Total posts: 385
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would add to the list "what one deserves".
If someone does not deserve the benefit or the cost of an action, that will alter the moral choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You are both missing the point.
What humans know does not matter to an alien species unless we are communicating with them, which we are not.
If they see and discover the same things or more than we do, it is irrelevant to my point. More power to them.
Human knowledge has no impact on an alien species accumulation of knowledge and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Baloney. Other intelligent life forms in the universe will discover mathematics, physics, chemistry, evolution and a wide array of knowledge humans possess. And, they may know things we don't, but we will also find that relevant.
How does any of what you wrote prove that human knowledge is relevant to them? Whether or not another life form discovers the same phenomenons that humans have is irrelevant. Why would another life form care what a human thinks? Are you aware of some bilateral partnership with an alien species? And what does any of this have to do with the nature of existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you propose we verify data without human interference?
I'll say this again....
I'm not talking about verifying anything. This isn't about what might exist. Existence itself doesn't depend on our epistemological limits. Only our knowledge of existence does. Human knowledge is only relevant to humans, not the universe itself or any of the other life forms contained therein.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Clearly, existence is merely hypothetical until it is verified.
Hypothetical only to a human.
This feels like an ontological reimagining of "Who's On First?"
Created:
Posted in:
I might argue 3RU7AL's usage of 'exists' is what most of call 'known to exist'.
I agree. I also agree that for something to be "known to exist" it must be verified. That doesn't mean that something must be verified in order for it to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
Just out of curiosity, does anyone other than 3RU7AL believe that in order for something to exist, it must be verified by a human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The universe existed just fine before humans ever showed up. By your logic, the universe would only be 200,000 years old because it couldn't be verified before that. I'm sure the rest of the conscious beings in the universe will disagree with you too (I know, that statement can't be verified).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not talking about verifiability. I'm talking about existence independent of humanity. If all humans were to suddenly become extinct, does the universe cease to exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can you be certain your trusted proxy isn't a fantasy? And on and on we go.....
All I am saying is that existence is independent of human verifiability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I wouldn't. How would you? How can be verifiability be verified?How would you distinguish "exist" from "fantasy" (or "does-not-exist")?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think I'll just stick to the definition of "exist" that does not require human verifiability. "To have actual being" is sufficient. Whether or not something can be demonstrated to exist is beside the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If a tree falls in the forest, and no human surveys the forest before or after, and if there is zero evidence that there was a tree or that it fell, does the "sound" technically "exist"?The answer is obviously no (based on the definition of exist).
Are you suggesting that for something to exist it must be verifiable by a human? I'm not aware of a definition of "exist" with that stipulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, it makes a sound.
Actually, it makes a vibration. That vibration is translated into sound by ears and a brain so, technically, it doesn't make a sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
How an engine works would be considered a knowable "phenomenon".
An engine as it exists independent of human sense or perception would be considered an unknowable "noumenon".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
My personal spiritual belief, nondualismWhen we die, we all become one consciousness
Doesn't that statement imply dualism? That there is something apart from our physical selves that reunites with every other individual manifestation of consciousness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I am saying that objectivity requires facts. A human mind does not generate facts, as such; it observes and experiences them. Subjectivity requires the feelings, opinions, etc. of a mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Someone else mentioned arbitrary.
Would you say that theists and atheists have the same moral source or code since, for both, it comes through the conscience?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
How is morality derived through a theist's conscience less arbitrary than morality derived through an atheist's conscience?
Created:
Posted in:
From where, exactly, does a theist derive their morals that is less arbitrary than an atheist?
If the answer is "from God" then I would ask how God communicates this moral code to you.
If the answer is "the Bible" I would say that it provides only a very basic guideline for what is considered right and wrong with some very questionable moral positions concerning rape victims.
Religion can't possibly provide a comprehensive moral code for every circumstance one might encounter. Any moral code is still going to be filtered through fallible human minds for any given circumstance. Unless God is whispering in your ear what to do at all times, morality is subjective. An atheist can use empathy, common sense and the history of the human condition to create a moral code that is no more arbitrary than a religious one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
What you are calling "consciousness" I would call "intelligence".Those are two different words.
And those are five different words.
We have differing ontological opinions of the nature of consciousness.I am reasonably sure that a dog has consciousness as I tend to think that all life has some degree of consciousness.Dogs fail the mirror test.
Created:
Posted in:
Anything generated by a human mind is, by definition, subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I can imagine the following rumbling around in the mind of a solipsist speaking to someone...
"Please be real, please be real, please be real".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you are calling "consciousness" I would call "intelligence".Human consciousness is just a small step forward along those same lines, allowing humans to coordinate and cooperate in even more complex ways.
Do you believe a dog has consciousness?
I am reasonably sure that a dog has consciousness as I tend to think that all life has some degree of consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm not sure how that answers my question. What does the conscious mind do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
it's clear that the conscious mind isn't needed (though it probably plays an important role).
That makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself. What role does the conscious mind play if all decisions are made by the unconscious mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I understand what you mean. I am saying that the conscious mind has the ability to alter a decision the unconscious mind has made. Otherwise, we would have no need for a conscious mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What you call "desire" I call post hoc justification for a decision your brain already made at a subconscious level.
Breathing is a decision made on an unconscious level and yet I can make a conscious decision to stop my breathing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As for your first definition, "necessity" and "fate" are unfalsifiable concepts and are therefore blatant appeals to ignorance.And your second definition, "possible" is also an unfalsifiable claim.
Those are not my definitions, I just copied then from a couple of dictionary sites. If you disagree with the definitions, feel free to create your own. That however, would change the nature of the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Computers are clearly subjective.
Let me clarify.
Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
I concede that computers are programed by subjective humans but they do not perform tasks based on their own personal tastes, feelings or opinions. I also understand your objections to the word "objective" so I could change my statement to "brains are subjective, computer processes are not".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is an objective observer?
And can mathematical statements be objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How does the statement "the moose is dead" violate your definition of objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well I was hoping to find some common ground here but we can't even agree on basic definitions so I respectfully bow out of this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you say that is is not impossible to choose either course A or B then you have just given a textbook example of free will as it is defined. Going with your preferences does not negate a choice or make the choice an illusion. It just means you chose to go with a particular preference and could have chosen another.
Consider the following thought - that free will as it is defined exists but it is fundamentally meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not speaking in general terms as in what happens most of the time. I am saying that, in not all but some situations, the option exists to make a choice by whatever means one happens to make that choice. I grant that influences such as preferences, feelings, opinions, genetics exist and can help sway a choice but that the entire process cannot be traced back to a verifiable cause limiting one to a single effect. There are an unknowable number of causes that influence what information is being processed by the brain. Whether those causes are under our complete control is irrelevant. It is still the brain, after processing that information, that makes a choice. Choice, by definition, means there are at least two courses of action possible. To say that it is impossible to choose course A over course B is not only illogical, it ignores the only existing evidence for or against free will. That being that virtually every human on earth experiences the ability to make a choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You are correct, I am saying that choices are based on more than cause and effect. That is what subjectivity is. I don't know how much "control" I have over my emotions, feelings, opinions, preferences, etc. I certainly have at least some. Those things don't force me to choose one course of action over another.
Created:
Posted in:
What you are suggesting is that subjectivity does not exist. That the quality of being based on personal tastes, feeling, opinions, etc. is not real.
It is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who does not believe in fundamental things like choices or subjectivity. I really don't know how to proceed at this point if you can't be convinced that those things exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you sure that a computer can make a decision or is it just following the logical conclusion of it's programing?
Human brains do not work the same way a computer does. Brains are subjective, computers are objective. Cause and effect can only go so far in the thought making process of a subjective human brain. It may prompt that a decision be made but does not force a particular one upon us.
Created:
Posted in:
I think the problem arguing for or against free will is the fact that the words "free" and "will" are not included in the definition. Opponents of free will say that a choice is not "free" due to cause and effect and/or influences, genetics, etc. That becomes irrelevant if one argues based on any of the actual definitions that are available. For example "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" or "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". "Free will" is just a label to describe the ability to make a choice. If you are going to argue against it, use the definition, not the label.
Created:
-->
@Vaarka
The child would still perceive color, they just wouldn't understand the concept of it. They might describe the sky as looking "cold" or an orange as "hot".
Created:
Posted in:
In a perfect world, this would be a good idea. It presupposes that you have two dispassionate debaters who are willing to argue without allowing emotions to dictate their means. Nobody wants to lose a debate which is why people typically display the traits you mentioned above. People would rather be ugly and retain a semblance of winning than lose gracefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think it is a black swan fallacy at all. I am saying it is impossible for an entity to perceive a thing from all conceivable vantage points and in all of it's potential physical and energy states at all points in time simultaneously. If something is impossible, one can be certain it does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So quantum physics would seem to suggest.
That's quite a firm stand you are taking there. How can you be so certain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It is impossible to be otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It isn't just us humans. It is beyond anything to know everything about a thing.
Of that, I am certain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One thing that reality does do is constantly change. Therefore, there is virtually an infinite amount of "reality" to "know" which means it can never be known since what we know at this moment has changed in some way in the next moment. All we can do is perceive, measure or experience a given moment. Since that is all we or anything else can do, it is meaningless to say that we cannot "know" reality. There isn't some imperceptible "objective reality" that escapes us. There are only other ways of perceiving, measuring or experiencing reality, a virtually infinite number of them. It is impossible to "know" everything about a thing. We "know" reality in our own limited way. The kind of certainty or knowledge you appear to be looking for does not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
According to your link Fox was tied for second place with MSNBC for the day behind CNN. Different sources, different numbers. Same point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The information I was referring to was for the advertiser coveted 25 to 54 age group according to the Los Angeles Times.
Created: