Total posts: 129
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Do we have any reason to think that there are any miller roles in this game?
Created:
Posted in:
Here right now but like I said before the game starts I'll be generally less available on weekends.
@user_2006
By place your guess do you mean cast suspicion on?
By place your guess do you mean cast suspicion on?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It seems like you're agreeing with me. What we know to exist is not the same as what actually exists. And things can be both known through empiricism *and* logic.
Ultimately, I think that knowledge is best made sense of through a view that combines both empiricism and rationalism. See my profile for my view on that.
And, yes, that's another way of explaining it: empiricism deals with phenomena whereas logic deals with noumena. It seems to me like you're agreeing with me. So I don't understand why you don't accept the distinction.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Sure. The fundamentals of logic are analytic whereas empiricism is fundamentally synthetic. The fundamentals of logic are absolute whereas empirical evidence is relative. The fundamentals of logic are fundamentally objective but empiricism is fundamentally subjective, even if it's robusty inter-subjective. The fundamentals of logic are a priori whereas empiricism is fundamentally a posteriori.
To put it simply: All you need to explain the difference is the basic analytic-synthetic distinction or the basic a-priori versus a-posteriori distinction. Very, very easy to give an answer to that.
Finally, it's no wonder that you think empiricism covers everything and philosophy is useless if you don't recognize a coherent distinction between logic and empiricism, lol.
Created:
Posted in:
To me a morally wrong action is an action that increases overall suffering in the long run. It would be awkward to always replace "You are doing something morally wrong!" with "You are increasing overall suffering in the long-run!" ... but however awkward it would be to talk like that I don't think it would leave anything out. It seems that 100% of moral wrongdoing could be explained that way. That's why, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing more to an immoral action than that. That's why I believe in moral realism in an intuitionistic and minimalistic sort of way. It seems to me that "suffering is intrinsically bad" is just a perfectly reasonable axiom to have that seems to explain morality very well.
Created:
Posted in:
Is the game played on DIscord, then? Or is it played in a separate thread? What day and what time of day does the game start?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Saying that literally everything involves empiricism, even logic and rationalism--which is supposed to be definitionally distinct from empiricism--is to make the whole concept of empiricism vacuous. Sure, everything requires empiricism if you literally redefine empiricism to cover everything ... but to do so is to simply kid yourself rather than to say anything substantive.
What's more, a thing would still be a thing even if we didn't exist to have empirical evidence of it. The laws of logic don't require any knowledge of them. So I completely disagree that logic is fundamentally empirical even if we use your overly wide sense of the word where you completely eliminate the distinction between rationalism and empiricism.
The fact that you accept that the entire premise of free will is logically incoherent already shows that philosophy can give concrete/substantive answers to questions. If you accept and recognize that already then I didn't even need to give my argument: you already agree with me. Philosophy can show that free will doesn't exist purely via a priori logic without requiring any empirical evidence. Precisely because you can't have empirical evidence against something that isn't even logically incoherent.
I didn't say that apodictic truth can be discovered without engaging in philosophy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@CaptainSceptic
Even as evidence rather than proof it is still a non-sequitur because--
Premise 1:
The symptoms or clinical presentations [of COVID-19] are constantly changing.
Premise 2:
There is no clear clinical diagnostic morphology.
Premise 3:
Death rates very from country to country substantially.
Premise 4:
There are dozens of examples of "infection" with no known source contact.
Premise 5:
Premise 5:
The math is not adding up.
Conclusion: Therefore we are probably part of a big simulation.
--is an invalid argument.
Created:
But even if your example argument was sufficient, as you seem to believe it is, that would already show that philosophy can give concrete answers because the point is that this problem of free will doesn't require any scientific evidence and it's a truth that can be discovered truly a priori. Whether free will is real or not is a substantive and concrete question that can be answered through philosophy and without doing any science.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Wait, so are you talking about normativiy? Like, why is one explanation *better* than another ... and not better merely in terms of being more effective at achieving your goal .... but better full stop, categorically? Is that what you mean by standards?
"I agree with this. An easier way I think would be to say so why did you pick this option instead of another. When they give a reason like not enough money or not being there. They would have to yield they are contingent on factors meaning they are not free to carry out their will."
Of course, but it complicates matters when they give their reason for their action as "Because I freely chose to do it." .... then such an argument is needed.
"Another way of seeing this is that did you have free will as a child? If they said yes then they would have to say they chose to cry over not getting something."
Not necessarily because they might hold that whilst they don't have full control in all situations, situations such of those being an example, they at least have full control under some situations.
Even those who believe in strong free will also believe that there are exceptions to it such as addictions, compulsions, etc. I doubt many people who believe in free will would believe that Tourettes sufferers choose to have their tics for example.
The point is that whilst they may not think that they ALWAYS have ultimate control over their actions .... they at least believe that they sometimes do. And my point is that they never do and nobody ever does.
"I guess this one is the easiest example but I like to hear you thoughts about is did you choose to be born? "
Once again, even those who believe they have strong free will don't think that they chose to be born. Their claim is not that they ALWAYS have strong free will over EVERYTHING, even things that just happened to them, before they even existed, their claim is that there are many actions that they can take that they do freely make in a strong and ultimate sense.
The argument against free will is not to simply say that they don't always have strong free will .... it's to say that they NEVER have strong free will and nobody and nothing ever does or can have it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I can recognize moral truths but I don't have moral motivation because I don't have a conscience because the empathetic/compassionate aspects to my brain are morally stunted due to the way I was born. I'm a dispassionate person to an extreme degree ... which has both its good and bad points. One of its good points is that I'm hyper-analytical because I don't have the opposite emotional side ... but one of its bad points is that I'm an amoral being. I can recognize that something I am doing is technically morally good or bad and, like I said, I can recognize moral truths, but I lack the motivation because I'm unable to care about it.
This is where I think that there can be a disconnect between recognizing moral truths on the one hand and having moral motivation on the other hand. Understanding that something is morally wrong to do is, perhaps we should say, a necessary condition for being motivated to not do that immoral thing but it is not a sufficient condition for being motivated to not do that immoral thing.
There may also be an argument for recognizing something as morally wrong perhaps not being required at all. You could easily imagine a moral nihilist who believed that nothing was morally wrong but they were also empathetic and compassionate neurologically and thereby couldn't bring themselves to eat meat once they realized the suffering it caused. They might say it wasn't wrong but they care too much about animals so they don't want to eat meat anyway. Then it would seem that merely caring subjectively is by itself a sufficient condition for not taking that immoral action even if the person doesn't recognize it as immoral. That person would be the mirror opposite to somebody like me: somebody who recognizes that some things are moral and some other things are immoral but I'm just neurologically incapable of caring about the suffering of any being besides myself. In fact, my neurological stuntedness with regards to emotion is so extreme that it's often hard for me to even care about my future self so I often focus on enjoying the moment a lot but do a lot of things that are unwise. This is why I wouldn't become a vegan even for health reasons either because I simply don't care about my future enough. For me to not eat a bacon sandwich, for instance, for purely health reasons it would have to cause me suffering today or at least in the very near future.
Anyway, I hope you find this interesting. I tend to find that deontological vegans think that it's impossible for a person like me to be an activist for veganism by debunking arguments against veganism because they see me as a hypocrite and that my actions are in themselves intrisically bad regardless of how many other people I was able to convert to veganism. On the other hand, I have found that consequentalist vegans, who are able to be dispassionate enough to not hate me too much, are able to recognize that although I myself directly do harm to animals by eating meat .... if I am able to convert several other people to veganism, or even only two people to veganism, then I'm actually overall doing more good than harm because my existence creates more vegans than non-vegans even if I myself am a non-vegan.
So, yeah, I hope you find this interesting to some degree at least.
P.S. I also have an argument against those who would claim that I was a hypocrite. I've encountered some people who say that a person who is philosophically vegan but never puts it into practice is necessarily a hypocrite. I would say that such amoral beings such as myself are an exception to that and I have an argument for that. To me it's similar to how it wouldn't be hypocritical as a non-Christian to say that Christians ought to do what Jesus would do by their own standard. The fact I don't apply that standard doesn't make me a hypocrite to say that because I'm not a Christian. Similarly, I think that all moral beings ought to be moral. But for me as an amoral being to say that can't make me a hypocrite because I'm not a moral being. And it also seems to me to be nonsensical to say that an amoral being ought to be moral. The whole point is they can't be moral because if they could then they wouldn't be an amoral being. Sure, an amoral being can take moral actions for amoral reasons ... but then it would seem to me that that is saying that there is a moral obligation for moral beings to convince amoral beings to take moral actions for non-moral reasons by appealing to the amoral being's self-interest. To say that the moral obligation was on the amoral being itself just doesn't make sense to me at all because an amoral being is precisely the sort of being whereby a moral obligation by definition can't have any force to them. Ought implies can: it makes no sense to say that you ought to do something if you can't. And, sure, amoral beings are physically capable of taking moral actions for non-moral reasons but to say that they can't take such actions for moral reasons is just another way of saying that they are morally incapable of taking such actions .... which is one reason it doesn't make much sense to say that they are obligated to do anything. It would be like saying that a dog ought not to bite somebody. Sure, it would be better if they didn't but the obligation is on the human owner with a conscience to prevent that rather than on the dog which can't be morally motivated like that.
Created:
Posted in:
I will try to make at least one post on Saturday's and Sunday's but I'm going to say BEFORE the game starts and BEFORE my role is rolled that I'm very busy on Saturday's and Sunday's and will have a lot more time to post on the weekdays.
I'm also busy after either 10PM or 9:30PM UK time on weekdays.
I'm also busy after either 10PM or 9:30PM UK time on weekdays.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'd need some clarification on what you mean when you ask how a specific standard can be superior to another. Could you give an example of the sort of standard you mean?
I answer whether we have free will or not by looking at the sort of free will that most people believe in. It seems that what most people believe in is that whenever we do something we could have always done something else instead, and not out of pure randomness, but out of choice ... that we are in some way self-causing. And not in a shallow way where we cause our actions with our mind but then our mind itself is ultimately caused by factors beyond our control ... but in an ultimately deep way so that we are somehow to be the cause of ourselves in an ultimate sense that would require one to be Causa sui. But such a kind of self-causation is impossible because it would lead to an infinite regress and we are finite beings. So that's a simple sketch of how it can be shown that the free will that most people believe in is impossible without requiring any sort of scientific evidence at all. It's something that is impossible both under determinism and indeterminism, both under naturalism and supernaturalism and both under physicalism and idealism.
My favorite version of the argument against the strong version of free will that most people irrationally believe in that is given by a professional philosopher is the following argument by Galen Strawson:
Premise 1: You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
Premise 2: To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects
Premise 3: But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
Conclusion: So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
Created:
Posted in:
I consider the argument unsound because I don't accept premise 2 and I don't consider the argument to be valid because the conclusion contains the word 'transcendent' which isn't justified by the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
72 hours is perfect. I've been on a site where the day phases lasted weeks which was way too long ... and I've been on a site where the day phases lasted 24 hours which was way too short. 72 hours is perfect. Awesome.
I'll pick Reasons Why because I like the sound of that one.
I'll pick Reasons Why because I like the sound of that one.
Created:
The question of whether we have free will or not is a question about something concrete and substantive that can be answered philosophically and analytically.
Created:
Posted in:
I can't morally justify it but I don't consider myself to be a moral agent.
Created:
Posted in:
I've played Mafia before but I've never played it here. How long do day phases tend to last on this site?
I'm happy signing up but I don't understand what the three options are.
I'm happy signing up but I don't understand what the three options are.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't accept premise 2 and I don't see how it's justified.
Created:
This all sounds excellent. Thank you, Ragnar.
Created:
The Elo system is far from perfect .... but I don't think there is a perfect rating system. Yes, it has its flaws, yes it can be rigged, yes there can be cheaters .... but I still think that it is *generally* useful.
EDIT: Some of the issues you mention regarding people agreeing to vote for each other ........ I think that's an issue that will largely disappear as the site grows. The problem will still exist.... but the punishments for such a thing can become harsher because losing a member of the site won't matter as much when the site is a lot larger.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think it's possible to objectively verify what the best video game in the world is but my personal favorite video game of all time is Age of Empires II. That is also a video game with many different versions and despite its flaws I think that the latest definitive edition is by far the best version of the best game ever. That's just my opinion .... not something I can argue for.. That version of the game also gets regular monthly updates so any issues it has are temporary and the game is only getting better. It's been my favorite game since I was 12 years old since I first played it. I'm now 31. Of course, I originally played the vanilla version. I've played all versions of the game. There are many.
Created:
Yeah, I do like what Kialo's format is aiming for but it seems kind of unrealistic to a utopian degree. In an ideal world that structure would work but we don't live in an ideal world. IOW that format only really works if all the admins and moderators are unbiased because claims require their approval. That's the issue. For it to really work well the moderators and admins have to kind of be superhuman because even the most rational people in the world are going to be biased to SOME degree.
So I think this format is better. Was annoying that some of my claims wouldn't get accepted because the admins of Kialo thought they weren't relevant no matter how many times I tried to explain that they were.
This place has structure but not TOO MUCH structure. This place creates a nice balance. Most places don't have enough structure and places like Kialo have too much. That's one of the things that seems so great about here. It's a nice balance.
Also, I absolutely LOVE the Elo rating system so to have that for debating ..... that's just ace.
Exciting indeed, my friend.
Created:
Best I found was Kialo before this but despite the fact that the system itself was great some of the moderators and admins of the site seemed biased and would disallow claims from views they disagreed with even when they were more reasonable than the claims they agreed with.
The leaderboard and the ELO system and everything ....... this is my heaven. Hopefully someday the site will have more active members but I'd rather a few reasonable members on a wonderful website than a website with many members that is no good.
Will be awesome if this site grows more someday. Looks amazing.
What's DDO?
Created:
Thank you, my friend. I am going to read up on the COC now. Hopefully I haven't done anything that has broken it before reading it! I'm really excited about this place. I've been rather disillusioned about not being able to find good and mature debates on the internet but now it looks like I may have found exactly what I was looking for! :)
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thank you! I'll read up on that :)
EDIT:
Ahhhhh I see. So can you let me know if I'm understanding this correctly:
So the voting buttons will appear for me once I've either made 100 posts or completed two debates without trolling ... all while successfully adhering to the DART rules. Is that correct?
EDIT 2: Where can I find the code of conduct?
EDIT 3: Neverrmind, I see that it's right above the voting policy section.
Created:
Hello. I'm new here. I've been reading some debates on this site but I can't seem to find the button to vote anywhere. I'm talking about debates that have a 'voting' status. How do you vote for somebody?
Thanks in advance!
Simply
Thanks in advance!
Simply
Created: