Comments

  • What is your ontology?
    Currently: Materialism with a splash of platonic realism. Learned from @180 Proof later that it's called hylomorphism. But my mind changes often.
  • Bannings
    Holy late Christmas gift! I can't believe I missed this. I'm not sure but I think I might hold the record for "Most words wasted on Bart".

    I figured if I was meticulous enough with my argument and wording I would be able to at least make Bart unable to reply. A little personal challenge. But, the man is a Master at trolling.

    The way he balances reasonable statements with nonsense, the way he manages to find the smallest inaccuracy in your wording to write an essay about, the way he commits a different fallacy each reply so that you can never pin him down, the way his insults are (almost) never actually ad hom. Masterclass.
  • The "self" under materialism
    Assassin
    1. Life 30
    2. Agility 60
    3. Strength 40
    4. Defense 60
    Agent Smith

    What kind of assassin has as much agility as defense??
  • The "self" under materialism
    The problem with this view is that you cease to exist when you go to sleep and then re-exist when you awake.
  • The "self" under materialism
    If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?

    Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self".
    tom111

    I don't see this as an issue but more of what it SHOULD be like. Why makes you think there is an unchanging part of us (like a soul) in the first place?

    Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist.tom111

    Add them to your ontology then if their non-existence bothers you. Check hylomorphism.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    Your claims contradict mine. But all you are doing is assuming that artists are obliged to produce art and taking that for granted, even though that's intuitively false.Bartricks

    No. I’m saying what I find to be intuitively true. Which is that when 1 and 2 are met, artists have an obligation to create art. And now you will just say “Ah, you disagree with my premises therefore you are too far gone” as usual. It’s like a script with you.

    Again, why do you post here if you don’t want your premises to be doubted? You keep harping about self evident truths but cannot conceive that what is self evident for one is not self evident for another.

    But even when not doubting your premises, I already said why your explanation is bad. Why have you not addressed this? If you don’t again, I can only assume it’s because you cannot.

    There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatorykhaled

    Maybe the reason you (and I) cannot find a good explanation for both statements to be true is that they’re not both true.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    Just the threads by Bart. And they haven’t fallen anywhere, they were always like this.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    What's that got to do with anything?Bartricks

    I cited 2 things that would make producing art obligatory:

    1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
    2- Be able to produce it relatively easily.
    khaled

    In an attempt to refute 1 you say:

    First, you clearly know nothing about art or artists if you think any of those artists I mentioned didn't know they were creating era defining work. Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time.Bartricks

    I pointed out that knowing one is a great artist does not give one good reason to think his next painting will bring much good (it does not satisfy 1). Picasso might have known he was a great artist, but he could not have known his next paintings would ever bring much good. Similar to how a gold medalist could not know that he will get another gold medal on the next Olympics, or even a bronze. Thus, Picasso was under no obligation to create art despite satisfying 2 (again, due to not satisfying 1).

    You have provided no evidence to the contrary.Bartricks

    Except I have, and you continuously ignore it:

    it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.Bartricks

    There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory.khaled

    Those were the only falsehoods in your reply that are correctable. The rest show a confusion so profound I wouldn't know where to begin. You have shown that there is no merit in debating you, so I will take my leave now.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    Believe me, most great artists - most great anything - knew full well they were great at the time.Bartricks

    Knowing you're a great artist =/= Knowing the next piece of art you produce will bring about much good. Similar to how a gold medalist, even though they (and everyone else) knows they're a great athlete, cannot know they will get a gold medal, or even do well at all in the next olympics.

    we can just as well imagine an artist who knows full well that were they to exercise their artistic ability, they would create great art (for there is no contradiction involved in the supposition).Bartricks

    But I already did a while ago:

    If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong.khaled

    And you did not deny that when it was first said. That makes me think:

    it remains as obvious as ever that there is no positive obligation on the person to exercise their ability.Bartricks

    Is false. If it was obvious, you'd have denied my quote above.

    But at this point I'm just saying X and you're saying "Obviously not X" without any support. The classic "I'm right you're wrong because it's self evident" argument you love so much.

    I can't understand why you post discussions in the first place if you believe all your premises are self evident and all your reasoning flawless. That's something I've wondered ever since your first post. What are you even trying to accomplish?

    it is not morally required. Why? Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.Bartricks

    I have offered an explanation. The job, then, is to test that explanation.Bartricks

    If that was the job then why no response to this?

