If we take time to be on a number line — TheMadFool

Then we're just being silly?

You might as well take time to be this painting:



We could just as well say that both are a representation of time.

It just that neither would imply anything in particular about what time is like objectively.

I think he’s just rejecting your conclusion entirely on the grounds that it simply wouldn’t work because it relies on the existence of an ideal world where everyone is rational and well educated. — Mark Dennis

I don't think what he's saying at all resembles an "ideal world," and it doesn't have anything to do with rationality or education.

The rejection is on the grounds of him (a) apparently not even understanding what morality is, (b) having no understanding of emotional reactions about interpersonal behavior being as "core" to our brain function as reactions about pain outside of interpersonal behavior, (c) having ridiculous notions of behavior that one objects to being rooted in people wanting to rebel, and so on.

My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral issues.

This is a misunderstanding that my aim is to destroy morality. — Three-Buddy Problem

The misunderstanding would be on your part. Giving a fuck about interpersonal behavior is what morality is in a nutshell.

For a transgressor, happiness lies within breaking the most crucial rules of society; — Three-Buddy Problem

I've pointed out a number of times that this is a ridiculous misconception that you have. Most moral transgressions and crimes are not motivated out of someone wanting to be a rebel. What in the world are you basing your belief about this on?

If people really didn't give a fuck about being raped, I'd be raping at least a couple different women per day. I wouldn't be doing this to be a rebel. I'd be doing it because I'm a horny bastard who likes variety and who is attracted to about 90% of the women I encounter. As things are I wouldn't rape anyone because (a) I have empathy and I'm not fond of taking actions against the consent of the person I'm taking the action with, and (b) I'd not risk being incarcerated, but if women were to genuinely not give a fuck if I have sex with them or not, without needing to do anything with/towards them except start to have sex with them, and there were no risk of incarceration (which would have to be the case if people don't give a fuck), then why wouldn't I? It wouldn't be nonconsensual, because withholding consent entails giving a fuck about what is happening to oneself.

So the actions of the people currently considered transgressors wouldn't change--except for that small minority of people who actually are motivated by wanting to rebel. It would just be that people would be getting raped and murdered and maimed and robbed, etc.without anyone caring about it. (And of course we could bring up the point that it's not rape if it's not nonconsensual, it's not murder if it's not illegal, etc.--but the end result would be just the same. The people in question wouldn't either want or not want the actions performed to them. We're stipulating that they literally don't care either way.)

Jesus Christ. Even though the argument is over, l — Three-Buddy Problem

I thought you were done? lol

''don't have to give so much fuck'', I meant that you don't need to hit the transgressor by yourself — Three-Buddy Problem

"You don't need to hit the transgressor yourself" in no way equates to "don't have to give so much fuck."

moral transgressions themselves are prevented by people not giving a fuck altogether; — Three-Buddy Problem

That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions.

However, you're somewhat correct about the fact that the existence of civilization itself is a result of ''giving a fuck'', — Three-Buddy Problem

That's not what I said, though. I said that arresting someone for an action is giving a fuck about that action.

Which is exactly why I'm proposing the model in the first place, a hypothetical society that's more progressive than the current one! — Three-Buddy Problem

You just wrote: "Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck." This is not true. Civilization as we know it gives just as much of a fuck.

That's it, I'm done arguing with you. — Three-Buddy Problem

Which is as it should be, but because you finally realize you were saying something stupid.

I don't see how I'm not slowing you down already. And I don't need to be Einstein to spot a straw man. — Three-Buddy Problem

Neither of these resemble understanding what I wrote above. Hence why you should slow down.

Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck. — Three-Buddy Problem

Repeating again: arresting someone is giving a fuck.

All moral transgressors share the mentality of high school goths, — Three-Buddy Problem

That's the straw man you're assuming. I explained this already. Again, slow down so we don't have to keep repeating stuff.

After all, the very foundation of society is to NOT be 100% loyal to our emotions! Before civilization, if someone hits you, the only response is to hit him back, and surprise, that's also what your intuitions tell you to do. But you don't need to hit him back in a civilized society because you'd know he'd get arrested. — Three-Buddy Problem

Both hitting someone back and arresting them are giving a fuck how other people are behaving.

Not giving a fuck is when they hit you and there are zero repercussions.

In my hypothetical society, I'd be surprised if you were to poke a sharp object at me either because you want to do so in the first place or that society hasn't identified you as a psychopath that has to be takens special care of. — Three-Buddy Problem

Did you miss the part that you're factually wrong in thinking that all moral transgressors are basically just high school goths?

Let's slow this down so we're not just repeating stuff.

You're defining morality as a state of emotion, but I thought morality is a label that's applied to what we think each other ought to behave, — Three-Buddy Problem

It's a state of emotion about how other people are behaving. So yeah, that is how you think other people should behave, but the reason you think that in the first place is because of the emotional reaction to (the idea of) particular behaviors.

Again, it is NOT a "solution" to anything. It's an unavoidable way that people feel, which would be easy to demonstrate in person as I poke you with sharp objects, as I pull you over to the stove, etc. It's not true that you'd not give a fuck re whatever I'd do to you.

At this point, if we were having this conversation in person, I'm confident you'd be trying to stop me from poking you with sharp objects, etc. (Which is what I'd be doing as you persist with the nonsense you're espousing.). If you agree that you're not going to simply teach someone to not give a fuck about putting their hand on a hot stove, you're going to give a fuck as I pull you over to the stove and put your hand on it.

You simply don't give a fuck about ousting those — Three-Buddy Problem

Ousting people is NOT not giving a fuck. That's precisely giving a fuck.

My model is not remotely as extreme as teaching kids not to feel pain. — Three-Buddy Problem

Yes it is, because all that morality is is a pain-like reaction to interpersonal behavior. Teaching someone to not give a fuck when they're raped, or when their spouse is murdered, is no less extreme than supposing you could teach people to not give a fuck when they put their hand on a hot stove, or cut off their hand with a circular saw or whatever.

a society adopting my model would have specific laws and procedures regarding sociopaths — Three-Buddy Problem

Then the society gives a fuck after all. Not giving a fuck means that anyone can do anything to anyone they like, and no one gives a fuck about it.

My proposition is that to not give a fuck is a solution to problems that morality can't solve, and your proposition is that morality is a solution to our inherent incapability of not giving a fuck. — Three-Buddy Problem

?? Morality isn't a solution to anything. It's a reaction that people naturally have, so that they can't help but have that reaction. You're hoping to "weed out" a natural reaction somehow. It's no different than saying that you want to eliminate the natural reaction that someone has when they place their hand on a hot stove. You can't just teach kids to not experience pain, to not recoil when they feel their hand burning. You'd have to change the way persons' brains work to avoid that reaction.

For some odd reason you're seeing moral transgressions solely as perpetrators wanting to rebel against things that people care about--as if moral transgressors are a bunch of high school goths or something. That's not what the majority of moral transgressions are. Most grow out of conflicting desires, in an atmosphere of a relative lack of empathy (so ironically, perps relatively don't give a fuck what victims care/don't care about), and/or they grow out of emotional reactions that perps have but don't control very well--such as murdering someone, or at least taking a tire iron to their car or whatever, because they "stole your parking space at the grocery store."

According to my understanding of psychology, some fundamental reasons why rapists rape are: — Three-Buddy Problem

Another reason is "I want to have sex with this person," and in your world, now there are no repercussions for having sex with them even if they're not interested in having sex with me.

"You don't get women if you want them too much" -- in your world, you can just take them, and no one gives a fuck.

You'd have to physically change how human brains work--or at least just give everyone a lobotomy, to get them to not care about any violence done to them (and to not care about any other people, either).

I don't agree with a number of things here.

But I'd say that the most important one is that morality isn't ultimately socially determined, it's individually determined, hinging on the behavior that people do give a fuck about, and can't help but give a fuck about. Social norms develop out of that, not the other way around.

So, for example, Jane gives a fuck about Joe wanting to have sex with her, where Joe will do so against Jane's consent and resistance if he has to.

Or Joe gives a fuck about having Bob around, so that he can't help but be upset when David murders Bob just because Bob "stole his parking spot at the grocery store" according to David.

People care about stealing, when they do, for the same reason--you're taking stuff of theirs that they care about and can't help but care about. It's stuff they want, maybe that they'd say they need--like the money in their bank account that they need to use to buy food or medicine to stay alive, etc.

I'm sure there are things I could do to you, or people around you, that you'd give a fuck about. Like if I were to torture you in particular ways. It would simply be a natural, instinctual reaction that you'd have.

Seriously, though, I'd question this:

tasks that we desire and are important to do, but we don't end up doing it. — Purple Pond

The person might desire x to some extent, but y, where y is parsed as "laziness" in a negative sense by others, or at least z, where z winds up appearing as y, is probably desired by the person more.

For example, maybe the person desires the advantages they'd achieve from a job--like a steady income, but they probably desire chillin' at home and playing video games more, and they'd really rather not need a steady income, or they'd at least prefer to get paid for chillin' at home and playing video games.

Chillin'

It appears that in America there is a strong new movement that calls itself alt-right. According to them, black people are lazy and violent, Jews are evil manipulators, and Muslims are terrorists. — Ilya B Shambat

Are their views really that unified and simple?

It would be so easy for us all to just say “that which we do not understand has no value.” — Mark Dennis

Well, valuing is something that individuals do. Things don't have value "on their own." They're valued by individuals, as much as the individual in question values whatever it is.

You don’t accept deontology or teleology so how can you yourself ever claim to be ethical — Mark Dennis

I don't accept deontology or teleology. I don't think that either are required to be ethical of course.

I think you are laughing at actual infinity then. — Devans99

Just the idea that mathematics determines anything about ontology.

But the maths of infinity says that everything that can happen, will happen, an infinite number of times. — Devans99

lol--mathematics can't tell us anything like that. The whole idea of that is absurd. Mathematics is a language based on how we think about relations.

It doesn't matter if it's "natural" or not. It's possible for something to happen just once, or just twice, or whatever arbitrary, finite number we pick and then not happen again.

Mathematical conventions don't imply anything about ontology, by the way.

There is the conservation of energy as an argument against energy/matter producing spontaneous events. — Devans99

The conservation of energy has the same problem as SPR--it's rather arbitrary, and there's really no good reason to believe it as a principle. It's fine as an assumption in that it makes many things in the sciences easier, but it really shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. There's no way to establish it as a principle that must be the case. That's true for all physical principles, all physical "laws."

Also, if spontaneous appearance of energy/matter occurs naturally and time is infinite, then infinite energy/matter would result. — Devans99

Again, the idea of that is completely arbitrary. There could be one spontaneous event. One time.

Or two. And that's it. Or three or whatever. There could be any arbitrary finite number of them, whether time is infinite or not.

So what is your brain like when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Where does your mind go when you are alone in a dreamless sleep? Ive asked you this question several times now.

Also what does it mean to observe something? If you are saying that we cant get at the "external" object, then we're not observing in the first place, so you can't say we're observing something without getting at something about that thing. We would be imagining, not observing, so you are making a category error.

if we can never get at the object as it is independent of the Mind and what you're saying is there is no such thing as observations. There are only imaginations. But then how do we communicate our imaginations without using objects in the external world like computer screens? Ive also asked this question several times now. — Harry Hindu

I'm okay with him calling it an "observation," but basically I agree with you. He's really just imagining something. Re communication, I don't know why he'd need it in the first place--doesn't his view necessitate that all other people are something that his own mind creates (or at least that's all he can know of other people).

Activity determines utility. Utility is the very definition of significance. Therefore, it all matters. — BrianW

You wouldn't be able to make sense out of anyone ever saying, "It doesn't matter."

What are your objections to the (revised) PSR? — Devans99

The PSR in general, including the revised one, just seems completely arbitrary to me. I don't see how we could possibly rule out "spontaneous events" in principle.

And if we don't buy the PSR at all--original, revised, etc.?

Beyond ourselves however, looking from the outside in, in the broader scheme of all the universe, we do not have claim to any significance. — SimonSays

"Mattering"--or rather valuing things/aka feeling that something matters--is something that people do. So of course nothing is going to matter to anything other than a person. (I'm using "person" in the broad "personhood" sense, by the way. It doesn't necessarily just refer to humans. It could refer to other primates, intelligent/sentient aliens if there are any, etc.)

Yeah, the child probably didn't assign any particular meaning to "function" yet. It's just a sound, part of a pattern that she's emulating in that context. That's all very similar to what goes on when we learn how to play music--learning characteristic patterns a la licks, riffs, etc. You don't assign meanings to those in the linguistic-semantic sense, but you can still emulate and use them in the usual contexts. And at first, something you think of as "inherently" part of a particular lick you might come to think of as separable and applicable to other licks and in other contexts, too. Although you're still not assigning linguistic-semantic meaning to it then (well, unless you're fairly unusual), it does "develop" in your brain in a similar way, and maybe we could say that you assign some sort of musical-semantic meaning to it at that point.

But I'm not talking science. — Wayfarer

That's fine, but you'd simply have to give how you're arriving at the view you're arriving at instead, without appealing to any standard scientific notions, etc.

No, it's not; because physical properties are generally well understood — Janus

Yet again you don't understand what I'm saying. All we can do is talk about the physical stuff in question. Talk about it structurally, relationally etc. None of that ever seems like any of the properties we ascribe to it. Or if it does to anyone, it's simply because they're so used to making the association and not questioning it that they take it for granted.

Science enables us to ‘observe’ or measure aspects of the rock from the surface of the rock or from inside it - to gain a perspective of what the rock looks like from the inside - because we have the capacity to perceive this evaluative aspect of the world. — Possibility

No it doesn't. Imagining things from different points of reference isn't the same thing as being at that point of reference.

You responded to a post of mine where I mentioned observing things with:

"Of course we observe all those things."

That response continued in a manner that suggested you didn't actually understand the comment of mine that you were responding to. That included that you didnt understand the comments about observations. But you insisted that you did understand it. So I began with this quiz question, to test your understanding:

"Of course we observe what things?"

You didn't answer that beyond an insult.

Your response didn't make a lot of sense to me, unfortunately.

Also, you seem to be writing as if you think that I'm a representationalist or idealist? I'm not. I'm a direct (aka "naive") realist.

But I don't understand your answer to this: we see a tree. One option re views about perception is that we're simply seeing the tree--we're seeing something that's external to us. Another view is that we're seeing something that's actually created by our minds (presumably unconsciously) and then what we're consciously aware of is that unconscious mental creation, not the tree itself. You suggested that you had a third view that wasn't either of those alternatives. But it wasn't at all clear to me that you were suggesting a third view.

Imagine though if atoms had a special property only under certain situations, and we couldn't give a scientific reason for that. — Marchesk

All materials have unique properties in certain situations. I'm not sure what makes some of those properties "special." And the scientific reason never amounts to seeming like the properties in question. We just describe the materials, their structures and relations, how those are different in particular situations, and then report the properties exhibited.