@davisactive 9 hours, 7 minutes ago
Forum Replies Created
February 24, 2020 at 2:34 pm #30332
Reminds me very much of George Carlin…who could not have put it more brilliantly:
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can’t handle money!”
My favorite answer to this is this joke which I don’t think should be taken as a joke:
A guy wins the lottery. He decides to donate some to charity, some to God and will keep whatever is left over. First he goes to a charity and asks them how much they need to accomplish their mission. It’s a big chunk of the money but he hands it over and gives them a little extra. He then holds up the remaining money up to the sky and says: “God…tell me how much you need to achieve your mission and take it”. He does this repeatedly every day for a month but God doesn’t ask for the money nor take it. So he gives a bit more of the cash to the charity (who will obviously do a whole lot more good than the church ever could) and pockets the rest. And everyone lives happily ever after.February 24, 2020 at 9:51 am #30326
Pure laziness Jake.February 23, 2020 at 10:59 am #30311
At this point I’m completely beyond bothering with those whose response is: “I can’t see how…” If you don’t get the analogy…you just don’t get it. If you are content to draw such absolute conclusions in a sea of ignorance so be it. Beyond analogies you’ll have to do your fucking homework and pick up books and start reading theories of mind and consciousness, what responsibity/choice/freedom are and how they can be meaningful (if at all) within those various theories. “I just can’t see how…” is just a lazy response that isn’t worth shit.
February 22, 2020 at 10:10 pm #30302
- This reply was modified 1 day, 12 hours ago by Davis.
A worker ant may not have what we consider free will, but it still carries out the will of the colony, unlike a pile of pebbles.
You’re sort of touching on what I think is the best approach to the answer. You should note how Reg framed the question:
Just how free are our choices
In other words the answer is not necessarily one of: yes we have free will or no we do not. But thinking in terms of “degrees of freedom”. A sperm has a higher degree of choice than a pebble does. A drone ant has a higher degree of freedom than a sperm. A dog has a higher degree of freedom of choice than a drone ant. A human has vastly higher degree of choice over a dog. Does that mean a human has reached a plateau of “absolute free will” (as though that’s even possible) while a dog has none (equivalent to a pebble)? Or do humans simply operate in an environment of a meaningfully high level of freedom.
Even computer programs can have degrees of freedom of choice (despite the fact that they are still run under clock work). Think of an online trade program with a few simple directions: If stock market average goes down so much…buy a percentage of that value in Index funds. If it goes up so much…sell. It could be less than 50 lines of code. You can argue that the program is extremely rigid and there is almost zero room for decisions to be made. Now think of a deep learning AI program (they exist) which makes meticulous analyses of the market, of other traders, their strategies, their performances, experiments with its own generated algorythms (some randomly tweaked) and real time projections and simulations and makes lots of long term strategies and makes vast sums of trades. Of course it’s still a computer. But you can argue that this program has a vastly higher degree of choice than the 50 line code does.
Does it make it conscious? No I don’t think so but it certainly gives it vastly more freedom to operate. You have to exponentially drive this analogy up to the level of the human mind (and remember this is still JUST AN ANALOGY) how humans can have a meaningful degree of freedom even while living in a clockwork universe.February 22, 2020 at 5:46 pm #30295
You don’t need to rely on a series of improbable events to avoid making any absolutist argument. The laws of physics can have an aberration, pause, change, go out the window. If we are a simulation a glitch can happen or the programmer can tweak whatever it wants. Some insane 4 dimensional intervention can happen. Or some inexplicable phenomena. You just need to differentiate between “being extremely logical to act AS THOUGH these rules are absolute…because the likelihood of those rules continuing are almost 100%” vs “being absolutely sure A will cause B because…pff…as if anything else could ever happen”. It’s a kind of middle ground between absolutism and some spooky world view while, in fact you aren’t at all in the middle but just microns to the left of absolutism. You’re at the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% mark which I think is the most logical place to be.February 20, 2020 at 9:36 pm #30280
Reg gave an extremely good explanation about considering predictions of “obvious” cause and effect as fact. I’m just nitpicking here but “psychological justification” is probably not the term you’re looking for. It confuses the matter a little. “Justification through human nature extending the extremely likely into certainty”. I know it’s wordy but sometimes words matter. As I said before…just nitpicking. Very good explanation.February 17, 2020 at 8:14 am #30203
God’s brain and Satan’s penis
Jody. Why-ever would you believe that Satan has a penis. That simply lacks creativity. Satan has an appendage that is obviously far more incredible and magical than we can possibly imagine.February 15, 2020 at 2:08 pm #30188
Why would anyone assume that God had a physical brain?
So God doesn’t have a brain?February 15, 2020 at 2:02 pm #30187
Simon you had announced that Dr. Bob had passed away. What was that all about?February 14, 2020 at 9:22 am #30156February 10, 2020 at 2:56 am #30110
Nice sunday schoolFebruary 7, 2020 at 7:39 pm #30063
Having watched this video Unseen I have to seriously disagree with the way you’ve characterized this guys ideas. I don’t see anything controversial with what he says. His ultimate argument is that socialism, in it’s many guises has not been realized under the standards in which it was invented. Also…not in the least controversial. But under the claim that it “failed”, they have actually succeeded if + growth and + inequality is an important standard of measure. Which in both cases is totally true. He goes out of his way to show that modern socialist states (Europe/Canada/NZ/Australia/Japan/S.Korea) have achieved modest growth AND civil liberties) which answers other failures of the totalitarian style of socialism but he still holds that none of these socialist experiments have fulfilled the original tennants of socialism which was going beyond the form of government as we knew it (which is true) but I think we’ve safely arrived at a place where…do we really need to do that? Are we ready to? Is it a good idea to? Will we ever be ready to? Luckily he doesn’t dive into that because that again, wasn’t the goal of his video..
Most of what this guy makes sense. He’s not saying anything particularly new or profound. Just a reasonable summary of how, most European intellectuals see thing. He doesn’t really spend enough time covering the “mixed” nature of European socialist systems…but that wasn’t the goal of the video so there’s really no problem with that. The only critique I could give the guy is that, this video could have easily been 8 minutes long without losing anythign.February 2, 2020 at 6:00 am #29909
Some thoughts, as I’ve been through this discussion many times before and, while I cannot be sure it really sounds JUST like what I’m about to say: European countries aren’t capitalist systems that are highly regulated. They are MIXED systems. They are both capitalist and socialist at the same time. You can call it regulated-capitalism or you can call it free-market socialism but doing either just takes away from the fact that they are mixed and you cannot possibly have a modern-European welfare state without both the many important elements of capitalism adopted by them and the elements of socialism that work for them. Many of these countries self-identify as socialist countries. These mixed countries are so highly “regulated” that you can hardly call them “capitalist” just as these countries are so open to the tenements of the free market you cannot call them wholly “socialist”. They are mixed. But yet they call themselves what they want to call themselves. And as confusing as they are…insisting that these states ARE capitalist and NOT socialist just overgeneralizes and creates confusion. I agree a purely socialist state will always fail and a purely capitalist state will be a very ugly place to live. But I wouldn’t want to make such a general claim that “capitalism” will always create social problems and socialism will always fail when the two are defined and used as a term in different ways by different countries. I think it is silly to insist mixed systems are just modified capitalist states (or the opposite that they are just watered down socialist states). But I’ll give the video a watch despite feeling fairly certain it will be painful to watch.
Here I go…let’s see if I’ve spoken too soon.February 2, 2020 at 12:00 am #29907
Sorry man but a 30 minute video is a little long to watch until I know a few things before committing to watching it. What is he referring to by socialism? Modern European socialist states? Or a subset of communist states? Or pseudo socialist states like Venezuela?
The idea that socialism always fails is so preposterous. I would invite this guy to walk around the various neighborhoods of Oslo and then walk around the various neighborhoods of Los Angeles and repeat that. If however he isn’t referring to the modern-European-socialist-state then, what he is saying is likely true and already obvious. So which is it?January 30, 2020 at 3:22 pm #29895
His attitude is “I am fucked either way”
I mean…come on Reg…this is just some vulgar moral dilemma that has no real life application. What does that have to do with ethics? This guys problem is rubbish. What can we possibly learn from any decision he makes?