A revolution in thought - Page 1388

Spacemonkey · #**34676** 01-17-2014, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that a definition can serve a practical purpose, as in compatibilism, but it does not prove that freedom of the will exists?

Doesn't prove what kind of free will to exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The kind of free will you appeal to (freedom from physical and addictions/obsessions) no more proves that this is actually free will than the libertarian kind.

Actually free will? What is 'actual free will'? You are assuming some kind of meaning here independent of the definitions we create for ourselves by which they can be evaluated. No such standard exists. There is nothing against which we can compare our various definitions to see which is the true and correct one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This free will that is not random but is dependent on mental processes is not free either, that's just the point.

Again, not 'free' by which definition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using the word "free" meaning that his actions are not based on a random event, and he is not physically or mentally constrained, therefore he has the wherewithal to change his ways. Again, this is a practical way to view this issue in a world where blame is necessary, but you are not considering the possibility as to why, as we extend the true knowledge of determinism, blame and punishment is an inferior way to deter behavior...

Your argument that there is a better way still relies on your completely ignoring compatibilism. It is a fallacious argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget the libertarian free will Spacemonkey. The kind of free will you are using is a practical way to attribute moral responsibility, but it does not resolve the deeper issue in that if will is absolutely not free...

The will cannot be absolutely not free when we have compatibilist free will, which you've just agreed is a practical way to attribute moral responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not. That's what you keep throwing this back at me because that's all you have.

It's exactly what you are doing. You are still using libertarian free will as a standard by which to evaluate compatibilist free will. That is stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you believe that a person, once a choice is made, could have done otherwise?

Yes. Just not under those exact same antecedent conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not projecting.

Of course you are. You're the one stuck on your own worldview and unable to understand the flaws in your reasoning no matter how often they are pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And like I said you don't have to tell me this, I know I'm free..

But you're not - not even in the compatibilist sense you reject.

peacegirl · #**34677** 01-17-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just looking at various literature on the question of "could have done otherwise"...so will throw things out for discussion

Keith Lehrer

Quote:

I now wish to argue that we can know empirically that a person could have done otherwise.* A person could have done otherwise if he could have done what he did not do. Moreover, if it is true at the present time that a person can now do what he is not now doing, then, later, it will be true that he could have done something at this time which he did not do. This, of course, follows from the fact that "could" is sometimes merely the past indicative of "can." ** What I now want to argue is that we do sometimes know empirically that a person can do at a certain time what he is not then doing, and, consequently, that he could have done at that time what he did not then do. Moreover, we can obtain empirical evidence in such a way that our methods will satisfy the most rigorous standards of scientific procedure.
* For the purpose of this paper, I shall assume that if a hypothesis is very highly probable with respect to some kind of empirical evidence, then it is possible to know that hypothesis empirically. Thus, I shall attempt to prove that the hypothesis that a person could have done otherwise is very highly probable with respect to some kind of empirical evidence. The line of argument I use was suggested by Richard Taylor, "I Can," in Sidney Morgenbesser and James Walsh, eds., Free Will (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1962.), p. 84.

** See J. L. Austin, "Ifs and Cans," in J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock, eds., Philosophical Papers (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 163.

I shall attempt to show that we can know empirically that a person could have done what he did not do by first considering the more general question of how we ever know what people can do. It is, I suppose, obvious that there is no problem of how we know a person can do something when we see him do it. In this case, the evidence that we have for the hypothesis that a person can do something entails the hypothesis. But all that is entailed by the evidence is that the person can do what we see him do at the time we see him do it. It is at least logically possible that he cannot do it at any other time. Thus, when we project the hypothesis that a person can do something at some time when we do not see him do it, the empirical evidence that we have for the hypothesis will not entail the hypothesis. The problem of our knowledge of what people can do is, therefore, primarily the problem of showing how we know that people can do certain things at those times at which we do not see them do the things in question. The solution to the problem depends upon the recognition of the fact that one fundamental way (there are others) in which we know that a person can do something at some time when we do not see him do it is by seeing him do, it at some other time. However, it is not merely a matter of seeing him do something at some other time that would justify our claim to know that he can do it at the time at which we do not see him do it, but of seeing him do it when certain other epistemic conditions are also satisfied. I shall discuss four such conditions, which seem to me to be the most important. I shall call them the conditions of temporal propinquity, circumstantial variety, agent similarity, and simple frequency.

Amazing how people can come up with the junk science that they do. :yawn:

peacegirl · #**34678** 01-17-2014, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that a definition can serve a practical purpose, as in compatibilism, but it does not prove that freedom of the will exists?

Doesn't prove what kind of free will to exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The kind of free will you appeal to (freedom from physical and addictions/obsessions) no more proves that this is actually free will than the libertarian kind.

Actually free will? What is 'actual free will'? You are assuming some kind of meaning here independent of the definitions we create for ourselves by which they can be evaluated. No such standard exists. There is nothing against which we can compare our various definitions to see which is the true and correct one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This free will that is not random but is dependent on mental processes is not free either, that's just the point.

Again, not 'free' by which definition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are using the word "free" meaning that his actions are not based on a random event, and he is not physically or mentally constrained, therefore he has the wherewithal to change his ways. Again, this is a practical way to view this issue in a world where blame is necessary, but you are not considering the possibility as to why, as we extend the true knowledge of determinism, blame and punishment is an inferior way to deter behavior...

Your argument that there is a better way still relies on your completely ignoring compatibilism. It is a fallacious argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget the libertarian free will Spacemonkey. The kind of free will you are using is a practical way to attribute moral responsibility, but it does not resolve the deeper issue in that if will is absolutely not free...

The will cannot be absolutely not free when we have compatibilist free will, which you've just agreed is a practical way to attribute moral responsibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not. That's what you keep throwing this back at me because that's all you have.

It's exactly what you are doing. You are still using libertarian free will as a standard by which to evaluate compatibilist free will. That is stupid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you believe that a person, once a choice is made, could have done otherwise?

Yes. Just not under those exact same antecedent conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not projecting.

Of course you are. You're the one stuck on your own worldview and unable to understand the flaws in your reasoning no matter how often they are pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And like I said you don't have to tell me this, I know I'm free..

But you're not - not even in the compatibilist sense you reject.

I'm sorry, I can't even stomach this post. You are trying to intimidate me and I will not let you do it. This is not about libertarian free will Spacemonkey. This is about the truth that a practical definition does not free will make. And when you tell me that someone could make the exact choice but not under the same antecedent conditions, this is not how determinism is defined. You are not a determinist. You are an imposter.

Spacemonkey · #**34679** 01-17-2014, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, I can't even stomach this post. You are trying to intimidate me and I will not let you do it. This is not about libertarian free will Spacemonkey. This is about the truth that a practical definition does not free will make. And when you tell me that someone could make the exact choice but not under the same antecedent conditions is not what is defined under determinism. You are not a determinist. You are an imposter.

You're a coward and an idiot. If you can't rationally address my post then why bother replying? You're still trying to redefine all free will as libertarian, and determinism as hard determinism. That is stupid.

LadyShea · #**34680** 01-17-2014, 11:45 PM

Why is Keith Lehrer "junk" but Gregg Carusso, whom you posted, is not? Is there any reason other than that you agree with Caruso and not with Lehrer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am just looking at various literature on the question of "could have done otherwise"...so will throw things out for discussion

Keith Lehrer

Quote:

I now wish to argue that we can know empirically that a person could have done otherwise.* A person could have done otherwise if he could have done what he did not do. Moreover, if it is true at the present time that a person can now do what he is not now doing, then, later, it will be true that he could have done something at this time which he did not do. This, of course, follows from the fact that "could" is sometimes merely the past indicative of "can." ** What I now want to argue is that we do sometimes know empirically that a person can do at a certain time what he is not then doing, and, consequently, that he could have done at that time what he did not then do. Moreover, we can obtain empirical evidence in such a way that our methods will satisfy the most rigorous standards of scientific procedure.
* For the purpose of this paper, I shall assume that if a hypothesis is very highly probable with respect to some kind of empirical evidence, then it is possible to know that hypothesis empirically. Thus, I shall attempt to prove that the hypothesis that a person could have done otherwise is very highly probable with respect to some kind of empirical evidence. The line of argument I use was suggested by Richard Taylor, "I Can," in Sidney Morgenbesser and James Walsh, eds., Free Will (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1962.), p. 84.

** See J. L. Austin, "Ifs and Cans," in J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock, eds., Philosophical Papers (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 163.

I shall attempt to show that we can know empirically that a person could have done what he did not do by first considering the more general question of how we ever know what people can do. It is, I suppose, obvious that there is no problem of how we know a person can do something when we see him do it. In this case, the evidence that we have for the hypothesis that a person can do something entails the hypothesis. But all that is entailed by the evidence is that the person can do what we see him do at the time we see him do it. It is at least logically possible that he cannot do it at any other time. Thus, when we project the hypothesis that a person can do something at some time when we do not see him do it, the empirical evidence that we have for the hypothesis will not entail the hypothesis. The problem of our knowledge of what people can do is, therefore, primarily the problem of showing how we know that people can do certain things at those times at which we do not see them do the things in question. The solution to the problem depends upon the recognition of the fact that one fundamental way (there are others) in which we know that a person can do something at some time when we do not see him do it is by seeing him do, it at some other time. However, it is not merely a matter of seeing him do something at some other time that would justify our claim to know that he can do it at the time at which we do not see him do it, but of seeing him do it when certain other epistemic conditions are also satisfied. I shall discuss four such conditions, which seem to me to be the most important. I shall call them the conditions of temporal propinquity, circumstantial variety, agent similarity, and simple frequency.

Amazing how people can come up with the junk science that they do. :yawn:

Angakuk · #**34681** 01-18-2014, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you lose on all accounts.

That should have read "you lose on all counts". Please try harder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans himself would have admitted if he was wrong.

Since he never did admit he was wrong, it is obvious that he could not have done so. Claiming that he could have done that which he never did do is a rather blatant appeal to free will.

Angakuk · #**34682** 01-18-2014, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

(1) can I even use the word solipsistic in that way?

The empirical evidence proves that you can use the word in that way. You just did.

peacegirl · #**34683** 01-18-2014, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, I can't even stomach this post. You are trying to intimidate me and I will not let you do it. This is not about libertarian free will Spacemonkey. This is about the truth that a practical definition does not free will make. And when you tell me that someone could make the exact choice but not under the same antecedent conditions is not what is defined under determinism. You are not a determinist. You are an imposter.

You're a coward and an idiot. If you can't rationally address my post then why bother replying? You're still trying to redefine all free will as libertarian, and determinism as hard determinism. That is stupid.

We have nothing more to say to each other.

peacegirl · #**34684** 01-18-2014, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you lose on all accounts.

That should have read "you lose on all counts". Please try harder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans himself would have admitted if he was wrong.

Since he never did admit he was wrong, it is obvious that he could not have done so. Claiming that he could have done that which he never did do is a rather blatant appeal to free will.

No it isn't Angakuk. All this is is a conjecture, an appeal to folk psychology intuition which doesn't tell us anything except what we subjectively perceive is the case. This is not proof that he could have actually done that which he never did do.

p. 28 “The other day when I was in Temple a rabbi, during the course
of his sermon, made it very clear that man has free will. Professors,
doctors, lawyers, and just about everybody I know, agree that man’s
will is free. If this is a theory you would never know it by talking to
them. Well, is it a theory, or is this established knowledge?”

“Of course it is a theory,” I answered, “otherwise there would be
no believers in determinism. Is it possible for a person to believe that
the earth is flat now that we have mathematical proof of its circular
shape? The only reason we still have opinions on both sides of this
subject is because we don’t know for a mathematical fact whether the
will of man is, or is not, free.”

“But these theologians don’t agree with you; they say that man’s
will is definitely free. Look, here comes a rabbi; ask him if man’s will
is free just for the heck of it and you will see for yourself how dogmatic
he responds.”

“Rabbi, we have been discussing a subject and would appreciate
your opinion. Is it true, false, or just a theory that man’s will is free?”

“It is absolutely true that man’s will is free because nothing
compels an individual to choose evil instead of good; he prefers this
only because he wants to partake of this evil, not because something
is forcing him.”

“Do you mean, Rabbi, that every person has two or more
alternatives when making a choice?”

“Absolutely; that bank robber last week didn’t have to rob the
bank, he wanted to do it.”

“But assuming that what you say is true, how is it possible to prove
that which cannot be proven? Let me illustrate what I mean.”

“Is it possible for me not to do what has already been done?”

“No, it is not possible for me not to do what has already been done
because I have already done it.”

“This is a mathematical or undeniable relation and is equivalent
to asking is it possible for anyone not to understand four as an answer
to two plus two. Now if what has been done was the choosing of B
instead of A, is it possible not to choose B which has already been
chosen?”

“It is impossible, naturally.”

“Since it is absolutely impossible (this is the reasoning of
mathematics, not logic, which gives rise to opinions) not to choose B
instead of A once B has been selected, how is it possible to choose A
in this comparison of possibilities when in order to make this choice
you must not choose B, which has already been chosen?”

“Again I must admit it is something impossible to do.”

“Yet in order to prove free will true, it must do just that — the
impossible. It must go back, reverse the order of time, undo what has
already been done, and then show that A — with the conditions being
exactly the same — could have been chosen instead of B. Since it is
utterly impossible to reverse the order of time which is absolutely
necessary for mathematical proof, free will must always remain a
theory. The most you can say is that you believe the bank robber had
a choice, but there is absolutely no way this can be proven.”

“I may be unable to prove that he was not compelled to rob that
bank and kill the teller, but it is my opinion that he didn’t have to do
what he did.”

“I’m not in the mood to argue that point but at least we have
arrived at a bit of knowledge that is absolutely undeniable, for we have
just learned that it is mathematically impossible for any person to
prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the will of man is free yet a
moment ago you made the dogmatic statement that man’s will is
definitely free.”

“My apology, dear sir; what I meant to say was that it is the
consensus of opinion that the will of man is free.”

“Now that we have established this fact, consider the following. If
it is mathematically impossible to prove something true, whatever that
something is, is it possible to prove the opposite of that something
false?”

“Yes, it is possible.”

“No, Rabbi, it is not possible.”

“That my friend is your opinion, not mine.”

“Let me show you it is not an opinion.

Spacemonkey · #**34685** 01-18-2014, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have nothing more to say to each other.

Again!

Do you have any idea how many times you've said this already?

peacegirl · #**34686** 01-18-2014, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Morality is not just philosophical.

Of course it is, unless you are defining philosophical oddly.

I don't think the understanding of right and wrong is a philosophical issue.

LOL, okay, if you had to choose an academic discipline that deals with morality and ethics, which would it be if not philosophy?

It can be classified under philosophy, but the issue of right and wrong is not subjective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it is, in that each individual's (ie: subject's) understanding and experiences of what exactly right and wrong are, and what they entail, and in what circumstances, is personal to them. There may be broad consensus, but there is nothing objective about it. To ensure we are using the same definitions of terms, I am using objective to mean

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

I can say that it is an objective observation that the majority of mankind believes that being shot to death by an intruder is a morally wrong behavior on the part of the intruder. It is wrong in the sense that it is a hurt to those who don't want to be killed. This observation has nothing to do with emotion, it is observable and has only to do with the facts. You are right in there is no standard when it comes to human behavior except this hurting of others.

