There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-06-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am not attributing ownership rights to an object. You are attributing them to yourself when you pick some object. By that act YOU say, "ownership rights exist". And when you say that, you will understand what if someone else already has claimed this object. If you are healthy and rational, you will be consistent. If you can claim ownership, other people can claim ownership too. If you want to keep the object indefinitely, someone else who came first might want to keep the object indefinitely. Freedom for you is freedom for me. Consistency, consistency, consistency.

Here's the thing.

You can't both own something. So that right there is stunningly inconsistent.

Remember, reality has zero-sum elements. That's why disagreements arise.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Humans can and do have ownership rights by default. We own everything we make. If we didn't, you wouldn't know who said these words, but you do, because I own my words.

That cannot possibly be true. What is a "right"? Recognition through interaction. If there is no agreement, there are no rights. To say otherwise, as you do, is to reify abstractions through pure D-grade magical wishful thinking.

Unless that's one of those special "objective" matters, where despite its objectivity many people ignore or are unaware of it, and indeed hold contradictory ideas, in defiance of the phantasmal objectivity you purport.

I think there's a word for that. Subjective.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Even thieves respect the existence of property rights, because they want to get themselves some property. Thieves are just very hypocrital on top of that.

That's a highly deranged thing to say.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The ownership rights exist in our minds, in our brains, which are real and part of the world. They are no less real than software that directs city traffic or global stock markets. They are by no means powerless! Civilizations rise and fall directed by minds. The surface of Earth is changed by machines directed by human minds.

That which exists in the human mind is literally and explicitly subjective, and of innate variability - of necessity and by definition.

So there's that.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Principles of human dignity are subjective. They're the same as property rights or souls. These are things people arbitrarily decide, and if enough people agree, then the idea gains traction. Remember: actual rights in and of themselves do nothing; only people's beliefs in rights are actionable.

It's subjective.
Nope! It's human. Humans objectively exist and so their properties are objective too.

Shit, man, you're so close.

Things may be possessed of objective existence (an assumption I shall grant you).

Opinions are not. "Property" is an opinion. Whoops!

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You can not have your own opinion without the principle of human dignity (integrity). If you assert your opinion, you assert your integrity, even if you say that there is no principle of human dignity, you're just using it. It's a self-detonating statement. The principles are already here by default, only our language is too dumb to reflect them accurately. That's why we need philosophers.

No, I think you'll find the roadrunner tactic to be a cesspool of disingenuous inanity. Keep on plowing that presuppositional apologetics furrow, though; it's really doing wonders for your credibility.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 06:20 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I agree that things are a lot better if we all agree to play nice and work together. We get more done together than the sum of all of our individual efforts if we don't cooperate. I'm not disputing that. That being said, there is no universal property like God, souls, magnetic fields, or wargarble making this objectively "good". Sure, it enables me to eat Taco Bell and fuck around on the Internet. I love that shit. But it's still a bunch of humans agreeing to set aside their differences for a common goal. There's no universal truth behind it.

Or rather, if there is, I'd like you so demonstrate it.
There is, if you understand general systems theory, or at least something of automation and cybernetics, or if you study sociology or are really good at philosophy. When you get this education, these things will be self-evident to you.

Citation needed.

I'm pretty sure there are philosophers and sociologists who disagree with you.

Declaring flawed subjective interpretations to be "self-evident" is the last resort of the vacuous. I had hoped to give you more credit.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But lots of things aren't self-evident if you don't have the education. We can't even see the magnetic fields and electrons with bare eye.

And yet I can prove their existence to you through falsifiable, empirical means using household objects.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And you can't go back to the first principles if you aren't a philosopher. We are not all equally competent at some things. I can't teach you everything I know so that you agree with me. So we have to ask the practical questions.

Oh, you bet competence varies.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you really agree that we should play nice? Well, prove it. Do not attack your children. Do not beat them, do not threaten them, do not yell at them or blackmail them. Do not ignore them.
Instead, talk with them, be interested in them, be open and vulnerable, negotiate, make deals and keep your promises and demand they keep promises, let them do what they want if it hurts nobody, and if it does, show them how it's bad, without blaming and shaming, without ridicule. Respect them.
And most important thing of all, if your parents used violence and coercion, go to a therapist and re-visit your early childhood history to see if you're all right. Because if you're not, you will not be actually able to do any of that. You will only be able to lie about that to yourself and to your children and do harm in hypocrisy.

"Everyone who disagrees with me must be neurotic" is not a productive avenue of discourse.

But, hey, at least it's smugly unfalsifiable.


(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not nonfalsifiable. It's just that you can't think of empirical counter-evidence.

So... everything other people have said in this thread doesn't count?

I mean, good on you for so thoroughly ignoring it; that's a demonstration of some serious conviction if nothing else.

The simplest possible empirical counter-evidence is that people disagree with you. That's all that's needed to dump your "objective" idiocy straight to the septic tank of bad ideas. Anymore more is a bonus.
(hint: there was a lot more)

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And that is all right, because in rational method, we can make valid proposals about how the reality works and they are valid as long as they are internally consistent.

JESUS FUCK NO.

That's not how stuff works. Learn to logic. What the hell have you been studying this whole time if you think that's a valid statement?

Internal consistency does not address the validity of premises.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In rational method, proof is much easier and stronger than empirically. There is a point in which the rational method and empirical method meet and that point is information technology, computers. And that includes human brain.

Denigrating empiricism is solipsistic at best.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not subjective, it's human!

Oh. You mean subjective, then.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's as objective as language.

Oh. You mean "not at all", then.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And language is objective, or we wouldn't be having a conversation.

That's an incoherent statement.

If language were objective there would be no difference between connotation and denotation.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's as objective as money or the HTTP protocol.

Money is a social consensus; the exact opposite of objective.

Protocols and algorithms I'll give you, in that they objectively exist. So what?

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  More than that, it's rooted in the first principles, which exist by default from how the universe is set up. Things are themselves and not opposite of themselves, effects have causes that go back to the singularity of Big Bang.

No, sorry. Thanks for playing.

You can't just declare shit and call it a day. That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can choose not to obey the objective moral principles, but then there is no civilization. We can choose to obey them partially and hypocritally, but then there is the boom and bust of economies and empires with much suffering. Every time there is a rise in wealth, a nation goes to war, because that's the only way how politicians can make themselves necessary again.

What the fuck? Citation needed.

Things happen for reasons.
(hint: those are not the reasons)

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Get rid of that idea that whatever is behind the layer of bone that is human skull, doesn't exist or isn't effective.

Ooh, a straw man. I was wondering when we'd get to one of those.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You might as well say that a computer processor is not real, effective or objective, because it is hidden deep behind a computer casing. Nope, processors are enormously powerful things and humans have the most powerful one of all. So powerful, that they have a terrible choice of not using it.

Presuppositionalism: not just for theists anymore!

That's the exact opposite of compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And that is all right, because in rational method, we can make valid proposals about how the reality works and they are valid as long as they are internally consistent.

JESUS FUCK NO.

That's not how stuff works. Learn to logic. What the hell have you been studying this whole time if you think that's a valid statement?

Internal consistency does not address the validity of premises.

I'm going to emphasize this because Luminon has made this dangerously stupid claim several times now.

Internal consistency does not indicate validity.

Let us consider a syllogism:
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.

An internally consistent logical structure. But its truth depends on what "A" and "B" signify.

For example:
All stars are hot.
The sun is a star.
Therefore it is hot.

Internally consistent? Yes. True? Probably. "Hot" is not an objective term, but it is certainly true that stars possess far more thermal energy than the interstellar matter around them. They are relatively hot, which is sufficient for the premise to stand.

Another example:
All stars are dragons.
The sun is a star.
Therefore it is a dragon.

This little "proposal about how reality works" of mine possesses equally rock-solid internal consistency. It also happens to be not true.

Most people learn the difference pretty damn early in their philosophical education.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 10:18 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Here's the thing.

You can't both own something. So that right there is stunningly inconsistent.
Yay! You get it! Clap So you'll better respect the property rights of the first owner, because you respect consistency so much.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember, reality has zero-sum elements. That's why disagreements arise.
That's true about the universe, but false about everything else. Especially it's false about the society and economy. These are all open systems! Please don't try any law of thermodynamics creationist bullshit on me.
Disagreements may arise, but peaceful resolution is productive, it integrates more wealth from the surroudings into the economy, and violent "solutions" are destructive.
Unless you are God, you will only deal with open systems.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That cannot possibly be true. What is a "right"? Recognition through interaction. If there is no agreement, there are no rights. To say otherwise, as you do, is to reify abstractions through pure D-grade magical wishful thinking.

Unless that's one of those special "objective" matters, where despite its objectivity many people ignore or are unaware of it, and indeed hold contradictory ideas, in defiance of the phantasmal objectivity you purport.

I think there's a word for that. Subjective.
Does that mean I can take all your stuff?

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Even thieves respect the existence of property rights, because they want to get themselves some property. Thieves are just very hypocrital on top of that.

That's a highly deranged thing to say.
Talking about thieves is deranged, but stealing isn't? That's a highly deranged thing to say.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That which exists in the human mind is literally and explicitly subjective, and of innate variability - of necessity and by definition.

So there's that.
Sorry, I don't understand what you said there, it's in your mind explicitly subjective.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Shit, man, you're so close.

Things may be possessed of objective existence (an assumption I shall grant you).

Opinions are not. "Property" is an opinion. Whoops!
Opinions are a neurological, psychological and social reality. Morality is a non-violent management of this reality, according to objective first principles.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, I think you'll find the roadrunner tactic to be a cesspool of disingenuous inanity. Keep on plowing that presuppositional apologetics furrow, though; it's really doing wonders for your credibility.
This is not roadrunner tactic, this is a method of testing validity of language Facepalm Philosophers are real, serious people, you know?
If I say "this statement is false", then you check the validity of it and see that it is self-detonating. Similarly, to say that "language is not objective" is self-detonating, or that "people can not know the truth about reality", because how do you know that? The history of philosophy is full of such bullshit self-detonating statements, you made one above.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.

I'm pretty sure there are philosophers and sociologists who disagree with you.

Declaring flawed subjective interpretations to be "self-evident" is the last resort of the vacuous. I had hoped to give you more credit.
Well, I don't think you have any relevant methods of knowing truth outside of your scientifc field, so you just use the cultural rules of thumb. Big claims bad. Small claims good. Vague claims good. Definite claims bad. Familiar claims good. Unfamiliar claims bad.
So here's some scientist who I think has some merit.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/1...ciousness/

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So... everything other people have said in this thread doesn't count?

I mean, good on you for so thoroughly ignoring it; that's a demonstration of some serious conviction if nothing else.

The simplest possible empirical counter-evidence is that people disagree with you. That's all that's needed to dump your "objective" idiocy straight to the septic tank of bad ideas. Anymore more is a bonus.
(hint: there was a lot more)
Let's say it that way, what people have said in this thread is true in proportion to which they have studied and practiced philosophy.
Also, some people had good questions and some understood something of what I said.
Maybe, maybe some of them will be interested in this amazing possibility of knowing things for sure and making sense of the social reality without using violence.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  JESUS FUCK NO.

That's not how stuff works. Learn to logic. What the hell have you been studying this whole time if you think that's a valid statement?

Internal consistency does not address the validity of premises.
Right. My mistake. I should have said that we check internal consistency first of all. Then we check external consistency. But in rational method, that is already handled. If you propose an internally consistent equation, you don't have to check if it's consistent with the rest of mathematics. And if you propose an internally consistent human social order, you don't have to check if it's consistent with all the alien civilizations in galaxy. Not unless they are empirically knocking on our door.
In philosophy it's even better, because if we reason from the first principles, then we already start from the position of external consistency with whole reality. We just reason far enough to draw conclusions useful in social world. Our only limitation is the language and there are some specialized languages for that.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Denigrating empiricism is solipsistic at best.
I do not denigrate empiricism, I only say that in philosophy rationalism is primary and empiricism secondary, as a failsafe. I don't say that about empiricism in all circumstances. In any case, proofs within rationalism are always stronger than in empiricism.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh. You mean subjective, then.

(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's as objective as language.

Oh. You mean "not at all", then.
Sorry, I can't understand your subjective language. I shouldn't even write that, you won't be even able to understand that.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And language is objective, or we wouldn't be having a conversation.

That's an incoherent statement.

If language were objective there would be no difference between connotation and denotation.
Facepalm If you want to make trouble... Let's say that language has a capacity for objectivity, which may or may not be fulfilled, so we better study philosophy to make sure that our language stays objective, right?

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Money is a social consensus; the exact opposite of objective.

Protocols and algorithms I'll give you, in that they objectively exist. So what?
Correction: Currency is a social consensus, not money. Money is an objective medium of information transmission, the same way that electrons in wires are objective. That's why there are numbers on money.
Every single banknote or piece of money has a location. Its location is the result of a very long chain of causes and effects and this is why the location of money carries real, objective information about the world, information about who is productive and who is not.
The only way to make this information subjective is to tax the money and let a government re-distribute them. That breaks the causal chain and destroys the information.

I think this is a pretty good argument for objectivity of money and information within a system and you should pay attention to it.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  More than that, it's rooted in the first principles, which exist by default from how the universe is set up. Things are themselves and not opposite of themselves, effects have causes that go back to the singularity of Big Bang.

No, sorry. Thanks for playing.

You can't just declare shit and call it a day. That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.
You mean that's how it works in science and empirical method. Sorry to disappoint you, but scientific method is not reality. Scientific method is an utter negation of reality through controlled environment and isolation of just one phenomenon out of many.

OTOH, philosophy and its closer offshoots, logic and mathematics work differently, they refer to general properties of reality as a whole. We can just declare shit, because we can make a declaration, that means that reality allows us to make a declaration and that is an undeniable fact. It may seem trivial to you, but we can do some cool stuff with that. Stuff like non-violent civilizations.
We declare a consistent shit and then within that consistency we get to an inevitable result. Human mind and computers work in the same way. Computers don't have prescribed what kind of software you can put into them (unless they're Apple), only that this software must have Boolean binary logic, in principle. As a programmer, you stick with principles and you can program anything you want and it will fuckin' work.
I declare my variables to allocate memory, write the program and call it a day. Energy budget, hardware and periphery is my only limitation.

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 07:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can choose not to obey the objective moral principles, but then there is no civilization. We can choose to obey them partially and hypocritally, but then there is the boom and bust of economies and empires with much suffering. Every time there is a rise in wealth, a nation goes to war, because that's the only way how politicians can make themselves necessary again.

What the fuck? Citation needed.

Things happen for reasons.
(hint: those are not the reasons)
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallr...offall.htm
http://www.firstbiz.com/economy/debt-cei...47558.html

(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Presuppositionalism: not just for theists anymore!

That's the exact opposite of compelling.
If you ever wrote a mathematical equation, you presupposed lots of things in that act. You just made numbers and symbols out of nowhere, presupposing that they make sense. You assumed that reality allows people to write mathematics. But apparently, it does. I know physics look down on mathematics until their computations are experimentally confirmed. But they get confirmed a lot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Here's the thing.

You can't both own something. So that right there is stunningly inconsistent.
Yay! You get it! Clap So you'll better respect the property rights of the first owner, because you respect consistency so much.

You must try really hard not to understand such simple concepts.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember, reality has zero-sum elements. That's why disagreements arise.
That's true about the universe, but false about everything else.

That's an insane statement.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Especially it's false about the society and economy. These are all open systems! Please don't try any law of thermodynamics creationist bullshit on me.

Last I checked, those were part of the universe, and thus your own premise is what we might call inconsistent.

You manifestly understand nothing about physics, and that includes thermodynamics.

The Earth is finite in extent. Its resources are finite. Human populations are finite; their lifespans are finite. Tough shit; deal with it. Reality contains zero-sum elements.

Denying reality is not a productive avenue.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Disagreements may arise, but peaceful resolution is productive, it integrates more wealth from the surroudings into the economy, and violent "solutions" are destructive.
Unless you are God, you will only deal with open systems.

You don't understand what "open system" designates.

Nor is deranged utopian wishful thinking a particularly effective means of problem solving.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That cannot possibly be true. What is a "right"? Recognition through interaction. If there is no agreement, there are no rights. To say otherwise, as you do, is to reify abstractions through pure D-grade magical wishful thinking.

Unless that's one of those special "objective" matters, where despite its objectivity many people ignore or are unaware of it, and indeed hold contradictory ideas, in defiance of the phantasmal objectivity you purport.

I think there's a word for that. Subjective.
Does that mean I can take all your stuff?

I - subjectively - don't particularly wish you to.

Are you labouring under the unfortunate delusion that such hackneyed and shallow "rhetorical" questions are going to accomplish anything?

Are you somehow completely unaware of the existence of people who don't agree with you? Why don't they? If there is an objective morality, they are either agreeing or disagreeing with it. If they actively reject it, why? In what sense can that possibly be objective?

(the answer is the same answer the theists get - in no sense)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's a highly deranged thing to say.
Talking about thieves is deranged, but stealing isn't? That's a highly deranged thing to say.

No, it's the part where you invented and ascribed a single, specific, and highly bizarre mindset to all theives everywhere that was special.

(protip: no, you don't have that kind of knowledge)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That which exists in the human mind is literally and explicitly subjective, and of innate variability - of necessity and by definition.

So there's that.
Sorry, I don't understand what you said there, it's in your mind explicitly subjective.

Are you pretending to be stupid for rhetorical effect, or are you actually that thick?

Communication does not entail objectivity. I cannot even begin to guess where you came up with such an insane construct.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Shit, man, you're so close.

Things may be possessed of objective existence (an assumption I shall grant you).

Opinions are not. "Property" is an opinion. Whoops!
Opinions are a neurological, psychological and social reality.

Um, yes. They exist. They are not objective. Are you going somewhere with this?

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Morality is a non-violent management of this reality, according to objective first principles.

You can't just restate things in order to make them true.

Just because I have the opinion that something is my property, that doesn't make it so. Binding social agreement makes it so. We needn't even assume malice for this to be violated; merely ignorance.

Let us say I own a plot of property in the wilderness, adjacent to public parkland. I forbid access to it (as is my right with my own property, according to you). A hiker passes the boundary without noticing it. He camps on my land. Turns out my objective opinions, property, and rights mean jack shit in that situation. How "objective" indeed.

That sort of nonsense doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, I think you'll find the roadrunner tactic to be a cesspool of disingenuous inanity. Keep on plowing that presuppositional apologetics furrow, though; it's really doing wonders for your credibility.
This is not roadrunner tactic, this is a method of testing validity of language Facepalm Philosophers are real, serious people, you know?

A: "There are no absolute statements".
B: "AHHAHA THAT R ABSOLTE STATMENT TROLOLOLOL U LOSE".

That's not worth anybody's time.
(including yours; try harder)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I say "this statement is false", then you check the validity of it and see that it is self-detonating.

Logic is a construct within which certain rules apply. It is a trivial exercise to violate those rules.

That's a meaningless diversion. Are you going somewhere with this?

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Similarly, to say that "language is not objective" is self-detonating...

Here's the thing: no it isn't.

You can't just assert that based on feels you pulled from your ass.
(well - you can't do so and expect to be taken seriously - if that's not a concern for you, by all means, carry on)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... or that "people can not know the truth about reality", because how do you know that? The history of philosophy is full of such bullshit self-detonating statements, you made one above.

How many implicitly present qualifiers must one make explicit in order to satisfy your toddler-esque epistemology?

"People being limited beings can not [/i]in my experience[/i] know the truth insofar as there might even be any such singular thing about reality beyond those aforementioned limits, even when cognizant of them."

Protip: language is a construct. It really shouldn't come as a surprise to you, since you speak multiple languages, but they are not the same. There are things I can say precisely in English which are literally impossible to convey in Chinese or Quechua (and the contrary).

You should probably read a book.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.

I'm pretty sure there are philosophers and sociologists who disagree with you.

Declaring flawed subjective interpretations to be "self-evident" is the last resort of the vacuous. I had hoped to give you more credit.
Well, I don't think you have any relevant methods of knowing truth outside of your scientifc field, so you just use the cultural rules of thumb. Big claims bad. Small claims good. Vague claims good. Definite claims bad. Familiar claims good. Unfamiliar claims bad.

What the shit? That has nothing to do with what I stated. My implied question was that if your nonsense were self-evident, why don't other people actually find it self-evident?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You might recognise this as one of the foundational principles of modern inquiry. If you don't have the substantiation for your cavalcade of outlandish pontification, tough shit; deal with it.
(protip: you don't)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So here's your argument from authority.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/1...ciousness/

That's idiotic twaddle.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So... everything other people have said in this thread doesn't count?

I mean, good on you for so thoroughly ignoring it; that's a demonstration of some serious conviction if nothing else.

The simplest possible empirical counter-evidence is that people disagree with you. That's all that's needed to dump your "objective" idiocy straight to the septic tank of bad ideas. Anymore more is a bonus.
(hint: there was a lot more)
Let's say it that way, what people have said in this thread is true in proportion to which they have studied and practiced philosophy.

Ah, good, more self-satisfied unfalsifiable intellectual masturbation.

"Everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I am special and privileged".

That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, some people had good questions and some understood something of what I said.
Maybe, maybe some of them will be interested in this amazing possibility of knowing things for sure and making sense of the social reality without using violence.

This may come as somewhat of a shock to you, but drinking your kool-aid is not a necessary precondition for desiring social change, nor even desiring change to sometimes similar ends.

Shucks. Who knew?

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  JESUS FUCK NO.

That's not how stuff works. Learn to logic. What the hell have you been studying this whole time if you think that's a valid statement?

Internal consistency does not address the validity of premises.
Right. My mistake. I should have said that we check internal consistency first of all. Then we check external consistency. But in rational method, that is already handled.

Uh, no. You can't just pretend your assumptions are true by virtue of your having made them.

That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you propose an internally consistent equation, you don't have to check if it's consistent with the rest of mathematics.

Sure, but it won't possess any meaning otherwise.

Example:
A + B = C. This is an algebraic equation. Is it internally consistent? Yes. Is it true? Who the fuck knows? That's an impossible question to answer.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And if you propose an internally consistent human social order, you don't have to check if it's consistent with all the alien civilizations in galaxy. Not unless they are empirically knocking on our door.
Philosophy is rational discipline that accepts corrections from empiricism.

Uh, no. You can all the internal consistency you like, but you must justify your premises. Otherwise you're just jacking off.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Denigrating empiricism is solipsistic at best.
I do not denigrate empiricism, I only say that in philosophy rationalism is primary and empiricism secondary, as a failsafe. I don't say that about empiricism in all circumstances. In any case, proofs within rationalism are always stronger than in empiricism.

That's because to be emprical is to be falsifiable. Whereas what you're calling "rational" (hint: it isn't) need be bound by no such concern, and indeed, we see that unfalsifiability is the order of the day.

So yes; an unfalsifiable "proof" (hint: something can't be a real proof unless it's falsifiable) is in some sense "stronger", precisely because it can't be disproven.

That's what makes it meaningless.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh. You mean subjective, then.

Oh. You mean "not at all", then.
Sorry, I can't understand your subjective language. I shouldn't even write that, you won't be even able to understand that.

Oh, look, that demented cesspit again.

Communication neither requires nor entails objectivity. I remain unsure of just which vacuous orifice you drew such a conclusion from.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's an incoherent statement.

If language were objective there would be no difference between connotation and denotation.
Facepalm If you want to make trouble... Let's say that language has a capacity for objectivity, which may or may not be fulfilled, so we better study philosophy to make sure that our language stays objective, right?

That's certainly better. I still don't agree, but it's an improvement.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Money is a social consensus; the exact opposite of objective.

Protocols and algorithms I'll give you, in that they objectively exist. So what?
Correction: Currency is a social consensus, not money. Money is an objective medium of information transmission, the same way that electrons in wires are objective. That's why there are numbers on money.

Wow.

No.

Instantiating aspects of a social consensus do not make it objective.

I have a Canadian five dollar bill in my pocket - we may assume for now that this is objectively true. Its value is not objective in any possible sense. It is, in and of itself, a worthless scrap of plastic. It represents legal tender.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Every single banknote or piece of money has a location. Its location is the result of a very long chain of causes and effects and this is why the location of money carries real, objective information about the world, information about who is productive and who is not.

No, it carries no such thing. I invite you to inspect the five dollar bill of mine. Its serial number will tell you when and where it was made. Nowhere is there stored any information about "who is productive and who is not" (what does that even mean?).

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The only way to make this information subjective is to tax the money and let a government re-distribute them. That breaks the causal chain and destroys the information.

That makes literally no sense. At all.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think this is a pretty good objective argument for objectivity of money and information within a system and you should pay attention to it.

Nope. Fail.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, sorry. Thanks for playing.

You can't just declare shit and call it a day. That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.
You mean that's how it works in science and empirical method. Sorry to disappoint you, but scientific method is not reality. Scientific method is an utter negation of reality through controlled environment and isolation of just one phenomenon out of many.

I dread to guess where you're going with this.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  OTOH, philosophy and its closer offshoots, logic and mathematics work differently, they refer to general properties of reality as a whole.

That is not how logic and mathematics work, and it is certainly not how good philosophy works.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We can just declare shit, because we can make a declaration, that means that reality allows us to make a declaration and that is an undeniable fact.

If you create a game you may freely define whatever rules you like within the context of that game.

If you create a system of logical rules or mathematical axioms, you may freely define whatever rules you like within the context of that system.

The point at which anyone else might care beyond entertainment value is the point at which you begin exploring external reality with respect to those systems.
(protip: we call that science)

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It may seem trivial to you, but we can do some cool stuff with that. Stuff like non-violent civilizations.
We declare a consistent shit and then within that consistency we get to an inevitable result.

Are you for real?

Premises are not true by fiat.

The real world does not operate on the basis of your assertions.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Human mind and computers work in the same way.

No, they don't. At all.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Computers don't have prescribed what kind of software you can put into them (unless they're Apple), only that this software must have Boolean binary logic, in principle.

A computer is a device which performs calculations, no more. There have been many purpose-built computers throughout history. General computation needn't rely on binary logic, either; it is entirely possible to construct general-purpose analog and quantum computers which operate on entirely different "first principles".
(so much for that analogy)

The large fraction of modern digital computers are based on binary logic. So what?

Please stop talking about things you don't really know anything about.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As a programmer, you stick with principles and you can program anything you want and it will fuckin' work.

Okay. Calculate the last digit of pi.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I declare my variables to allocate memory, write the program and call it a day. Energy budget, hardware and periphery is my only limitation.

See above.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the fuck? Citation needed.

Things happen for reasons.
(hint: those are not the reasons)
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/fallr...offall.htm
http://www.firstbiz.com/economy/debt-cei...47558.html

Yeah, I'm pretty the Roman situation had just a slight few external factors.

Notwithstanding that those "citations" have literally nothing to do with your deranged claim, which was that "wealth causes wars". Read a book.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 08:59 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Presuppositionalism: not just for theists anymore!

That's the exact opposite of compelling.
If you ever wrote a mathematical equation, you presupposed lots of things in that act. You just made numbers and symbols out of nowhere, presupposing that they make sense.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world.
(protip: that's not how it works)

Could you try any harder to imitate the worst breed of theist troll? "No u have faith too cuz u believe science trolololol"?

That doesn't work for theists, and it won't work for you.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You assumed that reality allows people to write mathematics. But apparently, it does.

"Apparently"? You mean, "based on prior experience"? You know, the exact opposite of presupposition?

Gotcha.

(19-06-2014 10:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I know physics look down on mathematics until their computations are experimentally confirmed. But they get confirmed a lot.

What the actual fuck?

No. What are you smoking that that's how you understand physics and maths?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Last I checked, those were part of the universe, and thus your own premise is what we might call inconsistent.

You manifestly understand nothing about physics, and that includes thermodynamics.

The Earth is finite in extent. Its resources are finite. Human populations are finite; their lifespans are finite. Tough shit; deal with it. Reality contains zero-sum elements.

Denying reality is not a productive avenue.
Things are finite? So fuckin' what? That means nothing, as long as things are interconnected, with access to other sources of energy. Such as the sun.
Earth is warmed by sunlight and magnetically induced by solar magnetic field. Earth is literally powered by the sun. And peppered by meteorites. And human society is smaller than Earth's contents. So whatever we do on Earth is NOT a zero-sum game. If you can't recognize that, I'm worried.

It was already pointless to talk about the whole reality as a zero-sum game. It's as if whole reality wasn't enough for your needs. I think what really was zero-sum game was your early childhood upbringing, that's where you formed your opinions about the world. I'm sorry if you grew up in lack and poverty of material, or emotional kind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 11:44 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-06-2014 11:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Last I checked, those were part of the universe, and thus your own premise is what we might call inconsistent.

You manifestly understand nothing about physics, and that includes thermodynamics.

The Earth is finite in extent. Its resources are finite. Human populations are finite; their lifespans are finite. Tough shit; deal with it. Reality contains zero-sum elements.

Denying reality is not a productive avenue.
Things are finite? So fuckin' what? That means nothing, as long as things are interconnected, with access to other sources of energy. Such as the sun.
Earth is warmed by sunlight and magnetically induced by solar magnetic field. Earth is literally powered by the sun. And peppered by meteorites. And human society is smaller than Earth's contents. So whatever we do on Earth is NOT a zero-sum game. If you can't recognize that, I'm worried.

It was already pointless to talk about the whole reality as a zero-sum game. It's as if whole reality wasn't enough for your needs. I think what really was zero-sum game was your early childhood upbringing, that's where you formed your opinions about the world. I'm sorry if you grew up in lack and poverty of material, or emotional kind.

You really don't get this do you? It is a simple statement and easily verified. There is a finite amount of any resource on the planet including land. This is not a controversial statement and the fact that it destroys your entire philosophy (to give your psychotic ramblings more grandeur than they deserve) shows how worthless your stance is in interacting with the real world.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
19-06-2014, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2014 12:02 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:44 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You really don't get this do you? It is a simple statement and easily verified. There is a finite amount of any resource on the planet including land. This is not a controversial statement and the fact that it destroys your entire philosophy (to give your psychotic ramblings more grandeur than they deserve) shows how worthless your stance is in interacting with the real world.
This is a true statement, but I don't see what conclusions about anything can be possibly drawn from that.
All the beaches in the world have finite amount of grains of sand. Does that stop us from going to the beach? No.
Does that mean beaches are or should be rationed a square foot per citizen by a central power-wielding agency? No.
Your life is finite, there is no afterlife. Does that mean you have no point in living? No.

So what are you saying?
X is finite, therefore... ????

It's besides the topic, but you might be interested in economy, too. Economy is a science of allocation of finite resources in society. I recommend the Austrian school of economy, by Ludwing von Mises, also in USA Murray Rothbard. Frederic Bastiat wrote some good stuff about whether it's profitable to break windows (also: go to war) to encourage economy. I always wondered about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Things are finite? So fuckin' what? That means nothing, as long as things are interconnected, with access to other sources of energy. Such as the sun.

Reality is more complicated than that. Denying reality is not productive.

But I guess that's your prerogative.

(19-06-2014 11:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Earth is warmed by sunlight and magnetically induced by solar magnetic field. Earth is literally powered by the sun. And peppered by meteorites. And human society is smaller than Earth's contents. So whatever we do on Earth is NOT a zero-sum game. If you can't recognize that, I'm worried.

Most resources are non-renewable at human scales.

Deal with it.

(19-06-2014 11:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It was already pointless to talk about the whole reality as a zero-sum game.

I never did - so hello there, straw man! Pleased to make your acquaintance!

(19-06-2014 11:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's as if whole reality wasn't enough for your needs. I think what really was zero-sum game was your early childhood upbringing, that's where you formed your opinions about the world. I'm sorry if you grew up in lack and poverty of material, or emotional kind.

What the actual fuck?

Blink

Facepalm

Weeping

I've said a couple times before that I ought to stop bothering attempting to engage with you (notably, the times you've thoroughly, petulantly, maliciously, and ignorantly insulted and denigrated vast swathes of society). This is an excellent illustration of where that impulse arises.

Not only do you not understand the point I was making (witness your straw man!) but your response to that misunderstanding is even more pathetic.

It's masturbation. You have no interesting in engaging with anyone else. You just want to spew out your hot fluids to make yourself feel good.

You have far less depth than I had hoped if that's what you manage to push out. "I am exclusively and objectively correct because I feel like I am, and that proves it"; how nice for you. Funny how many billions of other people feel the same. You can't all be right. Oh, but I forgot: you call yourself objective. Well; clearly that settles that.

Now, instead of even attempting to understand and address the flaws and shortcomings amply pointed out to you in your bloviating screed, you've decided that the problem lies with me. Perhaps in your insane worldview this even makes sense. It does not.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-06-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All the beaches in the world have finite amount of grains of sand. Does that stop us from going to the beach? No.
Does that mean beaches are or should be rationed a square foot per citizen by a central power-wielding agency? No.

It denies you access if the holders of your vaunted "objective" property rights (nevermind for now the can of worms that is how they acquired those rights) restrict entry to that waterfront land. So there's that.

Or is massive self-perpetuating systematic inequality okay after all, so long as it's playing by your deranged rules?
(remember how you ignored the long excerpts EK posted along those lines?)

But hey, I guess it looks slightly better when presented as a false choice alongside a ludicrous cartoon straw man.

Give me a break.

(19-06-2014 11:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Your life is finite, there is no afterlife. Does that mean you have no point in living? No.

So what are you saying?
X is finite, therefore... ????

Connect the dots, dude. It's really not complicated.

(19-06-2014 11:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's besides the topic, but you might be interested in economy, too. Economy is a science of allocation of finite resources in society.

Yes; that's where your "everything will be magically perfect forever if everyone magically agrees with me" theory breaks down.

(19-06-2014 11:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I recommend the Austrian school of economy, by Ludwing von Mises, also in USA Murray Rothbard.

I can't tell whether you're condescending to pretend you think Rev hasn't heard of them, or whether you really do think so.
(but protip: "Austrian school" is a beloved recourse of cranks)

(19-06-2014 11:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Frederic Bastiat wrote some good stuff about whether it's profitable to break windows (also: go to war) to encourage economy. I always wondered about that.

Breaking windows generates more business for windowmakers. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2014, 12:14 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(19-06-2014 11:44 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You really don't get this do you? It is a simple statement and easily verified. There is a finite amount of any resource on the planet including land.


That!

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: