ProfessionalTeabagger

What's integration with reality and what are "terms" of integration? Just tell me what "causality" is. You are using the term objectively and making direct claims that depend on it so you need to provide a definition that isn't circular and doesn't end up providing LESS information. What is causality?

What's causation?

The "laws" of nature only exist in the human mind. They are descriptions of the consistent behavior of matter/energy. Matter and energy behave in certain ways and there are some ways it cannot behave. Determinists tend to take the laws we derive from the behavior and then project those concepts back onto the universe. So they think these laws "govern" the behavior. To govern is to prescribe. govern ˈgʌv(ə)n/ verb [*] 1. conduct the policy, actions, and affairs of (a state, organization, or people) with authority. "he was incapable of governing the country" synonyms: rule, preside over, be in power over, reign over, control, exercise control over, have control of, be in control of, be in charge of, command, hold sway over, lead, be the leader of, dominate, run, head, direct,administer, order, manage, regulate, guide, conduct, oversee,supervise, superintend, be at the helm of, steer, pilot; informalbe in the driving seat; literarysway So when a determinist says that our brains are governed by the laws of physics they're saying those laws prescribe how our brains should behave because that's the concept of how things should behave they have in their heads. They are making anything unusual that is observed fit the concept (law) rather than adjusting the concept to fit the empirical evidence.

Just because you do not know "what it is" does not mean it's logically inconsistent. You have to show logical inconsistency. You imply I'm arguing that our brains are somehow outside the "laws of physics". I constantly hear determinists insinuate that my view is supernatural. What "law" of physics does free-will violate? Do you know what "laws of physics" are? Please provide a link to the inviolable law of physics that free-will breaks. If you understand my point about moral responsibility then how can you say you're not sure how free-will justifies moral responsibility. What does "justify moral responsibility" mean? That's ambiguous because "justify" could be used in several different senses; to justify the existence of moral responsibility or the validity of it or the usefulness of it and so on. Under determinism, no agent can have any control over their actions. Without control over one's actions one cannot have moral responsibility. Therefore, under determinism one cannot have moral responsibility for any action. That seems pretty clear. The rest of your post is more of you telling me you just don't get it. I've already made the arguments.

I suspect determinists think the "natural laws" are prescriptive.

Yeah duuude, like . . . quantum foam Maaaan.

If you want to get answers for these there are plenty in Stef's book "Practical anarchy" and other pod-casts. I really don't think you're going to get anywhere with your brother because these 5 debate points are just insipid, creationist level, state apologetics. Why wear yourself out? It may be best to argue from principle instead and not be sucked into these utilitarian traps. Ask him if he thinks it's morally justified to initiate force against you. If he says yes you know where you stand. If he says no then then how can he justify it for anyone else? He'll try to draw you back into the consequentialism but don't let him.

This argument is just quanta and has no meaning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGuNpn7m_g4 Fantastic, fascinating video by extremely well dressed You Tuber, Davis M.J Aurini. He talks about absolute truth and why things degenerate without it. It has similarities to some of Stef's ideas, particularly Stef's criticism of minarchy and the USA going from the smallest, freest state to the largest.

I don't really know for sure what free-will is. That's part of the point. I can point to the evidence that humans appear to have a unique ability to compare their opinions and beliefs to ideal and universal standards (Stef's defintion)and choose. They appear to be able to have done other than what would be entirely determined. I can point out that humans have moral responsibility which requires free-will to some degree and that free-will is required as an assumption in order for much of our logic and language to make any sense. If the empirical evidence of a fundamental difference between humans and everything else isn't enough for you then I'll go with Stef's definition - The ability of humans to compare what's in their head to ideal / universal standards. Saying free-will may not necessarily be saying it's "free" from something. It's a way to differentiate those actions that we choose from those that someone or something else chose. "If "free will" happens within causation, why do we call it "free will" and not simply "will"?" Why would I call it that even IF it "happens within causation"? I call it free will to differentiate it from other things one might call will or whatever. Some things might be called "will" that I have no choice over (like hunger, desire, certain preferences) so it makes no sense to conflate that with things I DO choose by labeling them with the same word. Rather than being simple it would actually complicate things. "Is free will falsifiable? How would we go about disproving free will?" It's a scientific question. We are not arguing that science has demonstrated it. We're agnostic but we have philosophical arguments that argue that free-will is necessary and that without it you fall into contradiction. As some assumption is required in order to proceed then we must choose the logically consistent one. "I don't see where the possibility to do otherwise enters into this. In your free will paradigm if someone is mentally ill and rapes someone did the womens rights not get violated because he couldn't have done otherwise? I don't understand the argument you're making here." Without any possibility of doing otherwise there can be no moral responsibility. For someone's rights to be violated there must be a person or persons who are morally responsible for the violation. If he could not have done otherwise then he can have no moral responsibility so NO, the women's rights did not get violated any more than if she was struck by lighting. "I never said that's all that was wrong with it. I don't know what your definition of will is. But I have the feeling your definition of free will is basically going to be what I consider determinism to be." You said "We can still be forced "against our will", which is the problem with initiating force." So it's perfectly reasonable for me to assume you meant was the only (or at least the major) problem with it. I can't read your mind and have to make assumptions based on the language and phrasing you use. Your definition of determinism as stated is "cause and effect" (or perhaps "causality") so it's nothing like my definition of free-will. Cause and effect tells me almost nothing. Could you even define what a cause IS in a way that's not circular? I have never argued that the NAP is about allowing people to pursue their will." What? Did I argue that YOU argued that? I'm so confused. "I have simply argue that because we possess will, for example I like bananas, I desire them and want them. I want to eat bananas (will). Somebody else can stop be from eating bananas, against my will. All I said is that - that example, is an example of force" Okay fine you seemed to be arguing within the context of the NAP but I guess you weren't. So now you're saying that being prevented from pursuing your "will" (eating the banana) by a person is an act of force. Fine. So what? Under determinism it's no different from anything else preventing you from eating the banana. As I argued, under determinism everything is force. It's just one thing causing another. It happening to be a person is irrelevant. A person would have no more control over preventing you from eating the banana than a strong gust of wind would. "You believe it is not force, because they couldn't have done otherwise. I don't understand how this makes it any less an act of force." No I argued that under determinism AND free-will it is force. I argued that under determinism that that force is not aggression. I argued that only with free-will is the NAP valid. Under determinism the person has absolutely no control or choice and what happens cannot possibly be any other way. Anything can apply force against your will, doesn't mean it's morally responsible. It is a particular KIND of force that's being discussed here called aggression. Make sure you're not equivocating on "force". " A rock falling on my head is not an act of aggression. Cause a rock doesn't act. I can't reason with a rock. Rocks don't feel emotions, or empathy. We are clearly a different pile of matter, than a rock. Under determinism that doesn't matter. The person who uses aggression against you has no more choice than the rock. The fact that you can reason (possibly) with them is no different than the fact that you can block the rock (possibly). Saying we are clearly a different pile of matter is completely irrelevant. All piles of matter would be subject to exactly the same deterministic forces and at no point, no matter how fantastically complex the pile of matter ever became would that change. Complexity would create nothing but more complexity. "Our desires, wants, preferences, memories, feelings, sense perceptions, etc, are all a part of us, quite literally." What's "us"?

I agree that aggression in the context of the NAP is the initiation of force. But the NAP itself is also just matter and energy, subject to exactly the same deterministic forces as everything else. Nothing escapes. In reality an act of aggression is one that is initiated by someone. They did it and to some extent and in some sense could have done otherwise. Under determinism there is no logical possibility that anyone could have done otherwise. Being forced against your will (assuming we label preferences and desires "will") cannot be the only problem with initiating force. That's incomplete because weather or falling rocks or anything without a will of it's own (in the sense you're using will - I'm assuming you don't think rocks have desires or preferences) can force you against your will. But that could not conceivably be called an act of aggression by the rocks or the thunder-storm. None of those things can initiate anything. A person who rapes you, for example cannot logically be the aggressor. They are determined by their preferences and desires. Your resistance would also have to be aggression as you would be forcing them against their will by refusing to comply. It is one rock bouncing into another rock. There is no rock that initiates the force. The concept of aggression / initiating force detonates under determinism. This assumes that the free-willer is arguing that free-will must necessarily be outside causality. The problem with that is that causality is actually a very vague concept and it can be argued that it does not exist at all but is rather just a useful concept to describe our perceptual experience. It's also likely that causality and determinism are in tension with each other and may actually conflict. If you think determinism is just "causality" and that free-willers must be proposing a-causality then why not drop the word "determinism" and just say "causality"? This is an important question because there are a great many determinists who believe that determinism (no free-will) is a fully supported scientific theory when actually it's still a hypothesis. Look at someone like Sam Harris who states that "science" (a consensus of academic scientists) must eventually conclude that such determinism IS true. These people seem to forget one important thing: Science has rules.

No, animals cannot commit an act of aggression in any moral sense. That's why holding them morally responsible is irrational. Animals are incapable of evil. They can certainly attack violently and you can call that aggression but you have to be careful not to equivocate with the word "aggression". Animals are causally responsible to some degree but not morally responsible. For the determinist (just referring to causal determinists as that seems to be the majority) humans are similarly just causally responsible. Aggression does not just describe an action, otherwise violent self-defense would also be aggression. Aggression and self-defense would be indistinguishable; Just force. Under determinism everything could be considered aggression because everything simply causes another thing to happen. So the definition of the word "aggression" has everything to do with free-will because without free-will the word and the concept it refers to is redundant if not meaningless. BTW, I think it's worth adding that even if animals have no free-will then it does not necessarily follow that that are like weather or rocks or plants. I do not know if some kind of proto-free-will exists in many animals. Most animal "choices" seem to be driven entirely by impulse and instinct but sometimes in the more intelligent creatures there are inklings of something more advanced. Many animals have an very limited capacity to perceive the future (a dog will know when food is coming or instinctively project the trajectory of the Frisbee, etc) so something LIKE choice may exist in a very primitive sense. Because there can be no moral justification for initiating force that does not collapse into contradiction. You have the choice to initiate force if you like but you will do so with the understanding that no rational moral justification can be given.

Here's a fun review, analyzing some philosophical aspects of Blade Runner. This is just the epilogue to the three part review. http://blip.tv/confused-matthew/blade-runner-epilogue-5780085

This phenomena of young men watching and getting excited about it is extremely fascinating and confounding. The one's I've heard really love it and seem totally sincere. They don't seem to watch ironically. It's incredibly sweet. I love it

Jesus wept. The "prevailing conservative doctrine of laissez fair"? WTF? Fallacy pile-up. Why even bother with this shit? I'll just say that as a life long resident of Northern Ireland I'd like to thank the British government for their wonderful contribution to my people. Big Kiss!

To commit an act of aggression requires some measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Without free-will there is no measure of control over ones actions or ability to have done otherwise. Therefore one cannot commit an act of aggression without free-will. Aggression would be an illusion.

Here's something. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpiVTvdApsA

It's meaningless because because there are no acts of aggression without free-will.

These guys take it all the way. They accept many of the same gross fallacies. They are mostly anti-capitalist too. It's kind of a new manifestation of Christianity and original sin. We left the garden because we were evil. We must accept sacrifice and bow before some higher power, be it God or Gaia. We are parasites, whore-mongers and destroyers. We must return to the garden where all was in balance.

This is obviously important to you and you want to spread this idea within the FDR community so call in on the Sunday show and put forward the arguments. To me the kind of irrationality that states trees may be conscious and suffer is insurmountable. It is actually frightening to me that people like you exist and I am certain you will not change your mind. You believe the Earth is something that owns us. I can't even begin to argue with that. It is evil but I know you think it is good. I have looked people in the eye who say things like that and they just seem alien to me. I know that I'm looking at raw trauma and I right now I can't deal with it. I will listen to your debate with Stef but I will not be responding to you again.

No, sorry pal you don't get to make a 16 minute video and then tell people to keep their responses short. My response was only about 3 paragraphs. How short should it be? How can you tell people here to keep their responses short and then immediately respond by linking an article that is about 15 times longer? It's hypocritical. You claim it's all character attacks while claiming you don't have the time to go through it. That cannot logically be true. Therefore you are being dishonest. If primitivism is the only sustainable way to live then why aren't you doing it? The brutal life stuff is not fictional. I've put forward some of the fallacies you're using but you refuse to respond rationally to them. Anyone can link an article that supports their position. You don't have to look far to find refutations. Just one example - here's a chart comparing the percentage of male deaths through warfare , comparing primitive tribes with 20th century Europeans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_deaths_caused_by_warfare.svg You also don't get to tell me what I "think I need". If you want to go live a subsistence life then fine. I actually care about nature and will not submit to its cruelty because of some blatantly fallacious notions about primitive living. People like us may get that donkey to help carry stuff but we also feed it and take care of it and shield it from the raw brutality of nature. People like you just let it struggle and die. And BTW, yes you are correct, I am pro-human but that does not mean anti-animal. Humans ARE animals. Also, and I do not mean this as an insult, but concern for the welfare of a tree is insane. I mean that. It is insane. A tree is devoid of consciousness and has no capacity for suffering. They are not Ents. Why not avoid walking on grass? Why are we allowed to eat vegetation but not use trees?What about the freedom of bacteria and viruses? Why do trees have this privilege? Who are YOU to draw these arbitrary lines based on your own aesthetic preferences?

Not a single valid response to any of my arguments. Bears are getting by okay? By what standard? In a state of nature, bears live brutal lives and often die in agony; including their cubs. Bears live exactly the same way they did before coming into contact with humans. If you want to live like a bear then go do it. Tell me how you feel when you get your first tooth ache. I doubt you would even enjoy a weekend's camping. We STILL live in nature. We adapt to it just like every other being. Calling it "whoring" or "destroying" is just prejudicial. When we "used to live in nature" as you call it we had to hunt, forage and use the resources around us. You are positing a fantasy that never existed. We died very young, were prone to all sorts of severe illnesses. There was disease and constant hardship. Nature fucking killed us off by a bucket load. "Living naturally" is a bullshit meaningless term. YOU are obviously not doing it unless "living naturally" means having an internet connection. No, you preach your idiotic horseshit about living naturally from the comfort of a heated modern home most likely. When people say "your argument is racist" you know they're desperate just to shut you up. "Racist" is just a bludgeon word in this context. You provide no definition so even if you were right it wouldn't matter. Foraging tribes live lives of subsistence for the most part. These tribes are not the fucking Navi. Tribes, including the Indians (Yes "Indians", I don't give a shit) were and are just as brutal and and often live in rank superstition and hysteria. Why the hell would you want to live that way? To save nature? You would not be saving nature as nature suffers just as much without us. You just believe in some garden of Eden and it's preposterous. I did not say tribes were anti-human or that living without technology in a subsistence existence was anti-human. I said YOU are anti-human. Your arguments specifically single humans when the rest of nature is quite brutal and cares nothing for the well-being of others. I've already explained this but rather than actually rebut my arguments you just insult them AND me. I don't believe you're going to give a rational response on this board so I suggest you call back in and discuss it with Stef. The first time, Stef asked if you wanted to talk to you about it and you refused and now you're HERE, calling Stef's argument "simplistic" without proving anything (where have we heard that shit before?) and insulting people who give you valid responses. Go back and put your case in the call in show. Thousands will hear it. If you're not willing to do that that then go watch Avatar again or something.

There are certain things that are universal. Both humans and non-humans have the capacity for suffering. We can violate a human in the immoral sense by making it suffer and it would violate universality. We could not justify it. Similarly we could violate animals by making them suffer. However we cannot violate an animals agency in the way we can a human's. For example a vet could perform an invasive exam on a dog (assuming it's not causing pain) but it would be impossible to get consent from the dog and some coercion would be necessary. It would likely be annoyed. But if you did that on a human it would be rape. That's because the human has an extra property that can be violated. When it comes to the properties that humans and animals share then I see no reason why sadism towards an animal is not objectively immoral. It cannot be justified rationally much like the rape of a human cannot be justified.

Actually, it would be better if plants and animals did buy and sell weaker organisms for profit. Profit is generally a sign that you are pleasing your customer and being more efficient. If a bear could trade the fish he hunted for other goods then all local bears would be better off through that division of labor, including the baby bears. Instead there exists a brutal struggle for survival that is the same as it was pre-capitalism, pre-civilization and pre-humanity. The animals do feel they have dominion over the earth to the extent that they are capable of that. They will spread over the earth if that is advantageous and they would do so without any regard for the welfare of others. They certainly have no hesitation in dominating US and killing us by the millions. They are not capable of conceiving of "the Earth" in the way we are so any implication that they are somehow acting morally or with humility is preposterous. There is no evidence that anarcho-capitalists feel they have dominion over the earth in the way you are saying. The capitalist knows they must cooperate and trade and domination is not part of it. What's profitable about domination? It is the anarcho-primitivist who seeks to dominate by inducing guilt and shame in humans for their use of natural resources. Even IF you want to characterize what we do as domination then it would STILL be better than the domination that would exist without us. At least OUR dominion would include a concern for the suffering of other animals. There is dominion with or without capitalists because life itself dominates. To single out one species who are particularly good at using resources for their benefit is fallacious, anti-human propaganda.

Very concise.