p. 197 As these miraculous changes become a reality, religion comes to
an end along with evil because one was the complement of the other.
Religion came into existence out of necessity, but when all evil
declines and falls and God reveals Himself as the creator as well as the
deliverer of all evil, it must also, out of necessity, come to an end. It
is important to recognize that religion gets displaced only because
mankind will no longer need its services since God, our Creator (this
world is no accident), is answering our prayers. Of what value is
having an institution that asks mankind to have faith in God, to have
faith that one day God will reveal that He is a reality, when He does
this by answering our prayers and delivering us from all evil? Is it
possible for a minister to preach against sin when there is no further
possibility of committing a sin? Is it possible to desire telling others
what is right, when it is mathematically impossible for them to do
what is wrong? However, there is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be.

Quote:

Yes, there are issues that need to be analyzed to determine if there is hurt involved (such as in stem cell research which plays into philosophical discussion), but that does not mean there is not ultimately an objective way to determine what is ethical behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no objective way to determine what is ethical behavior, because all judgements of behavior are based on/influenced by emotions and personal prejudices

Of course there is. How do you think laws are created if not to determine what is ethically or morally wrong in the eyes of society? That being said, the words good and bad are relative terms depending on each person's frame of reference. As was explained, dog food may be good if I am starving, but bad to someone who is comparing it to steak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Consequences are used to help determine our choices. This is not an immaterial concept unless you think that going to jail is also immaterial.

LOL. I am using immaterial to mean "not physical/intangible/not having material form" not to mean "unimportant/inconsequential". See why differing definitions need to be addressed?

Of course they need to be addressed. Immaterial, as you just admitted, is not unimportant or inconsequential, nor does it mean that a concept that is is not physical cannot be proven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism is immaterial in that as a concept it is not physical, it is intangible, it can't be objectively described or measured. It can only be subjectively understood and defined. That's the definition I was using when I used the term immaterial.

It was objectively described in the first chapter of this book. Your reasoning is really getting diluted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determinism cannot be objectively described, only subjectively, see the above definitions of objective.

Again, this is your epistemological error. Just because something is immaterial does not mean there isn't a way to analyze the concept objectively. You are assuming that only objects with a physical form can be studied and measured, and anything else remains subjective and nothing more than opinion. Maybe the concept cannot be measured through empirical testing because you can't test determinism directly, but there are other ways which you are failing to consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were arguing as if I was using the other definition of immaterial, meaning unimportant. I was not. Many immaterial concepts are important.

Including this one. Thank you for this admission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Admission? As if I was lying or hiding something to begin with? LOL, I never denied anything as being important because I wasn't judging importance at all.

Well, I disagree because your entire argument against this discovery is that it is immaterial and therefore cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, it is not important, which gives you the feeling that your opinion is just as valid as his, which is not true because his knowledge is not just another subjective point of view.

peacegirl · #**34687** 01-18-2014, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have nothing more to say to each other.

Again!

Do you have any idea how many times you've said this already?

Yes I do, and....? What crazy theories are you concluding about me now? You are too enamored by your "intellectual prowess" for me to make a dent. Goodbye.

peacegirl · #**34688** 01-18-2014, 02:41 PM

This is so precious I wanted to share it!

My Heart Literally Melted When I Watched This Little Puppy Trying To Howl. Does Yours Melt Too? | PetFlow Blog – The most interesting news for pet parents around the world.

LadyShea · #**34689** 01-18-2014, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say that it is an objective observation that the majority of mankind believes that being shot to death by an intruder is a morally wrong behavior on the part of the intruder.

No, you can say there is a broad consensus, but it does not make it objective given what objective means. There are also circumstances where people might disagree (the intruder could be a police officer who shoots to death a kidnapper)

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

Consensus' are subject to shifting and changing attitudes, the very opposite of objective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is. How do you think laws are created if not to determine what is ethically or morally wrong in the eyes of society?

Still not objective. Subjectivity exists in societies too, seeing how they are comprised of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, the words good and bad are relative terms depending on each person's frame of reference

Therefore not objective, which was my point. You simply can't bring yourself to agree that I am correct about anything at all.

ceptimus · #**34690** 01-18-2014, 03:42 PM

[pedant] That should be 'My heart figuratively melted...' [/pedant]

LadyShea · #**34691** 01-18-2014, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that only objects with a physical form can be studied and measured, and anything else remains subjective and nothing more than opinion. Maybe the concept cannot be measured through empirical testing because you can't test determinism directly, but there are other ways which you are failing to consider.

Please tell me the ways to objectively (not subjectively or relatively) measure immaterial concepts. I would love to hear this. If it can apply to determinism it can also apply to emotions etc.

Quote:

I disagree because your entire argument against this discovery is that it is immaterial and therefore cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, it is not important

Bullshit. There are many, many concepts that I deem important that are not objectively provable. The terms determinism and free will are subjective, and there is no broad consensus on what they mean. Your arguing about "actual" free will and "true" determinism is fallacious.

peacegirl · #**34692** 01-18-2014, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say that it is an objective observation that the majority of mankind believes that being shot to death by an intruder is a morally wrong behavior on the part of the intruder.

No, you can say there is a broad consensus, but it does not make it objective in that objective means. There are also circumstances where people might disagree (the intruder could be a police officer who shoots to death a kidnapper)

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

Consensus' are subject to shifting and changing attitudes, the very opposite of objective.

That wasn't what I was referring to. I was trying to show that there is an objective standard by which we can judge what is a hurt. No one, regardless of where he lives or the shifting and changing attitudes of a culture, would suddenly say its okay for an intruder to come into his home, steal what belongs to him, and then kill him. There are certain things that do not change, which is why we can judge such behavior by an objective standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is. How do you think laws are created if not to determine what is ethically or morally wrong in the eyes of society?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still not objective. Subjectivity exists in societies too, seeing how they are comprised of people.

Most people value staying alive (self-preservation) and not being killed by intruders, therefore this is an external value and not subject to cultural shifts. It is true that there are no external values by themselves. Desiring to be safe from harm only has external value because we all desire it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, the words good and bad are relative terms depending on each person's frame of reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore not objective, which was my point. You simply can't bring yourself to agree that I am correct about anything at all.

Is that what this is about; agreeing with you when I'm trying to explain why there is a mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong when it comes to human behavior? I am not saying that sometimes we hurt others because not to would be worse for us (as when a person is starving and must steal for his family), but regardless, it is a hurt (wrong) when someone doesn't ask to get killed or have his things stolen. Up until now, we have been unable to prevent this hurt (or what some call "evil") in spite of our man-made laws and our penal system, which is why this discovery is so important.

Kael · #**34693** 01-18-2014, 05:49 PM

After glossing over this thread for so long, I think I'd actually forgotten just how truly, completely, ham-handedly bad Lessans'(/peacegirl's) writing was… I'd also forgotten how much I want to slap him every time he misuses the word 'mathematically.' Which I'm fairly confident would encompass every time he uses it.

peacegirl · #**34694** 01-18-2014, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that only objects with a physical form can be studied and measured, and anything else remains subjective and nothing more than opinion. Maybe the concept cannot be measured through empirical testing because you can't test determinism directly, but there are other ways which you are failing to consider.

Please tell me the ways to objectively (not subjectively or relatively) measure immaterial concepts. I would love to hear this. If it can apply to determinism it can also apply to emotions etc.

I told you that when this law is shown to work (and unfortunately if you refuse to consider that his observations were accurate you will have to wait until the new world is here), we will know conclusively that under changed environmental conditions, we can only move in one direction and that is not to hurt others with a first blow. If will was free we could hurt others in spite of this law, but we can't because it would give us less satisfaction, not more.

There are ways to objectively measure emotion. We can measure tears by their chemicals. Happy tears are much different in chemical composition than sad tears.

Quote:

I disagree because your entire argument against this discovery is that it is immaterial and therefore cannot be proven. If it cannot be proven, it is not important

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bullshit. There are many, many concepts that I deem important that are not objectively provable. The terms determinism and free will are subjective, and there is no broad consensus on what they mean. Your arguing about "actual" free will and "true" determinism is fallacious.

There is a consensus on what freedom of the will and determinism mean. They don't have the knowledge on how to reconcile these two opposing worldviews without it being contradictory. Moreover, it is believed that if we instituted a no free will environment, people would become irresponsible (do whatever they want and use the excuse that they couldn't help themselves because their will was not free to do otherwise), and less motivated (because their life has already been planned for them [fatalism]). This is the opposite of what would occur. The debate goes on, but that does not mean there isn't an answer just because it's been argued for centuries. We didn't know the true shape of the earth either, but eventually we learned, and now it isn't debated anymore.

peacegirl · #**34695** 01-18-2014, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

After glossing over this thread for so long, I think I'd actually forgotten just how truly, completely, ham-handedly bad Lessans'(/peacegirl's) writing was… I'd also forgotten how much I want to slap him every time he misuses the word 'mathematically.' Which I'm fairly confident would encompass every time he uses it.

Well you'll never get that chance, thank God. He is safe in his grave and no one can hurt him, no matter how justified you feel. It hurts me to think that his contribution to humanity is being taken so lightly. I know this is just one little corner of the internet. That's why I am not worried.

LadyShea · #**34696** 01-18-2014, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say that it is an objective observation that the majority of mankind believes that being shot to death by an intruder is a morally wrong behavior on the part of the intruder.

No, you can say there is a broad consensus, but it does not make it objective given what objective means. There are also circumstances where people might disagree (the intruder could be a police officer who shoots to death a kidnapper)

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

Consensus' are subject to shifting and changing attitudes, the very opposite of objective.

That wasn't what I was referring to. I was trying to show that there is an objective standard by which we can judge what is a hurt.

No, there isn't, unless you are redefining the word objective to mean "widely accepted/thought".

Quote:

No one, regardless of where he lives or the shifting and changing attitudes of a culture, would suddenly say its okay for an intruder to come into his home, steal what belongs to him, and then kill him.

That's doesn't make it objectively anything, it simply makes it wrong according to most human beings.

Quote:

There are certain things that do not change, which is why we can judge such behavior by an objective standard.

They do change. It was perfectly acceptable for Vikings to raid and kill, for one of many examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is. How do you think laws are created if not to determine what is ethically or morally wrong in the eyes of society?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still not objective. Subjectivity exists in societies too, seeing how they are comprised of people.

Most people value staying alive (self-preservation) and not being killed by intruders, therefore this is an external value and not subject to cultural shifts. It is true that there are no external values by themselves. Desiring to be safe from harm only has external value because we all desire it.

Most people holding a value does not make that value objective. How are you defining objective that you can't admit this simple fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, the words good and bad are relative terms depending on each person's frame of reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore not objective, which was my point. You simply can't bring yourself to agree that I am correct about anything at all.

Is that what this is about; agreeing with you when I'm trying to explain why there is a mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong when it comes to human behavior?

I simply want you to agree that terms have various meanings and understandings. In this case the word objective. If we can't agree on the definitions of the terms we are using, we will continue to have pointless arguments like this.

The Lone Ranger · #**34697** 01-18-2014, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are ways to objectively measure emotion. We can measure tears by their chemicals. Happy tears are much different in chemical composition than sad tears.

This is a common urban myth. It isn't true. A very common (and very silly) variant of this belief is that tears produced during "sad crying" are the body's way of ridding itself of "toxic chemicals" produced by feelings of sadness.

There are three different types of tears. The third type, "emotional tears" are produced during times of emotional stress -- happiness or sadness. The chemical composition of the tears produced during happiness vs. sadness does not differ to any significant effect; at least, not that has been detected.

peacegirl · #**34698** 01-18-2014, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can say that it is an objective observation that the majority of mankind believes that being shot to death by an intruder is a morally wrong behavior on the part of the intruder.

