SoAMadDeathWish

I have to agree with Ba'al here. Constitutions and laws change whenever the people with the authority to change them find it expedient to do so. Even if old legal concepts are incorporated into new constitutions, a revolution or a coup can wipe out centuries of legal developments. History is written in iron and blood, and words on paper are just words on paper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8afaQFLSTH4

Selmy: "Those were the king's words."

Cersei: "We have a new king now."

Binswanger would flood America with socialists, altruists, religiosos, and third-world barbarians. He favors virtually limitless trespass and invasion by merciless and powerful enemies -- by hordes of freedom-haters, America-haters, and ruthless destroyers of civilization. Nice!

I guess I'm a hard core realist, there aren't any government policies I like..

You and me both.

HB seems to be working off an imagined "should be" instead of a hard-nosed understanding of what is going on--right now. Philosophers who don't get a true liberal arts education--good college (where?) is only a start--end up spouting worthless or dangerous policy recommendations. For instance, I was against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on my understanding of the general extant situation, not just my philosophy, though part of that philosophy was don't do dangerous, expensive, unsustainable, worthless stupid. Now? I might support sending in a division or two, not to wipe out those crazy jihadists, but just to stop them and block them and trap them and keep the government forces from collapsing. Etc. The country should be broken up into three pieces, too.

--Brant

the question of the American geo-political footprint in the world is another question--I only know it's much, much too big and should be and can be greatly reduced out of present-day context--then the powers that be or would be powers that be can go from there after knowing, after understanding, the effects of what had been done to that time

It seems that everyone is a realist when it comes to policies they don't like, and an idealist when it comes to polices they do like.

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

There's a problem, robot, you assume these are "weaknesses," but how could you possibly know or that it's in turn not a weakness of yours?

Because people often succeed despite their shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt and never because of them.

One thing yet to be explained is what you are doing here? What's your intent? What's your business? It can't be to learn anything. It can't be to simply repeat yourself. All you are teaching is what it's like to talk to a sort of well-programmed computer that spits out canned responses from its data bank. I got tired of Greg for the same reason and put him on my "ignore" list and I'm pretty sure you'll join him later on today. Greg does have the virtue of many valuable how to live insights, but after hundreds of posts, it's enough for me.

--Brant

My intent is to learn. And I've learned quite a lot.

You're not gonna ignore me though. Let's face it, we both know that I am far too interesting to stay on anyone's ignore list for very long.

You are affirming the consequent.

You're the one here who believes that choice is an illusion and that your own behavior is nothing more than determinant chemical reactions. You freely chose to own that view. I sure didn't.

Would you like to amend the description of the view you have already expressed?

People here are kind of piling on and that is only causing you to double down on your hand. I don't mind opposing views because I know that short of a genuine life threatening experience, you'll take the view you chose and all of its just and deserved consequences with you to your grave, just as I will. So there is no such thing as "convincing" others to change their view... ~especially~ in this virtual world of interactive public television... because only the objective reality of getting exactly what you deserve for your choices in life has the power to do that.

An ad hominem once again.

It's ok... you can hide behind that to save face since you can't even account for your own chosen view. After all, you already have your hands full trying to deal with the others.

Greg

Your modus operandi is nothing more than argument from intimidation, something Ayn Rand wrote about here:

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [it] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own.

-The Virtue of Selfishness

I don't know what kind of people you're used to dealing with that would lead you to think that these underhanded tactics would work on me. The lack of any rational substance in your "you have your opinion and I have mine" arguments is painfully obvious (and kind of sad, really), and if you think that I am fooled, you've only succeeded in fooling yourself. How you can honestly call yourself an objectivist with your de facto rejection of reason in favor of epistemological relativism is beyond me.

PS: I could care less about saving face. One thing my alexithymia blesses me with is complete freedom from human weaknesses like shame, guilt, fear, and self-doubt. I will say whatever I please, and I will do so with certainty you can only dream about.

People here are kind of piling on

Pffft. Feathers on an anvil, and the hammer is coming down fast.

No, I said that one of the assumptions we make in the argument is that we know every physical process that can be known, not that every process that is known is physical, which is an important distinction unless you believe that free will is a physical process that both can and cannot be known.

I don't know what "the argument" is (it sounds oddly like "the Messiah" in this context ) and where you get the idea that "we know every physical process that can be known." That not only sounds like an unwarranted conceit, it is.

None of the things you've said here address the logic of my arguments. You're just trying to diminish an argument you can't rationally disagree with by misconstruing my words and dragging them through the mud.

But let's make it simple without all the gobbledygook.

Are you saying that choice is not a physical process?

Or it is a physical process?

Michael

It is.

Oh, come on. You must have been a love child!

What would make you think that?

--Brant

you are not your brain, your brain is only part of you, you use your brain, your brain doesn't use you--well, I'm not talking about the functions of the autonomic nervous system

I've shot my wad on this

What do you mean by "you"? Unless you believe in the existence of a soul, I don't see how you can avoid being nothing more than your brain.

Well, Naomi, consider yourself as an acting agent instead of a knowing agent only. Imagine yourself as an artist. You existing as you. I submit this is the proper reference point for these discussions, not what made you you even the you that made you you. That way you are free; not enslaved by any knowledge of your antecedent suppositions. There you are, artist-painter, in your north-light studio and there is your blank canvas. Create something. Paint it. Never mind skill level. Are you just going to blank-faced stand there doing nothing until the creative Viagra kicks in? Are you going to tell the blank canvas you can't even scrawl across it because you're too busy thinking about everything that got you there--for nothing? Are you going to just tell me you're not an artist so WTF am I on about? You don't have to be an artist. You can still create something on that canvas and that will be you, not your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

--Brant

Until my brain decides to do otherwise, then yes.

your Mom and Dad making love on a Saturday night all those Saturday nights ago.

*shudders*

Don't put those images in my head.

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

Never said that, nor is it implied by anything I said. It's a strawman.

Bullshit. You just said it.

... we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

But I'm tired of playing this game.

It does not lead to understanding, new knowledge or wisdom.

Just mind games.

I prefer to illude myself with other pursuits (i.e, choose something different to do that I can't help but choose ).

Michael

No, I said that one of the assumptions we make in the argument is that we know every physical process that can be known, not that every process that is known is physical, which is an important distinction unless you believe that free will is a physical process that both can and cannot be known.

One of the premises of my argument is not that we know everything we do know but that we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

This could not be a better example of rationalism.

If it ain't already in the human head within a category called physical, it does not exist (or is "supernatural" meaning imaginary).

And what's in the head is an illusion, anyway.

That's a really fucked up life-view prancing about as if it were true knowledge.

Another term for this is deducing reality from principles and logic, rather than observing reality, then arriving at principles and logic to measure it and understand it. When science-minded people decide to explain to philosophers what real philosophy is, they generally screw it up like this.

What's worse, when you go down to their foundation and principles of existence, all you find is storytelling, not science. They make myths out of math and deductions, then preach their own brand of either-or nonsense.

If true science is the value, this is fraud.

Michael

Never said that, nor is it implied by anything I said. It's a strawman.

1. The narcoculture believes that choice is an illusion, and that all behavior is merely physical chemical reactions.

2. You believe that choice is an illusion. and that all behavior is physical chemical reactions.

It's hardly a personal affront to be identified as belonging to the dominant force in society today. On the contrary, you should be proud. These are your people.

You are affirming the consequent. If a communist believes that the sky is blue, and you also believe that the sky is blue, then are you a communist?

Nothing you've said here can even remotely be considered a rational thought.

I agree that you freely chose to believe that thought. For you there is absolutely no reason that you would ever regard moral accountability for your own choices in life as a rational thought.

Greg

An ad hominem once again.

It's called "logic" Greg. It's a beautiful thing. You should try it sometime.

So either you believe that a person's free will stems from a supernatural source, or you see some other way in which free will is a) based entirely in deterministic natural causes but b) is not itself deterministic.

This is a false dichotomy and I quote you, "Assertions are not arguments."

It's not a mere assertion. There's a whole chain of reasoning above that quote that you're ignoring. It isn't a false dichotomy either. If it is, then what is the third alternative?

Your premise is that man's state of evolution is sufficient to know all that is worth knowing in order to make a dichotomy like that. Meaning if man does not have the capacity to know it yet, it does not exist.

You assert this dichotomy is all there is. That is not an argument.

Michael

One of the premises of my argument is not that we know everything we do know but that we know everything that can be known about the physical processes underlying a person's choice. Any further factors, are, by definition, either a physical process that cannot be known (an absurdity) or they are supernatural causes.

Not quite. Regardless, if illusion is needed for the act of creation the creation is not an illusion. Regardless again, it would seem I'm a better compatibilist than you are for I'm describing an actual person--me--and you are stuck on the merry-go-round of deterministic intellectualizations and keep pushing free will off the ride. Go get on the ferris wheel for your life's sake!

--Brant

but Jesus H. Christ--don't go teach that stuff!

I don't understand this part at all. What are you trying to say, exactly?

Can you explain how a person can morally choose when, according to you, choice is only an illusion?

And can you explain how people can be conscious of their choice when, according to you, consciousness is only physical chemical reactions in the brain?

Only "choice" in the sense of "having chosen one could always have chosen otherwise" is an illusion.

Then there is no choice and there is no moral accountability.

You're quoting me out of context, and your argument is based on a non-sequitur.

As for the second question, it is nonsensical because it presupposes the possibility of choice in the first sense.

Of course it's nonsense in your view that you have no free will to choose, and so there is no personal moral accountability for your own behavior.

This is a strawman.

You first have to demonstrate that that kind of free will is possible, but this will be difficult for you since that kind of free will contradicts the known laws of physics.

Your statement reveals the root of the difference between our two views.

In my view, people are uniquely moral beings who constantly make moral choices, and so are morally accountable for their own personal behavior... while in your view they are not. Your view of choice being only an illusion is the current popular collective consensus of the secular libertine narcoculture that holds behavior is simply an amoral physical chemical process.

So you are deterministic about the act of choosing itself... while I am deterministic only about the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our choices.

Greg

A strawman argument again, along with an ad hominem thrown into the mix.

Nothing you've said here can even remotely be considered a rational thought.

The reason I cannot agree with you is the constant denial of the act of creation through use of consciousness. Use of consciousness makes the nuerons bang away, not just all those other things. It's a merry go round in which all the deterministic forces are riding their horses but you too are there riding and deciding what you are going to do when the ride stops and you go get on the ferris wheel.

--Brant

But there is no sense in which "you" exist as entity distinct from the physical causes that constitute "you". Do you see? This conception of "you" is the illusion. "You" are not a disembodied entity floating above nature and "deciding" whether or not to go along with the physical processes that make up your brain. This belief is like the homunculus argument which simply begs the question and leads to an infinite regress.

What I'm trying to say is that, in the analogy above, you are not on the merry-go-round, you are the merry-go-round.

However, they do have the "freedom" to make a real choice regardless, as long as we understand that an individual's choice depends only on his own beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations.

How do these arise?

Automatically?

(Well... some actually do, but not all.)

Michael

No one knows how exactly consciousness arises from neural activity, but it's ridiculous to believe that it doesn't.

Your questions are all based on an equivocation of two entirely different meanings of the word "choice". I did not claim that the phenomenon of choice itself is an illusion, but rather that choice, in the sense of "having chosen, it is always possible one could always have chosen otherwise" (the first meaning), is an illusion. What choice really is, is the outcome of the beliefs, values, preferences, and deliberations of a person's mind, themselves products of purely deterministic processes. Choice, in this second sense, is not an illusion.

This is pure rationalistic gibberish.

It is a distinction that is not based on what one can observe, starting with agency itself.

Michael

Assertions are not arguments.

Yup, and how. There can't be a more effective way to abscond from self-responsibility, or to allow others their lack of responsibility, than to claim pre-determinism. Now that they have achieved some degree of civilisation and knowledge, determinists can cry: "It couldn't have happened any other way!"

