand the point of using the term, "physical".

our consciousness cannot access the physical, neuronal processes underlying it; it can only access periodic reports from such neuronal processes. Eg visual, audio or pain reports. — Olivier5

This is like saying humans can't fly. Sure, they can't without any mechanical help, but they can with mechanical help. Our consciousness can access the underlying physical processes with a little mechanical/electronical help, by observing (a conscious activity) MRI images of our brain.

One could also say that humans can't communicate without help of ink, paper, computers and air.

It basically comes down to being a realist or solipsist

Either there is a causal relationship of your mind with the world or there isn't. If there is then the relationship between cause and effect is information and effects (the state of your mind) carry information about their causes (the state of the world just prior to some mental state like the state of some internet philosophy forum post as you begin to read it).

Either your internet forum post contains information about one of your prior mental states or it doesn't. If it doesn't then we're not communicating and you are just a figment of my imagination.

There's no should. Love reveals unity. — frank

So it appears that you're saying that the black group that thinks whites can't speak for them has no love for unity and is not doing what they should.

Res ipsa loquitur. :roll: Pax! — 180 Proof

Sic semper tyrannis.

Half sane then. That's better than none at all. — frank

Which is better than you. We could do this all day where you make an assertion, I question it and you evade it. I would have expected such an amazing claim to be supported by amazing evidence. I thought you actually had a quote of Trump saying, "I want all you armed wackos to rush the Capitol and take hostages". Instead you answer my question for specifics and how what Trump said was different than what Dems have said, with a question about what the Dems said. Do you see the problem yet?

Trump egged on armed wackos?

Just look at this thread. You post. I reply. Your posts determine how I reply.

Observe how you reason. You use reasons to reach conclusions. The reasons determine the conclusions you reach.

How about the concept of free will. You are privy to a certain amount of information at any given moment. That information determines the decisions you can make. You cannot make a decision with information that you don't have. Later, you may acquire new information after you made the decision, but that doesn't mean you would have made a different decision at the time you made it. You would make a different decision now, but the moment of decision is past.

Trump played to white supremacists. He played to QAnon. When the president is egging on armed wackos, it's a little more than that Democrats are demonizing somebody. — frank

In what way? What specifically did he say to egg on armed wackos? How is that any different than the Dems egging on the looters during the Floyd protests?

Amanda Gorman's Dutch translator stands down after uproar that Black writer wasn't chosen.
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/amanda-gorman-dutch-translation-scli-intl/index.html

So does this mean that whites can never understand the language used by blacks? If so, then I think that NOS4A2 is right when they say that this is just going to lead to more division and segregation.

Question:
When a white person looks at a black person and the black person looks at the white person, how much of each other should they see in themselves?

Just exposing you again, Harry, not trying to persuade. — 180 Proof

Exposed what? In all the examples you provided, both sides have blood on their hands.

Nobody felt threatened by the marchers. — frank

No one is threatened by marchers, per say, but there are others that misconstrue what the marchers are marching for in order to make people that aren't threatened by marchers, threatened by them. Not to the mention the criminals that join the march as cover for doing illegal things like destroying property and looting.

It is very difficult to start a grassroots movement without having it hijacked and miscontrued by the elitists in power. After all, there can only be Democrat and Republican movements. Any other movement is "adopted" by one of the two parties, which is then demonized by the party that didn't "adopt" it, or procrastinated by the party that did "adopt" it to hold it over the heads of their constituents as an issue that is never resolved to keep them voting for that party.

Best solution, America has to be first to give up nuclear weapons and i believe that most countries will follow suit. Especially when the reason most enemy countries have them is counteract Americas nuclear weapons in the first place. — David Solman

Riiiiight. America is the only country with imperialistic tendencies. Give me a break.

I'm of the mind that Americans shouldn't be spilling their own blood for people that don't want them there. If S. Korea doesn't want American troops there the S. Korea govt. just needs to say so. But the reality is that S. Korea is more scared of N. Korea than of American soldiers on their soil. They know that American troops are keeping the N.Koreans from invading, just as Saudi Arabia knows the American troops are keeping Iran from threatening them, and Eastern Europe knows that Vladimir is looking to reassert Russian influence in the region.

The world saw what happened before wwii when Germany was simply allowed to invade and annex neighboring countries without any consequence. Drawing the line at Poland was to late. Stopping Germany sooner could have avoided a lot of bloodshed.

Ok, explain what what an indeterministic event would look like. What does it actually mean for some event to be indeterministic? All you will be able to do is provide reasons/causes for some event to be indeterministic and you would then be head-deep in contradictions and paradoxes - that the indeterministic event was actually determined by some prior set of circumstances. Try it.

The rest of us are able to see that another person excercising their liberties isn't necessarily a threat to our liberties. — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about specifically? — frank

Some examples would include a black person marching against police brutality, in which some cops view that as a threat to their holding a job. Marching against police brutality won't make you lose your job if you aren't a cop engaging in police brutality. If you are a good cop, then you should be joining the march as weeding out those bad cops will give all cops a better name for themselves. All groups have been victims of police brutality.

A white person marching for ensuring that votes are legitimate doesn't threaten someone's rights to vote. It is ensuring that all legal votes count and illegal votes don't. If you weren't voting illegally, then you should welcome such a cause and even join the march, as it is valuable to all legal voters to ensure that the power of their vote is not diminished by illegal votes. All legal voters are negatively affected by illegal votes.

Ok,

Well let's say (sorry I had a toke) I stack a big group of deterministic tiles (let's just say I conceded and that's what they are) and I know that for this deterministic tile, it will hit the next deterministic tile and it will fall etc. I can put just one non deterministic tile in the group of tiles, that may or may not fall, and if you replay knocking these tiles down as dominoes over many times, you will have a very non deterministic outcome overall!, when you add up all these different results. — Paul S

All you have done here is show that each instance in time is unique, yet similar to other instances in time. Each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states-of-affairs, its just that each state-of-affairs is unique and not the same as other states-of-affairs, yet they can be similar enough to be predictable, depending on what we are focusing our attention on.

It's not that the world is non-deterministic. It is deterministic as each state-of-affairs is determined by prior states. Our ignorance of all the intricate details of each state-of-affairs can lead us to believe that some state is not deterministic, but it is simpy our ignorace of the difference between some known state-of-affairs in the past and the state-of-affairs in the future that we are trying to predict that is similar, yet slightly different in some relevent way to the one in the past that makes our prediction fail.

Indeterminism isn't some real aspect of reality. It is only an idea in the minds of humans that has no reality beyond the minds of humans. It is an idea that stems from our ignorant view of reality.

Who are the people engaged in this cold race war? — frank

The extremists on both sides, and the politicians that use the rehetoric that created and then reinforce the extremists. The rest of us are able to see that another person excercising their liberties isn't necessarily a threat to our liberties. Only when others try to take a larger piece of the pie than they deserve because they've been led to believe that they have been slighted in some way, does it affect everyone. Over-representing some is under-representing others.

e.g. Both Allied & German forces at Normandy on D-Day 1944 had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both ante bellum Abolitionists & Slave Owners, like post bellum militant Freedmen & Klansmen, had blood on their hands.

e.g. Both strikers and strike-breaker police at the Haymarket Riot 1889 had blood on their hands.

( ... )

Drawing false equivalences where there aren't any, Hindu, is ahistorical demogoguery as well as the (second? to) last refuge of moral cowardice. :shade: — 180 Proof

I have no idea what your point is in showing these examples. I thought the Allies were priviliged racists, and you forgot to include your communist comrades in Russia who had innocent blood on their hands, too.

So yeah, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. When you've been indoctrinated to think that everyone that isn't like you in some way is out to get you in some way, then anyone that isn't like you that fights for their rights is viewed as a terrorist, as if those that aren't like you in some way can't have their liberty without ever infringing upon your liberties. Asking for liberty for all doesn't necessarily mean taking liberties from some. It just depends on what entails "liberty" for you.

A disingenuous and otherwise useless platitude. Predation and defense are not the two sides of the same coin. They are different. The real question is where justice lies. Obfuscate this and you are the enemy. Or would you say that among the murderers there are fine people? — tim wood

There’s probably a difference between poetic and comedic expression and protesting police brutality on the one side and mindless insurrection on the other. — praxis

I agree that there is, it's just that I'm not biased to think that only one side engages in poetic and comedic expression, while the other engages in hate and oppression. Both sides have hateful oppressors and poets and comedians, but you are only capable of seeing the world through your prism of politics.

But where's the race war? Maybe I just don't understand what a race war is, if there's one underway. Do you see it? — frank

Maybe it's more like a "Cold" Race War, rather than a "Hot" Race War.

I love how the media blames the politicians when they are just as culpable for propagating lies and misinformation. After all, they report what the liars in government say, as if any of it is actually other than meaningless platitudes and spin. If the media actually did think that all the whites in power were such evil racists, then why do they give them a platform to speak on their news channels? Fucking hypocrites.

Questioning that there was a riot at the Capitol? No. I'm not questing that. I'm questioning the premise that everyone at the Capitol was there to riot and that they were all white and all racists. :roll:

I seem to recall some left-wing celebrities threatening to blow up the White House and posing with a " beheaded" Trump, and riots during the summer that destroyed both private and public property and in which people lost their lives. There is vitriol from both sides. Both sides have blood on their hands.

Your definition, as I recall it, was fallacious, but I don't want to over dwell on it. I'm not that pedantic
I don't think so! — Paul S

I used your definition. Are you paying attention?

Indeterminism can be composed of partly deterministic parts. I don't see a logical fallacy in that. — Paul S

I do.

And you contradicted yourself again:

We have not proven whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic or not.But if any of it is indeterministic then it all is, if you get me, because if you have a chain of events in a system that is deterministic but for one part, then the overall outcome is indeterministic. That's what I'm trying to get at. — Paul S

If any of it is indeterministic then it all is, right? There would be no deterministic parts if any of it was indeterministic.

You obviously are not paying attention. You can't even remember what you wrote.

It's not enough 'not to be racist (fascist)'; you're either anti-racist (anti-fascist) — 180 Proof

It's the same thing. Or not, depending on one's definition of racism, which is a term that has been misused, or over-used, in the past several years. So much so that racism has lost its meaning.

Confused you with another "white guy". — 180 Proof

I'm not a white guy asshole — frank

So typical.
As if anyone that disagrees with you is "white".
As if anyone that says, "no" to black is racist.

You had exhibited that you didn't understand what it meant in the first place, which was a bit intellectually lazy of you.

You seem to be upset that I called you out on not knowing what you were talking about. — Paul S

I exhibited no such thing. You exhibited a misunderstanding of what I was saying. So I had to show you that my explanation fit your definition of determinism - a definition that I agree with. You didn't respond to that - hence your intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not saying I'm comfortable about the indeterministic argument for quantum mechanics. It is what is is I guess. — Paul S

What is the indeterministic argument for QM? Again, if a theory is providing reasons for some observation, then the theory is deterministic.

Think Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Toledo, and more. Tens of millions of white workers in working-class factories were out of work, losing their high-paying jobs forever. Have they chosen to live with your problems? What are their chances of solving their problems?. — Miguel Hernández

Sure. Not wanting to learn anything new is the problem. Adapt and evolve is the solution.

This type of thing has been happening since humans have had jobs. Think about the decline of religion thanks to the discoveries in science. Religion has had to adapt and change to stay viable.

The reality is very complex. The problems faced by millions of people are not created or solved by themselves. — Miguel Hernández

I never said that one solution solves every problem or even that one solution works for everyone. Thinking requires work and doesn't come easy for many people.

To be fair insanity has befallen on those working heavily in fields on the question of determinism, quantum mechanics and infinity. The latter has certainly driven some mathematicians stark raving mad. — Paul S

No. Insanity has befallen on you as you have exhibited a tendency to be intellectually dishonest and inconsistent in your venture to prove determinism to be false.

All you have done is provide reasons for indeterminism to be the case, but all you have shown is that this reasons determine whether or not indeterminism to be the case. In effect, indeterminism is a paradox.

Rationalism in politics is nonsense. All rationalists believe that any problem can be understood and has a solution. Great nonsense. — Miguel Hernández

Every problem does have a solution. Its just that some people prefer to live with the problem rather than the solution, which is a solution (decision) in itself.

For cooking, playing poker, or competing in lovemaking, there is no theoretical program or knowledge to replace practical experience. If you want to cook badly, lose at poker, or ruin your love story, consult a manual or follow the steps in a biology treatise or on a computer. If you wish the love of a woman and you believe in Darwin, what a shock awaits you, friend. — Miguel Hernández

You're forgetting how we animals are programmed by natural selection to have experiences, to love, be sad, etc. (Evolutionary psychology - know anything about it?).

Now that we're on the subject, what exactly is an experience?

Computers are illogical. Who determines what information is relevant? The programmer, not the machine. A computer is a fast fool. Let's try not to be slow fools. — Miguel Hernández

How exactly does the programmer decide what information is relevant but a computer can't?

Humans are programmed by natural selection. So natural selection "selected" what is relevant for humans, and it can do the same with computers that are designed to learn.

Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism.
— Harry Hindu

That's not what determinism at all, is as I understand it. — Paul S

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events are determined completely by previously existing causes. — Paul S

Reasons are causes. Conclusions are events. Conclusions are determined by your reasons. Seems like it fits perfectly with how you understand determinism.

The illusion of being ruled by machines is seductive by the principle of equality. It seems like a way to ensure that the law applies equally to everyone. Great, huh? But if the best government is that of the machines, perhaps only they should vote. This we may not like so much. — Miguel Hernández

Computers are logical. They won't use irrelevant information like skin color when determining who gets jobs, political appointments, etc., In effect, they would be color-blind and the images on our tele-screen would be accurately represent the composition and diversity of the population (rather than what we have now, which is over-representing and under-representing certain groups for political purposes).

It's just that its obviously impossible for us to set the conditions for both pendulums to be in the exact state and trace the exact same path. It will never happen. — Paul S

Here you are providing reasons as to why something is impossible or possible. So it seems that what is possible or not is determined by some prior set of circumstances.

All you have to do is go back and read all your posts and you will see that thinking deterministically is inescapable. You will always provide reasons and prior conditions as the means of supporting your conclusions and subsequent conditions.

Everytime you make an argument about how things are for everyone, even if they disagree with you, and provide reasons for those arguements you are supporting the idea of determinism.

You're making the assumption that the human brain and nervous system is deterministic. — Paul S

I wasnt talking about the nervous system and brain. I was talking about reasoning.
Its not an assumption that reasoning is that act of using reasons to support your conclusions.

I didn't just pull the assertion out of my ass. I had a reason to make that assertion, just like you have reasons to support your assertions. Those reasons determine your assertions.

From the moment you receive the dice in your hands to the moment the dice have stopped rolling, what aspects of the event are indeterministic? — Paul S

Are you asking if indeterministic events are determined?

It is impossible to tell at this stage of science if existence is deterministic because perturbing a system in order to measure it changes the state of the system. — Enrique

Sound deterministic to me.

Any time you use prior conditions to explain subsequent conditions, you are implying determinism (observing/perturbing a system changes the system).

As a matter of fact, we can't really help thinking this way. As a matter of fact, reasoning is deterministic. Reasons determine conclusions. If they didn't, then what reason would you have for believing what you believe?

Sure there is. But that wasn't the question. If I programmed the computer to "rule them all", then I wouldn't be programming a swamp computer. It would be an anti-swamp computer, designed to track the income of all politicians and see how they're being influenced, and listen in and watch via Webcam and microphones their "secret" conversations, to hear and see what they really say and do without cameras and mics around, you know, like that School Board Zoom meeting in Cali that exposed the school board members as a group of shitty hypocrites.

I also pointed out that we each only provided one source and each of our sources says the complete opposite so where does that leave us if not with the fact that both parties are equally corrupt, which is what you and I seem to have agreed upon,, but now it seems you'd rather perform mental gymnastics in an effort to show that im wrong somewhere in my arguement, but I'm not. Keep flipping, Flipper.

The "swamp" programmed it. — Don Wade

How would that be any different than what we have now?

Are we at the point yet where we - as a Nation - could be openly governed by one, or more, computers? Would we vote for a compouter if we thoght the computer(s) was better able to govern than any human entities? — Don Wade

Depends on who programmed it.

Political parties are a consequence of freedom of association. US law does not recognize political parties as part of the governmental structure; they're just private groups of people pursuing the same political ends together. So I'm not clear what you want done to ban political parties, if not just banning people with similar political interests from working together toward those ends. — Pfhorrest

This doesn't address how one party would come to power if there were no parties. You're moving the goalposts.

I'm not saying that ppl can't work together towards a common goal, except when the goal is subverting and oppressing others, or when your primary goal is to hate another group because they have different goals. Most ppl would come together for a single issue and trying to incorporate other issues will just alienate some if the group that doesn't agree on every issue.

The problem is that the parties have adopted contradictory positions and there isn't any meaningful distinction between them. And if the only two groups don't represent your interests then it sucks to be a minority in that respect. There is a two-party system privilege in the U.S.


Winner-take-all is a law that prevents other groups from having a viable chance. Diverges law states that 3rd parties can't compete, not to mention the media that would rather give a voice to hypocrites and maintain the status quo.

Now you're just being a disagreeable. There was a discussion about the facts Michael used and you tried to waylay it with a subcategory of crimes, which is not possible because it's comparing apples with pears. — Benkei

No. It seems like you are the one arguing forthe sake if arguing.. Be more specific. What is the subcategory that you are talking about? Corruption is what we were talking about, so what part of the link that I provided is about something other than corruption?

Just my take. I mean what's done is done. Neither camp can everse its choice. Shouldn't you just grow up and not post stuff like this in a philosophy forum. Wallowing in and projecting your misery or false sense of satisfaction won't fix anything or improve your life. — Paul S

The problem is that we have camps in the first place.