    There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory.khaled
  • The beauty asymmetry
    Oh, what a brilliant distinction......not. Same applies. See?Bartricks

    I'm afraid that if you cannot grasp the distinction then I think you're too far gone to be worth debating. Please reread what I wrote. These quotes could help you out.

    How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating.khaled

    They didn't have the benefit of hindsight.khaled

    An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so.khaled

    That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens.khaled

    Here let me say it one more time Bartricks. Maybe 5th time is the charm. For creating art to be obligatory for an artist, the artist must:

    1- Have very good reason to think that his art will bring about much good before they produe it.
    2- Be able to produce it relatively easily.

    You will notice, Bartricks, that having produced era defining art does not meet condition (1). See?
  • The beauty asymmetry
    Jeez. You said that if an artist could produce art with the click of his fingersBartricks

    False. I said if an artist can produce era defining pieces with the click of his fingers. That is to say, if the artist can produce art he knows will be good (and can do so very easily). Which never actually happens.

    See?
  • An eye for an eye morality
    Most importantly it requires one to understand that unethical behavior always comes from a place of sufferingTzeentch

    Always? I'm curious where you got this. Not saying it's wrong, I don't know.
  • An eye for an eye morality
    Huh, we got to the point of "I'm right you're wrong because it's self evident" quicker than usual this time...

    Guess that's that then.
  • An eye for an eye morality
    Punishment, and severity of punishment have never stopped people breaking the law.Vera Mont

    I didn't say that having punishment guarantees a safe society, but it is a prerequisite. If you really believed this, then would you be fine with your state/country employing a "free crime zone" in your city specifically?

    Punishment and rejection further alienate an already disaffected member of society; severe punishment can turn him into an active enemy of the existing structure.Vera Mont

    Sure, but the alternative is them running rampant. I'll take the punishment and rejection.

    To imprison large numbers of disaffected men in harsh conditions for years on end is to build a hostile army in the very heart of one's nation.Vera Mont

    Better that army be behind walls than roaming around.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    But John Singer Sargent or Picasso did have an obligation to produce art, as they worked very quickly and with ease (as much ease as clicking one's fingers). That just seems prima facie falseBartricks

    How do you draw that conclusion? No, none of them were obligated to create art, because none of them could have known their art would have been worth creating. There are many people who can create art quickly and with ease, and who even think their art is fantastic, yet there are very few Picassos. They didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

    My example was a hypothetical. An artist cannot know that his piece will bring much good. But if he did, and he could create it easily, then yes he would be obligated to do so.

    Because omitting to create such works does not show disrespect to any person or to any object.

    Is there any reason to reject that analysis?
    Bartricks

    There are many things that do not show disrespect to any person or object and yet are morally obligatory. For example, reporting a robbery if you see one. So it seems that "does not show disrespect" is not enough to guarantee something is not obligatory.

    I am presenting a different analysis. That the creation of art is not obligatory because it is effortful and not effective at producing much good (statistically). I don't think something effortful can be obligatory unless it has a very good chance to produce a lot of good.
  • What is a person?
    A system of thought where animals are not a being seems to convoluted for me...
  • What is a person?
    There is cohesive form.neonspectraltoast

    And that form is the person? Yea that's the closes I got to an answer too.
  • An eye for an eye morality
    An eye for an eye approach just seems the most practical. If there was no deterrent to crime, we could not have a safe society.

    But what I find most interesting is the virtue people see in forgiveness. Personally, I think forgiveness is only virtuous if the criminal has changed. If you have the opportunity to catch someone that attacked and have them answer for their crimes, but you instead choose to forgive and let them go for no reason, you have just greatly increased the chances they go and attack someone else. Not good.

    If said attacker gets away without you being able to catch them, but then they change their ways out of remorse and start leading an honest life, then you stumble upon them years later, it would be virtuous to forgive them. Because punishing them at this point does not prevent any more harm. The main point of eye for an eye is deterrence, if it doesn't do that, then what's the point?

    What I'm not so sure of though is that an eye for an eye approach is just, as opposed to just practical. Would it be wrong of you to report them years later? On paper, doing so would cause harm for no practical reason. They no longer need deterring. But I am not sure it would be wrong, still.

    What if you saw the assault, as opposed to being assaulted yourself, and you know that the victim still holds a grudge when you stuble upon the changed criminal. Would it be "better" to report them then since you're not doing it for yourself? Would you be obligated to tell the victim what you saw and leave the choice up to them?
  • An eye for an eye morality
    Jane 'deserves' X, does not mean the same as "we ought to give Jane X".Bartricks

    What does deserving something entail then?

    A rapist deserves to be raped (according to the lex talionis).Bartricks

    Not necessarily. They deserve a punishment comparable to being raped. Like multiple years in prison (whether or not that is actually comparable I am not sure). Which they get.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    There are lots of things that are unnecessary, yet morally permissible.

    And a person who has an artistic ability and is in perfect health, mental and otherwise, is still not under any positive obligation to exercise their ability.
    Bartricks

    Destroying something beautiful is generally not only entirely unnecessary, but also harmful (more specifically, denies people pleasure).

    There is also the fact that tearing down something beautiful is destroying someone’s property (again, unnecessarily) assuming it is man made. That should be reason enough for it to be wrong.

    But even if someone with artistic ability is in perfect health and has the motivation to make something they think is beautiful that doesn’t change the fact that it will take a lot of effort and time, and is not guaranteed to even produce a positive result. It’s not clear it would be worth it for the artist. So there is no obligation to do it.

    If the artist could magically create era defining pieces of art at the snap of his fingers, and chooses not to do so, then yes I’d think he’s in the wrong.
  • The beauty asymmetry
    It seems clear enough that you have not. It seems a good thing if you exercise your ability. It might be praiseworthy. But you are not doing wrong if you do not.Bartricks

    The reason for this may shed some light on the question.

    If someone held a hostage at gunpoint and demanded you draw them a beautiful painting to let the hostage go, I think you would be obligated to draw said painting if you can. The difference between that situation and the situation where you decide whether or not to draw under no stress, seems to be the clarity of the consequences.

    It is not at all clear that if you do not exercise your ability to create beautiful things that anyone would be seriously (if at all) hurt by that. But if there is reason to think that creating said beautiful things will serve to relieve a lot of suffering (somehow) and you choose not to do it, then you would be wrong.

    It depends on the situation. There is no clear right/wrong to it. But generally, an artist can't guarantee that their work will have some sort of significant positive influence that justifies the effort, so they are under no obligation to make it.

    Note, even if you think that we - those of us with an ability to produce beautiful things - are positively obliged to exercise our abilities, surely even you admit that it is far more wrong to destroy a beautiful thing than it is to fail to create one?Bartricks

    That's because generally, destroying a beautiful thing is entirely unnecessary, whereas an artist may have reasons for not creating a beautiful thing (burnout, no time, mental/physical toll, etc).
  • What is a person?
    Then how come that I'm the same person even if 99% of the cells in my body are not the same ones as 7-10 years ago?
  • What is a person?
    I like that answer
  • What is a person?
    So at what point does that potential get realized and what's a being?
  • What is a person?
    "Person" does not have the sort of sharp and unambiguous meaning asSophistiCat

    Sure, as with many things. But what about a blunt ambiguous meaning?
  • What is a person?
    A 'person' is a legal human entity.noAxioms

    So there were no persons before the formation of societies advanced enough to have legal definitions of persons?

    No that can't be it either.
  • What is a person?
    So a person isn't a being?
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    Did you read the rest of my comment?

    I said that all the important questions are answered.

    I'd say there are important questions unanswered.Art48

    Such as?

    Also do you consider "Why is pi 3.14 and not another number" an important question?
  • Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?
    What more would you need to know though? If you can explain what every physical state means mentally, then you've answered all the important questions.

    Do you ever question why gravity exists? Or why pi is 3.14 and not some other number? Questions like "How can consciousness exist" seem to be in a similar vein to those.

    And even if we answer it, what practical difference does it make? Or is it just pure curiousity?

    Also, the Hard problem of consciousness presumes a dualist standpoint which comes loaded with plenty of problems (this being one). Perhaps then the issue is in dualism.
  • Does meaning persist over time?
    Grice?Banno

    Apparently. Didn't know who that was.

    So that's not uncontroversial.Banno

    The problem seems to stem from "language use in thought" but I thought we were talking about utterances. Aka language use in communication. In that case the difference between intended and interpreted meaning seems clear no?

    What an author intends by an utterance can vary over time, as that utterance is put to other uses.Banno

    What the author intended at a certain instance of using an utterance doesn't change though.

    So for example, when I first read "grice" at the start of your comment I thought you were making some sort of pun about rice, so checked the previous comments in case there was any context I was missing. In this case the interpreted meaning was clearly different from the intended meaning.

    If in the future you use "grice" to make some sort of pun about rice, the fact that this current instance of grice use was intended to refer to a british philosopher does not change.
  • Does meaning persist over time?
    Instead of asking whether the “meaning” of an utterance persists over time or not I think we can simplify the situation by splitting “intended meaning” from “interpreted meaning”

    The intended meaning persists (though maybe no one other than the first speaker knows what it is), the interpreted meaning doesn’t (varies from person to person and across time).

    Some people seem to be talking about intended meaning and some people seem to be talking about interpreted meaning.
  • Free will: where does the buck stop?
    Do we get an award or at least a certificate of completion?! :smile:punos

    It's an unprecedented situation, I don't think they have anything like that yet
  • Free will: where does the buck stop?
    I you think free-will is emergent then to understand a little better your stance can you tell me if you believe it's soft or hard emergence?punos

    Soft. Though I think you mean weak vs strong.

    Observe how our freeways resemble and function like veins and arteries transporting all manner of things around the system. Notice how our electrical transmission lines resemble a nervous system along with the internet as a giant distributed neural network (brain), or how our mining operations are like the digestive system, and the factories are like the organs that produce commercial products like an organism might produce organic products for the body of the organism.punos

    I always had daydreams where I'd imagine parts of my mind as people, like in Inside Out. The other way seems interesting too.

    But it seems we've reached agreement! A rare sight on this site. I don't see anything in your reply that I disagree with.
  • The ineffable
    The only time when the ineffable has been mentioned in this page is between hyphens (and here). I think we're approaching a point where we stop effing the ineffable!

    It feels that this is a general philosophy thread at this point with no particular topic. No offense @Banno
  • Matter and Patterns of Matter
    Not to necro my own thread, but I had a thought recently and wanted to see how someone with a similar view dealt with it.

    Since yours is a monist view, I assume all people in your view are also patterns at the end of the day correct? Wouldn't that result in fictional people "existing" in the same way you and I exist?

    My working solution is that we use the word "exist" on patterns sometimes say the pattern exists, and sometimes to say that there is a material instantiation of it. Not sure if that's a good one.

    For example, "the number 4 exists" does not imply the existence of 4 of something, but "Jeff exists" implies the existence of a person named Jeff irl, not just as a fictional character.

    How would you deal with it without a material basis though?
  • Free will: where does the buck stop?
    "free will" means "indeterminate determinism"punos

    Idk why you keep giving me your definition of free will in bits and pieces. Can you just define free will for me?

    Not everyone assumes that free will requires indeterminism. I don't, for one.

    Etymologically 'coerce' means to restrain by another.punos

    Yes, another creature. A physical force is not "another" in this context.

    The meaning can be used in other contexts much as poets dopunos

    But we're not doing poetry.

    Are you saying that free-will only happens in humans or animals.punos

    It will happen in anything intelligent/complex enough.

    If i were to teleport to another location it would not be the exact same me before teleporting, but the new me wouldn't be able to tell any difference (unless something drastic happens). What the new me doesn't know is that i was just copied and the original remains at the original location; so which is me the copy or the original? Remember to consider Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that the teleported version of me is not exactly a perfect copy. Even if it were an exact copy, the difference in location of my original still being around would give us instantly different quantum 'signatures' aka different identities in respect to the universe. Also, as soon as my copy walks off the teleporter he will acquire a unique identity by virtue that from that point on he has different experiences.punos

    Ok. Because I would say it is the exact same me, since I think the "person" is the pattern (or informatino as you put it). Though I don't deny both a pattern and matter are required to exist.

    But either way, we oftentimes assign actions to these patterns. For example: "The republican party destoryed the white house", even though it was spefic people that destroyed the white house, nay, specific pieces of flesh moving at the whims of chemical reactions in more complex pieces of flesh, nay.... you get the point. We can keep digging to lower levels, but oftentimes we assign agency to higher level things.

    Similarly, I see the "pattern" that is a person, as responsible for said person's acts. In that sense, the person has free will, when said an action occurs because of said pattern.

    It is essentially a view where "Your arm was raised because *insert chemical reaction sequence*" is the exact same sentence "Your arm was raised because of you".

    It's similar to your view about how everything is the "free will of the universe" but more localized.

    What is happening fundamentally differently in beings that have low intelligence like bacteria and higher intelligence like an arthropod. What is fundamentally different about arthropods that is not happening in the intelligence of lower life forms.punos

    Complexity. They don't have enough of it. Though how much exactly is enough is arbitrary of course. I said I think some anthropods are complex enough for us to say they have a will.

    Notice how AI gets more intelligent the more parameters and hidden layers are added; nothing really new but more nodes for the neural network. If this trend continues then according to your definition of free-will; AI will reach a level of intelligence that would result in the formation of free-will.punos

    Yes.

    Wouldn't it be reasonable to say at that point that free-will is an emergent property dependent on the components directly below it?punos

    Yes. And this is the fundamental difference between us. You seem to think that free will has to be some sort of voodoo black magic capable of disobeying the laws of physics, I just think it is an emergent property (or "pattern") that certain things have.

    Obviously if you're looking for physics breaking voodoo black magic, you won't find it anywhere.

    The only difference that it can possibly be is just a more complex way of processing information, a more integrated way of processing information, than is possible with lower intelligence.punos

    Yes.
  • Free will: where does the buck stop?
    I don't believe you had a free choice in what you wrote, your choice was determined by the specific activation weights and thresholds in your nerve cells as your sensory signals propagate through the system.punos

    The issue is that you think free will exists outside of activations of nerve cells. That since I did something because of said nerve cells that must mean I had no free will. I do not know why you think that unless you actually tell me what you mean by free will. Because I believe that "What you just did was due to nerve cell activation entirely" and "You freely willed what you just did" can both be true.

    All of this is "coerced", even though you don't feel coercedpunos

    The fact that you put it in quotes shows you know that's not how people use coerced. No one ever said "I am coerced by gravity to stay on the ground". Coercion is done by other intelligent creatures through force or threats.

    Do you have a simpler lower level example of free-will?punos

    I raised my arm right now. That was freely willed. You will say "Ah but that was because of nerves and yada yada". I will say that those two are not incompatible, since it was an uncoerced act. You will ask for another example.

    This is a loop. I can't debate whether or not free will exists with someone unless we first agree what is meant by free will. So unless you answer my question, we won't get anywhere. What do you mean by free will?

    Try doing this: Stop breathing for 30 minutes, and tell me if you feel coerced to breath at some threshold limit?punos

    Sure. I failed. But I was never coerced by anyone to breathe, so my breathing was freely willed. Again, that's not how people use the word "coerced". Inanimate objects and physics processes don't coerce. You know what "coerce" means, use it as intended please.

    A "person" is a physical system made of atoms and molecules like everything else, and cells, tissues, and organs like every other organism.punos

    Ok let's dig into that a bit.

    So, are you saying the person IS his atoms and molecules, or is "the system" or "pattern" of atoms and molecules? A classic thought experiment to highlight the difference: If a teleportation device dematerialized your body, then rematerialized it elsewhere identically, is that new body "you"?

    A definition of free-will doesn't automatically make it real, it simply allows us to recognize it. Children define Santa Claus all the time, but it doesn't mean he's real.punos

    No one said that. The definition doesn't make anything real. However if there was a fat guy that lives in the north pole and hands out presents every chrismas everywhere in the world, then yes, santa claus would be real by that definition.

    Similarly, if humans were able to do things without coercion, free will would be real by the definition of "uncoerced will"

    Do you think AI has free-will, or if not yet will it ever?punos

    Not yet, eventually probably.

    But again, we are working with two different definitions of free will here. You haven't told me yours.

    As for atoms and cells and so on, no, because they don't have a will for it to be free. Wills are property of intelligent beings. How intelligent? Not sure, but more intelligent than bacteria. Somewhere in the arthropods is where I'd put it.
  • World/human population is 8 billion now. It keeps increasing. It doesn't even matter if I'm gone/die
    But again, is this all there is to life? existence? It still feels pointless, in the end, in the grand scheme of things.niki wonoto

    Why must it have a point?

    Nothing special. It's the same with human life.niki wonoto

    Why must it be special?

    I generally don't get these kinds of questions. Like do people seriously wake up and think "Damn, I will not have enough of an impact to alter the entire universe irreversibly this is so sad".
  • Free will: where does the buck stop?
    Provide me with an example so i know exactly what we are talking about, not just a definition.punos

    Ok? With the definition of "uncoerced will" me typing this reply is an example of me exercising my free will, since no one is coercing me into typing it.

    I believe in 'will' not 'free-will', and will is constrained by the laws of physics like anything elsepunos

    This "will" is that of a person right? What is a person, in your view. Because from this:

    Does it use another force from somewhere else outside our universepunos

    It seems that you take a dualist stance. I think the issue stems from dualism, not free will. For instance, do you think the "person" ever causes any physical change? Is you typing a reply a result of blind physical processes, or is it because the "person" that is you wills it? Or are those compatible.

    I seem to have the same definition for free-will that you do.punos

    Seemingly not, since I think free will exists.