Oh yes, it could. Thankfully, there've been enough pioneers and solid creators and honest "average Joe's" who knew better, allowing determinists the luxury of their faith. A nightmare to end all nightmares would be to dream that their numbers are increasing all around, those who believe that integrity, conviction and morality are all a matter of 'what went before'-- and to wake up and realise it wasn't a nightmare after all, but happening.

In your view, is it possible that, given a complete description of a person's neurology, beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations and a proof that those factors (absent any other factors not taken into account here) will cause the person to choose X, that that person could choose something other than X? If so, what would be the cause of the person choosing "not-X"?

The common retort from determinists is an all or nothing one, which is a false alternative. Of course, what went before has weight in one's life. What one can determine for oneself, one can, and the degree is fluid and increasing, not fixed. The cause of a person choosing "not-X" is self-interestedly wanting more (or less), or wanting different. I think it begins with realizing 'the possibility' through awareness and self awareness. Convictions and character are then perceivable and attainable, and they are the essential conscious foundation of chosen actuality.

Well then let's say we take this cause of the person's having chosen not-x into account along with every other event in reality that could potentially be a cause of a person's choice.

The way I see it, if we take every physical cause of a person's choice into account, then obviously, there can be no further physical causes that would allow the person to choose other than what the physical causes dictate. The only way that a person would then be able to choose other than what these causes dictate would be through a supernatural cause.

So either you believe that a person's free will stems from a supernatural source, or you see some other way in which free will is a) based entirely in deterministic natural causes but b) is not itself deterministic.

In your view, is it possible that, given a complete description of a person's neurology, beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations and a proof that those factors (absent any other factors not taken into account here) will cause the person to choose X, that that person could choose something other than X? If so, what would be the cause of the person choosing "not-X"?

Illusion?

btw - How do you prove anything since proof is based on choice? Is all proof based on illusion?

Michael

... given a complete description of a person's neurology, beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations...

If it is given, somebody gave that. If if they gave that, they chose what to give. Did they suffer from an illusion when they so chose?

Seeing that all choice is an illusion.

And if so, why on earth would anyone take an illusion from another seriously?

Inquiring minds so desperately seek enlightenment to escape the constant illusions that keep one up at night...

Michael

Your questions are all based on an equivocation of two entirely different meanings of the word "choice". I did not claim that the phenomenon of choice itself is an illusion, but rather that choice, in the sense of "having chosen, it is always possible one could always have chosen otherwise" (the first meaning), is an illusion. What choice really is, is the outcome of the beliefs, values, preferences, and deliberations of a person's mind, themselves products of purely deterministic processes. Choice, in this second sense, is not an illusion.

Our poster is beating around the bush abandoning her undefensible position of pure determinism. Choice, of course, is suffused with all sorts of whatevers that go into choice including genetic predisposition. For instance, unlike some members of the cat family humans are necessarily social animals. You need more than one hero to take on the Cave Bears and that nasty tribe next door and little baby Johnny and little baby Mary need Mother Jane to protect and nurture them while Dad--Dads--brings home the Mamouth and young luscious human captive females for work and breeding. What cannot be denied is human consciousness itself with its conceptual reasoning abilities and why, in its youth--right now--humans can use their brains to trade instead of raid and seduce instead of rape and live in peace instead of war and having a great and wonderful productive time with it all. If we had no need of choosing we would have no need of thinking--using and manipulating concepts. We would liklely just grunt at each other.

--Brant

live long and prosper

My position was never purely determinist, it was always compatibilist.

Yup, and how. There can't be a more effective way to abscond from self-responsibility, or to allow others their lack of responsibility, than to claim pre-determinism. Now that they have achieved some degree of civilisation and knowledge, determinists can cry: "It couldn't have happened any other way!"

Oh yes, it could. Thankfully, there've been enough pioneers and solid creators and honest "average Joe's" who knew better, allowing determinists the luxury of their faith. A nightmare to end all nightmares would be to dream that their numbers are increasing all around, those who believe that integrity, conviction and morality are all a matter of 'what went before'-- and to wake up and realise it wasn't a nightmare after all, but happening.

In your view, is it possible that, given a complete description of a person's neurology, beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations and a proof that those factors (absent any other factors not taken into account here) will cause the person to choose X, that that person could choose something other than X? If so, what would be the cause of the person choosing "not-X"?

Can you explain how a person can morally choose when, according to you, choice is only an illusion?

And can you explain how people can be conscious of their choice when, according to you, consciousness is only physical chemical reactions in the brain?

Only "choice" in the sense of "having chosen one could always have chosen otherwise" is an illusion. Having made a certain choice, we can infer the beliefs, preferences, and values of the person and can conclude that they would always make the same choice under identical circumstances. However, they do have the "freedom" to make a real choice regardless, as long as we understand that an individual's choice depends only on his own beliefs, preferences, values, and deliberations.

As for the second question, it is nonsensical because it presupposes the possibility of choice in the first sense. You first have to demonstrate that that kind of free will is possible, but this will be difficult for you since that kind of free will contradicts the known laws of physics.

Consciousness is reducible to nothing more than physical processes in the brain. It is not something that acts "above" those processes. It is those processes.

And, strictly speaking, choice is an illusion, since all thoughts are the outcome of purely deterministic physical laws.

Having expressed those two statements... do you regard humans as being morally accountable for their actions?

Greg

Yes.

You a can read the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia here:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/austrianultimatum.htm

Again, before we rush headlong like Great Powers, I do accept Ed's major thesis: the root of the problem was nationalism. And deeper, it was collectivism, altruism, and mysticism that led to World War I, as to all wars, perhaps. Read about the Pastry War of 1838-1839.

Suppose that the assassination had been perceived as a dispute between individuals. Gavrilo Princip shot Mr. and Mrs. Franz F. Hapsburg. What should be done? (Just because they - he especially - were not "liked" does not alter the crime.)

Following the leads provided by Wolf and making tracks of my own, this was a tangled mess before it began. Europe was in a bad way. I suggested before that the "problem" was really America: America tapped Europe's brains, leaving a continent of idiots. Millions and millions of more or less independent and individualist people came here, leaving behind those who were comfortable with the old ways.

I don't think the root of the problem was nationalism, and it isn't a good idea to treat the assassination as an ordinary crime. Consider things from the viewpoint of the Austro-Hungarian Emperor. Some filthy foreign commoner just murdered your son and heir in broad daylight in a country known for its official criticism of your regime and the whole world knows it. Who will be your heir now, and what do people think of him? Could his accession create a succession crisis leading to civil war, threatening the stability of your federation? What will the rest of the nobility think if you extend justice to the lowborn scum who just murdered the second most important person in the Empire? Furthermore, how could you justify yourself to them when you turn down an excellent opportunity to crush Serbia and bring it under the control of your regime?

The trouble is that the assassination of a prince has such wide-reaching consequences for imperial politics that it may as well be an act of war. If you try to treat the murder as an ordinary crime, your dynasty will appear weak and in decline. Which is not at all a good thing when you have like a million cousins with claims to your throne and a growing number of people who would want to replace you with them.

Thus, I think one of the most important causes of the war was the existence of the Austro-Hungarian empire itself. Its feudal-like institutions tied The Emperor's hands in such a way that any response other than a declaration of war would be unthinkable.

Under a proper government, wouldn't a bill of rights be unnecessary since the constitution proscribes the actions the government may take. Hamilton's argument on the subject is the best I've read, so i'll post a portion below...

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

From Federalist #84

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss7.html#note1

Taking a stab at the bolded, I think it's because it is possible to circuitously restrain the liberty of the press using only powers explicitly granted in the constitution. For example, levying a 100% tax on all news company profits would effectively outlaw any state-independent news organization.

Reality, being neither deterministic nor indeterministic, is not in a "third way" between the two. It just doesn't make any sense to ask whether reality is determinstic or not and to what degree, just as it doesn't make any sense to ask how furiously a colorless green idea sleeps.

There is a complementarity between colorless and furious governed by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ha! I just got it.

Part 7

http://www.mediafire.com/view/st929bp81cj1pi6/Part_7_Minkowski_Geometry.pdf