Cool what you did with the title. — Mww

Aww... shucks.

Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival). — Alkis Piskas

You're right. I didn't read far enough.

I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference! — Alkis Piskas

So, what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? What if he were just robbing him. Or beating him up. Or insulting him. What if he just broke a promise. What if he slept with his wife. I'm guess that could be stretched to constitute survival, but it would be just that, a stretch.

Back to the most important part - morality might make sense to reason, but that's not where it comes from. It comes from our regard for each other and our society's need to provide security for all of us.

We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival. — Alkis Piskas

This is all well and good, I guess, but what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess. First our children and families. Then our community members. Then eventually humanity at large. Compassion. I see that as the basis for morality. We are built to like each other.

I don't see that reason has anything to do with it to begin with. We can paint it up and make it pretty with reason when we have the time.

It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense. — Hello Human

It's not because his actions cause more harm. There's no comparison between the two people. The bad guy is trying to kill the other person with no justification.

There is no single first-order formula that serves to define the truth of all sentences of first-order logic in the universe (of sets).
parentheses added — the affirmation of strife

I kind of get that, but it seems like a joke. A meaningless technicality. I can't see how it tells us anything useful about truth for any other propositions.

I'll need to look into it more to give better examples of "useful self-reference". — the affirmation of strife

I appreciate your input. I didn't start this discussion because I have a particular end in mind. I just want to see where it goes.

There is no chance to be that kind of genius that has something new and valuable to say over so many things. The undeveloped state of knowledge opened that opporunity. — Heiko

Yes. I think you're right. On the other hand, there may be a lot more to know and understand now, but there are also many more very, very smart people. I feel like I'm lucky to be living at this point in history. I do worry about what comes next for my children.

My goodness, when we play games we often play to win. I would not put the criteria of having no goals on the word "play", but do recognize those goals can ruin the fun if our head is to set on the goal there is no sense of fun. — Athena

Tom Brady loves football, but when he goes out on the field, he's not playing. If you're trying to win, I don't see it as play.

There's no need for us to go into this a lot more if you don't want to. I can see your point. I have my own way of seeing it. The word "play" has room for both our views.

Give me your surname if you don't mind and you can have a rule of thumb named after you. You'll join the likes of William of Occam (Occam's razor), Christopher Hitchens (Hitchens' razor)n you already know Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor), etc. What say you? — TheMadFool

Don't forget T Clark's razor - When you are trying to decide which of two otherwise equal bottles of wine to purchase, buy the one with the twist-off cap.

As the article alludes to at the end, things get even more interesting when thinking about self-modification of programs or self-specialising compilers (I've lost a bookmark to an interesting and not too technical blog post about this, maybe I can find it again...) — the affirmation of strife

Yes, I am primarily talking about philosophy. I tried to be careful not to be too dismissive of self-reference. I had read that the kind of programing uses you describe are valuable. I guess I'm trying to separate the wheat from the chaff - uses with real value as opposed to just a bunch of gee whiz stuff.

In terms of mathematics, the book "Vicious Circles" by John Barwise and Lawrence Moss seems to be a good reference for what they call "hyperset" theory, an extension of set theory that allows for self-referencing and circularity. I haven't read much, and it's very dense. Working understanding of set theory required. I wonder if there are any mathematicians here that could break it down for us. — the affirmation of strife

My attitude toward self-reference in math is ambivalent. First off, I'm good at the math required to be an engineer. That's really different from what we're talking about here. When I look at Russell's paradox, for example, it seems like a trick, yet many mathematicians seem to think it undermines math as a whole. We had a discussion about a conversation between Wittgenstein and Turing a week or so ago. Turing proposed that Russell's paradox undermined math to the point that it might lead to a bridge falling down. That seems goofy to me, but my level of expertise is too limited for me to have any confidence in my judgement.

But yes, the goofiest part of self-reference for me is its use in philosophy. The liar's paradox seems like a little joke that people have decided to take seriously. I can't see how it gives any insight into meaning or truth, as some propose.

Now I am really confused! If the joy I feel is not play, then what is play? — Athena

I like the way @bert1 said it:

play is non-goal directed activity. — bert1

All of the events you describe - the Steam Engine event, the archeological dig, etc. - could be play, but the events you were talking about previously:

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. — Athena

These are goal oriented and I don't think of them as play. Maybe that seems nitpicky, but I don't think it is. The distinction is important. On the other hand, both things are wonderful.

Im not taking the step Clarke is where he jumps to conclusions about your position or character. I would have told him to fuck off too. — DingoJones

No "e" on Clark. I jumped to no conclusions about his position. He was pretty clear on what he proposed - taking away people's assets and removing them from their positions in society. That's what we did to the Japanese-Americans during WW2. We sent them to concentration camps.

Also, I made no reference to @i like sushi's character. Now you are jumping to conclusions.

So then you would place a much higher value on the subjective aspect of experience, relative to the meaning of the objective aspect? — Pantagruel

I'm not sure what you mean in this context.

I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off. — I like sushi

Again. You just aren't willing to take responsibility for your own words. As I mentioned, the US had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans during World War 2. That's how they took away their assets and influence. So, tell me. What methods will you use to implement your program of unconstitutional actions?

If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please. — I like sushi

You specifically and clearly propose taking away people's property and social position, apparently based on a half-baked judgement of whether or not you think they are stupid. If the fact that I pointed that out bothers you, well, it should. It bothers me too. You need to take responsibility for your words.

Material knowledge must be quantifiable in some subjectively meaningful sense. — Pantagruel

I don't really think so. I don't think that the average person living today understands how the world works better than Aristotle.

But in terms of cultural attitudes I do think there is something we can do to shift power/status/influence of Stupid people where it is clear Stupidity is ruling. In such a case recognising and logging outcomes that are both detrimental to everyone short term and long term would result in such citizens being stripped of any reasonable influence. I don’t mean ‘imprisoned’ or ‘blamed’ just remove their assets (gained through luck maybe?) and isolate them more from impacting negatively upon others. I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact. — I like sushi

I don't find the definition of stupidity in your OP a very useful one. I don't have any additional comments about that, but I do about your prescription for dealing with the problem, as described in the quote, above.

In order to implement your program - stripping people of influence, removing assets, isolation - you will have to abandon property rights and the Bill of Rights. Which is ok, I guess. We've done it before - we sent Japanese-Americans to Manzanar during World War 2 and various American Indian tribes to reservations after taking away their property and rights. Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps.

Is the mind in what is understood, or in the way in which it understands? — Pantagruel

When I read what people have written - 100 years ago, 500, 1,000, 2,500 - I'm usually amazed by how sophisticated they are. People in Athens, China, Alexandria, were just as smart, perceptive, skillful, wise as they are now. Their mastery of the technologies that were available to them were just as impressive and admirable. I like reading about sea battles during the Napoleonic wars. It took as much skill, knowledge, competence, and certainly courage to sail one of those ships as it does to sail a modern warship.

Sure, we know more stuff now than they did back then, but we aren't smarter or wiser. Today we use science. Those guys invented it.

Toljaso — Mww

One of my favorite philosophers.

It’s either true or false. That’s enough of a difference for me. — NOS4A2

Well argued.

One more thought - If you want to know what we can do to make things better, the answer is simple and obvious - vote Democratic.

Censure still has zero effect. — NOS4A2

That's what's known as a distinction without a difference.

Some things need collective action to do. In other words, I find the universal blame argument to be BS. — James Riley

I didn't see my response as blaming anyone, it's just not as simple as you make it out to be. I have a lot of respect for our environmental laws and the effort it has taken to pass, implement, and enforce them. This is especially true given the knee-jerk resistance from industry and their political friends. It's made a big difference. I've seen first hand how clunky the system is, but it has worked. It has made things better. That is collective action.

Or by Dupont and the private-for-profit corporations buying legislatures, and everyone looking the other way while dangerous chemicals are placed into the stream of commerce? — James Riley

Dangerous chemicals were placed in the stream of commerce from the beginning of humanity. People have been shitting in the river upstream from their neighbors since Og met Eep. It took thousands of years for restrictions to even try to catch up. The world used to be big enough you could dump stuff and nobody would notice. That doesn't work any more. It has also turned out that the hidden out of the way places we've been dumping stuff - wetlands, rivers, oceans - are just about the worst places to dump stuff.

So, did those people get their way through free market forces? After the public was honestly and openly informed? Or are our politicians part of the market, to be bought? — James Riley

The answer here is the same as for all other cases where there is conflict between what's right for people and what's right for them what's got. Sometimes the good guys win. Sometimes they lose. Usually a little bit of both.

Should there be compensation for bearing costs? Are taxes paid to help pick up the mess? Is Superfund part of that? Is that adequate for the kid with growths on his brain? — James Riley

The cleanup laws; federal, state, local; are theoretically set up to make the one that benefitted from contaminating the world pay. As always, the process machinery is creaky and sometimes breaks down.

To the extent it does do it badly, unfairly, or even corruptly, why is that? — James Riley

Because that's the way everything works. Laws and regulations are not a good substitute for good intentions, good neighbors, and stewardship of our world. This is especially true when the goals you are working for are controversial and cost money.

I'm sorry if I took your discussion somewhere different from what you intended.

spreading the waste around to those who did not agree to carry those costs; especially those who didn't even avail themselves of the user's product from which the byproduct resulted. — James Riley

There aren't many who "didn't even avail themselves." Almost everything we use in our technological society generates waste, some more toxic than others. Our food is grown with chemicals. We drive our cars using gasoline. Electronic stuff uses all sorts of toxic materials. Nobody really gets off the hook. I grew up in a Dupont family - Better things for better living through chemistry.

really didn't want to discuss RCRA or specifics. I was trying to get at the idea of society, needs, wants, cost externalization, who bears, who should bear, who (if anyone) should not bear? Should loss be compensated? Should compensation, if any, be off set by some perceived benefit? — James Riley

I recognized that you had a broader question in mind. I wasn't trying to be difficult in my response. I guess I was bothered by how simplistic you had made it by ignoring our society as it now exists. The hazardous waste management system was exactly set up to deal with "who bears, who should bear, who (if anyone) should not bear." You can say it doesn't do it very well and I won't disagree. The idea of including all the costs, even indirect ones, into the cost of products is controversial. People don't like it when you make it harder to make money.

If society is spreading a burden, shouldn't it at least say "Okay, we know this is bad, but we are going to do it anyway because we think the benefits outweigh the costs." — James Riley

Again, I guess I think it already does do that; perhaps badly, unfairly, even corruptly; with our environmental laws. You have had the misfortune to get involved in a discussion of environmental issues with a retired environmental engineer who hasn't had a chance to be a smarty-pants for a while.

Might they discover considering the happiness of the employees is a good policy? — Athena

I've been thinking that any long-term change will not be in the employers, but the employees. I think, maybe, a lot of people have seen that there is a better way to live. There's at least a 50% chance that's a pipe dream.

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for many of the jobs people do, so an employer needs to think of other ways to make the job enjoyable. Because they do not, I have volunteered most of my life instead of working for money. — Athena

Everything you say is true, except the things you identify are not play. They're something else, something good, but not play.

That’s the effect of their blind, censorial rage. Censure requires no compulsory action. — NOS4A2

You wrote:

Censure has zero effect beyond political finger-wagging, anyways. So, along with the press and woke social media CEOs, congress will make a big show of it, but that's about the end of it. — NOS4A2

I just pointed out that Gosar's punishment, justified or not, is more than just a "big show." It has a substantive impact on his role and effectiveness in Congress.

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

Yes. I think this is a good way of thinking about it.

Thus, the manufacturer of the product is not liable for how the product he makes is actually used, nor for the by-product of the use (waste). — James Riley

The party that generates the waste is responsible for managing it. The product manufactured is not waste. A material doesn't become waste until it is thrown away. That seems like a reasonable way to handle it.

There is no doubt in the world that RCRA is a clunky, complicated set of laws and regulations, but it has made a difference in how chemical wastes are managed. When I was a cabinetmaker, we used to dump used solvent out on the railroad tracks behind our shop. I'm sure there are plenty of small companies that still do things like that, but DuPont and Monsanto generally don't.

The cost of legal disposal is so great that the barrel can be attached to the bottom of a semi-tractor trailer and dripped out, drip by drip, on an intra-continental trip. Or dumped in the New Jersey Pine Barrens. Or at sea. Or run through RVs into RV park dump stations. It's called "midnight dumping." — James Riley

Sure, it can, but it doesn't. At least not in the great majority of cases. If you're looking for a perfect set of laws and regulations with perfect enforcement, RCRA definitely isn't one although, as I've noted, it's made a big difference.

I guess the important point for me in relation to this particular discussion is that, when your Substance Y is generated as waste, it will likely be managed under solid or hazardous waste laws and regulations that already exist. There won't be a new policy. If you want to talk about the inadequacies of existing policy, that seems to me to be a different subject.

Censure has zero effect beyond political finger-wagging, anyways. So, along with the press and woke social media CEOs, congress will make a big show of it, but that's about the end of it. — NOS4A2

They also took away two of his more important committee memberships. That's not "zero effect."

This is serious business. — James Riley

Serious play. Probably the place where I am most playful is with words. Playful language can be very serious. From "Romeo and Juliet:"

No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but ’tis enough. ’Twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man.

Your new statement seems to say that there cannot be evidence for what may be called "qualia".
Your previous statement seems to say that there can be evidence for what may be called "qualia" — RussellA

At the end of the statement you quoted it says "No, I don't believe that."

Assume we have needs on the left: Space, air, water, food, and to a variable extent, clothing, shelter and society. On the right we have wants. Assume there is something everyone wants. Call it X. Assume the creation of X results in an unavoidably necessary byproduct called Y. Let’s say Y is universally understood as bad. — James Riley

This OP badly needs an example — bert1

The US has a complex system of laws and regulations that deals with treatment and disposal of wastes from industrial operations. The goal is to force the inclusion of the waste management costs in the overall cost of the item. The whole need/want distinction doesn't apply. Whether it should is a different question.

ludic — 180 Proof

New word. Thanks.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

Whatever else play may be, it has to be completely spontaneous. It has to come from inside each in accordance with our true nature. If it's of "deadly importance" it's not play. If it can be classified as good, better, or best, it's not play.

Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes.

Robert Frost. "Two Tramps at Mud Time"

Any property we think of is only a property if there is something that doesn't have it. "Orange" makes sense because you can take something orange, and something that is not orange, and point to the difference. If you couldn't, no one would be able to learn what "orange" means. Same with all the other properties. We understand them because there is something that doesn't have them, and something that does. — khaled

There is nothing wrong, or contradictory, or even difficult about the idea that something can be two things at the same time - diversity and unity. It's a matter of perspective and the situation at hand.

Now, who is most in the wrong here ? — Hello Human

This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me.

And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? — Hello Human

For us here in the US, it's called representative democracy corrupted by corporate influence. Not ideal, but that's what we've got.

The MRI scanner can make measurements of your brain when you look at the colour red, but can the MRI scanner determine that you are experiencing what Chalmers calls the "qualia" of the colour red and others call the subjective experience of the colour red ? — RussellA

I have two responses.

First, most people on the forum here don't accept personal experience as evidence. A good example is reported personal experience of God. Based on that, there is no evidence at all for qualia, so, yes, it is a metaphysical property or meaningless. No, I don't believe that.

Second, the whole "hard problem of consciousness" is a made up problem. Consciousness is a mental process. Mental processes grow, emerge I suppose, out of brain processes the way life emerges out of chemistry. What's the big deal? No, I don't want to get into a discussion of the hard problem of consciousness here.

I really like Dennis and I've tried to put into words what it is he does. I haven't to my satisfaction yet. I'm not really sure why your poem reminded me of it. Maybe they're both about what comes after disappointment.

Why not? They're not just comments, but arguments. — Bartricks

You gave your reasons why minimalist government is preferable. I disagree and gave my reasons why an activist government is needed.

Assume we have needs on the left: Space, air, water, food, and to a variable extent, clothing, shelter and society. On the right we have wants. Assume there is something everyone wants. Call it X. Assume the creation of X results in an unavoidably necessary byproduct called Y. Let’s say Y is universally understood as bad. — James Riley

In general, diluting chemical substances to meet toxicity standards is not allowed under US environmental law. I assume that's similar in most other countries. Requirements are even more stringent when it comes to putting something into food. I can't imagine a situation where putting toxic substances into the food supply would be acceptable. Right now it is common to discharge chemicals, after treatment, into the air and water. There are rigorous laws and regulations that would be applicable. That would be a natural way of dealing with the material.

Getting back to dilution - although you can't usually use dilution to meet standards, those standards themselves often take dilution into account along with other mitigation mechanisms such as chemical or biological degradation in the environment, absorption onto soil, and others.

As for "cost-effective," just being cheaper doesn't make it cost effective. You have to take into account the effective part too. As I noted, any technology that required discharge of toxic substances into the environment at concentrations above standards developed based on risk to humans would not be considered effective.