No, you can say there is a broad consensus, but it does not make it objective given what objective means. There are also circumstances where people might disagree (the intruder could be a police officer who shoots to death a kidnapper)

ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually

Consensus' are subject to shifting and changing attitudes, the very opposite of objective.

Quote:

That wasn't what I was referring to. I was trying to show that there is an objective standard by which we can judge what is a hurt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there isn't, unless you are redefining the word objective to mean "widely accepted/thought".

Quote:

No one, regardless of where he lives or the shifting and changing attitudes of a culture, would suddenly say its okay for an intruder to come into his home, steal what belongs to him, and then kill him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's doesn't make it objectively anything, it simply makes it wrong according to most human beings.

Quote:

There are certain things that do not change, which is why we can judge such behavior by an objective standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They do change. It was perfectly acceptable for Vikings to raid and kill, for one of many examples.

It might have been okay for them, but it was not okay for those who did not want to be raided upon. The fact that they didn't want this done to them IS the standard that is used to determine this was, by definition, a hurt. It just so happens that the majority of mankind define hurt in the same way. For example, no one wants to be robbed at gunpoint and possibly killed for their wallet.

hurt past participle, past tense of hurt
Verb
Cause physical pain or injury to.Eg: "Ow! You're hurting me!", "does acupuncture hurt?".
Noun
Physical injury; harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course there is. How do you think laws are created if not to determine what is ethically or morally wrong in the eyes of society?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still not objective. Subjectivity exists in societies too, seeing how they are comprised of people.

Most people value staying alive (self-preservation) and not being killed by intruders, therefore this is an external value and not subject to cultural shifts. It is true that there are no external values by themselves. Desiring to be safe from harm only has external value because we all desire it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Most people holding a value does not make that value objective. How are you defining objective that you can't admit this simple fact?

The only reason the term "hurt" can be thought of as an objective reality is because there is a consensus as to what the majority of mankind considers to be hurtful or evil such as snuffing someone's life out without their permission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That being said, the words good and bad are relative terms depending on each person's frame of reference

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore not objective, which was my point. You simply can't bring yourself to agree that I am correct about anything at all.

Quote:

Is that what this is about; agreeing with you when I'm trying to explain why there is a mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong when it comes to human behavior?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I simply want you to agree that terms have various meanings and understandings. In this case the word objective. If we can't agree on the definitions of the terms we are using, we will continue to have pointless arguments like this.

There is no objective standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others. To hurt someone is to do something to them that they don't want done to themselves. If I don't want you to come into my home and kill me, that would be considered a hurt to me. If I wanted you to kill me (e.g., because killing me [as the lesser of two evils] would save my family from being killed), then it would not be considered a hurt in a strict sense because it was something I wanted.

thedoc · #**34699** 01-18-2014, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It hurts me to think that his contribution to humanity is being taken so lightly. I know this is just one little corner of the internet. That's why I am not worried.

Lessan's contribution to society is not being taken lightly, it's being discounted entirely as having no value what-so-ever. If you continue as you are now, Lessans will be remembered for a long time, by a very few people, as a complete waste of their time. However I will say that I will remember the lessens that I have learned here from other posters, there has been a lot of good information in response to your nonsense.

LadyShea · #**34700** 01-18-2014, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a consensus on what freedom of the will and determinism mean.

If that were true there would be no debates, no essays, no books, and no discussion about it...everyone would agree on the topic. Is this the case? Of course not, which is why for every philosopher's take on it you post I can post a different philosopher's differing viewpoint.

There is an actual consensus on how light and sight work, complete with empirical evidence, yet you don't give a flying fuck about that...but OMG you are all insistent that immaterial concepts, with demonstrably subjective understandings, are somehow objective provable facts. Are you a hypocrite or what?