Kevin Beal

These are things UPB evaluates. Not actual definitions of UPB. And the "goal in mind" is UPB, or to be moral. The goal of exercising the scientific method is to have scientific conclusions (consistent with empirical reality and logical consistency). Saying that a proposition is UPB is saying that it's consistent with UPB. UPB is a methodology for evaluating the logical consistency and universality of moral theories and propositions. It is a meta-ethical framework that looks at the propositions implicit in human action as well as explicit moral theories. In the act of murdering a person, actual logical propositions can be deduced. If you try and murder someone, but resist being murdered in return (what murder means by definition) there is a proposition that looks something like "it's UPB for me to murder Bob, but anti-UPB for Bob to murder me" and this fails logically according to UPB's standard of universality, since if it's UPB, it's got to be UPB for Bob too. Utilitarianism too fails because it allows for moral propositions which are anti-universal. The "preferable" in UPB refers to this universality. It cannot be preferable logically for Bob and I to murder each other, since I have to not want to be murdered back in order for it to actually be a murder (denying Bob the right I grant myself). Preferable refers to the satisfaction of the standard of universality rather than being a person's subjective preference for something like chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Which can be confusing since my example states that I don't want Bob to murder me back, as if it were a subjective preference, but the actual break in UPB is the denying a person the right you grant yourself bit. What goes on in people's subjective experience, their desires and beliefs are irrelevant to UPB. It's the propositions that matter.

For the record, I would love to talk to a cleverly constructed robot / AI and have multiple times to varying degrees of satisfaction. I just don't pretend to myself that they are responsible for what they are saying, available for correction or making decisions the way I do when talking to people. And if you are talking about computers like the kind that AI's and robots and you use to type your response, then to my knowledge, yes, they are limited to symbol manipulation. They have different methods for input and output like this screen and your keyboard, but what it means to "compute" is a simulation of the kinds of logical processes humans perform in their brains done at the level of symbol manipulation, for the benefit of other humans who need to read or develop on top of that. As far as anyone is aware, semantics, meaning, consciousness, free will etc require the wetware of the brain. If we could tap into that by building wetware machines of some sort, then I think we could have true AI and conscious robots.

An amazing guitarist, Justin King:

"ambivalence is just a word for a lack of information" - FDR2693 Feminist Straw Woman Attacks! (~1hr 42mins)

The actual XML feeds that podcast clients get podcasts from all include dates, so I don't think that's the reason. There are two volume 6 feeds right now, so you might be pulling from the old one rather than the latest up to date one. old one new one While there aren't currently any notifications being sent when new podcasts are added (albeit there is a new one almost every day), you could try using the http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/ podcast browser that JamesP and I built. I think it's pretty good and probably has more features than the podcast client you're using now.

No reason not to, and like you said, it's easy enough to do. I've written it down. Thanks for the suggestion!

Issue 1 is fixed now, thanks! Issue 2 comes at the expense of a few features and I'm not going to enable scroll-click at this time. However, if you wanted to look at descriptions of podcasts without changing the track, you can do that now. If you wanted scroll click for a different reason than that, then perhaps another feature is in order. Issue 3 is actually the intended behavior. And what do you mean about the SEO bit? I'm not aware of any SEO issues to do with the sort of redirecting this page does... Feature 1 is a good idea. I'll write that down. Feature 2 is kind of sort of happening soon-ish Feature 3 Also happening soon.

I totally thought it was a joke at first when I saw it this morning. I'm still in disbelief and am sort of waiting for someone to say "trololololol"

Well, I'm sorry Emilia for the confusion. I could definitely have been more clear. Especially considering what follows. My statement was not in any way meant as a put down, but it was a challenge for you to backup your claims. If it were a verbal exchange, I think that would have come through much more clearly. Because, even still, we've been talking as if my history is clouding my judgment, as if it were a given. Nothing I've said seems to have changed that for you. In fact, it seems the opposite has occurred. You appear to me to be even more sure that my judgment is compromised. An example of what I mean is that I tried to show that I'm aware of relevant family history and how it has had an impact on me, and what you suggested I should do is spend more time with women. And I don't know if this is because things got especially confusing with my "I don't know how you know so much about me" comment, but you didn't comment on the fact that I spend a lot of time with women. And you said that I didn't ask for elaboration, but as you immediately followed that up, I did. But I don't understand how that would be an onus upon me to ask you for clarification on these things. I mean, telling me that you think I should spend more time with women without explaining why you think that is sort of cryptic, isn't it? Obviously, it's because of something in my account of my history that prompted it, maybe the bit about my mother destroying my dad? I'm genuinely curious. I would prefer it if you had asked for clarification about my history and how much of it is processed. I mean, I did mention that I'm willing to talk more about it with you (and later that I'm in therapy) if you think it's important. In my blindness, I was trying to offer you as much ammo as you needed to blast the armies of falseness away revealing the shining city of truth. And honestly, I was mildly disappointed in yet another conclusion that I don't understand. You mentioned that you were confused as to how I'm still confused. What I'm confused specifically about is how you think my judgment is clouded. I'm still no closer to understanding that. And maybe everything you've said is true. I don't know. I wish that I did. But, this is probably a conversation that shouldn't be over text. If you would rather, I would be open to having a skype chat about this.

This podcast is great! FDR56 Emails of the week - and free will!

A counter argument would be the subject of Stef's debate with Michael Badnarik:

Wow... haha

For someone who's appealing to someone's humility, you are not being very humble. How about asking for elaboration instead of flatly telling someone that they are wrong? I mean, you don't know if he's got something that could change your whole life, much less your current perspective on this issue.

I actually don't know anything about it beyond the little bit stef mentions in the third podcast I linked. I haven't read any Nietzsche and only the Trial and Death of Socrates from Plato, so I'm probably not the person to say. I think basically the idea is that if you are logical, you are being UPB which is the be virtuous. And to be UPB is, I think, to be less conflicted about your own values which at the very least causes relief if not happiness. And then if you're acting UPB then you know virtue. And if you act virtuously it increases your own sense of self mastery, efficacy and esteem. Something like that.

Welcome Ivan! It seems like for a lot of people, you'll see a couple videos, forget about the show for a while and then something clicks and you end up watching a lot more videos / listening to a lot more podcasts. That thirst you mentioned. I don't know why that is, but I think it's fascinating. Why do you think you got thirsty? It would be nice to recreate that toward my own nefarious purposes mwahaha!

With the people close to me in my life who I consider friends, I actively take an interest in their well being, ask about the progress of things and the goals that they have, and if it comes up even a tiny bit ask them to elaborate on their feelings about things. And these are adults who have their own support structures and independence to whatever degrees. A child is completely dependent on their parents to develop the necessary skills to become their own competent adults. If it's the case that they weren't even doing the friend thing when you were a child, I would be (and have been) pretty upset about it. I don't know that you would need to do or not do anything because of it, but the idea of a child (like myself as a child) who didn't have parents taking an active interest even to the level of my friendships (which are in a lot of ways less important than parent-child relationships) really upsets me. It feels like a massive injustice. Because how else am I supposed to learn to connect with other people if they aren't doing it with me? Well, by spending years in therapy as it turned out. Maybe there's no need or cause for upset in your case, but I thought I'd share anyway.

Were your beliefs and desires in any way causal in asking me this question? If yes, you've accepted the causal nature of your conscious awareness. If not, then we're not having a conversation. I'm talking to a cleverly constructed robot who only simulates beliefs and desires. If you accept that conscious awareness is itself causal, as I see it, you can go one of two ways with that. You can say that the causal component is such that it makes our experience of choice illusory, or you can say that free will and causality are in no way in conflict with each other. (I go with the latter). We can look at a series of events where I've chosen to go to Rob's Grill over Lin's Sushi Joint because they've got a special deal on my favorite meal tonite. If we take into consideration all of the variables in this "equation" we can determine that I would indeed have chosen Rob's Grill. But does this mean my experience of choosing the place is illusory because the variables point to this decision? No, it doesn't. If I have the desire for my favorite meal and the belief that it is on sale and I value things consistent with this decision, then obviously that's what I'm going to do. I don't just pick a place at random according to some math_random() function in my neurological makeup. What it means to choose is to take my desires and beliefs into consideration, even if that desire is to flip a coin. What determinism says is that this choice is illusory and the entire subjective experience of making the decision is superfluous. It is not necessary at all. And indeed many philosophers state this explicitly. It's part of a broader position in the philosophy of mind called epiphenomenalism. Epiphenomenalism is basically saying that consciousness is not causal. To take an analogy, it's like the graphical representations on the screen you are looking at. The pixels don't determine anything. They are just an afterthought from the vantage point of the computer. All the computer cares about it symbol manipulation. The pixels are for our benefit, getting meaning from the computer which knows no meaning. And you can say "why is this distinction important between choosing and appearing to choose? Why should we not treat them the same, since the result is the same anyway?". And the reason for that is the performative contradiction. You cannot say that you have a correct or better or logical position if you do not accept the reality of this subjective experience, the experience of making choices, the experience of free will (freedom of the will). This is touched upon by Ayn Rand and other philosophers, but I think Stef argues it the best:

Welcome to the boards! How small do you think the state needs to be to be able to safely shut it down?

I am confused about the "ouch". But let me tell you how I'm experiencing our exchange. You've kindly offered several corrections and pieces of advice. But despite this, I've only grown more confused about what I'm supposed to think or do. I'm sure I do have some baggage in this area, and you've suggested that I do, but you haven't told me why you think it's baggage that leads me to false conclusions. You just put it forward as an idea. And I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. And when you said "ouch" you gave me no information on what was prickly or painful about my statement. I would really like to apologize if I did something inappropriate, but I have no idea what it was that I would be apologizing for... Maybe it's some limitation of mine, and I guess it wouldn't be terribly surprising if it were, but I kinda feel like I'm pulling teeth over here in order to understand where you are coming from. Honestly, I'm trying to be as sincere and honest as I can about this, and trying to meet you where you're at, but for whatever reason we keep missing each other. That's frustrating for me.

Yes, it's meant as a progression from reason to virtue to happiness. It's from Nietzsche who was talking about Socrates. FDR1397 Happiness Part 1 FDR1398 Happiness Part 2 And also in this listener questions podcast starting around the 3min mark: FDR2460 Should Hitler Have Been Punished?

Haha. I always just wanted to say that. No need to respond if you don't want to.

What am I? Chopped liver?

heya logic32! Could you please define 'ownership'?! I don't believe Stef ever said that the definition of ownership is direct control. Rather, it is the basis. Ownership is a institutionally recognized claim to objects. The basis for how you can come to own different things depends on whatever the thing is. You can buy a car, but you can't buy a human, right? The way we recognize new ways of ownership or resolve conflicts in grey areas is to look at which claim is the most logically consistent. It would make no sense to say that you could ever own me, right? And the self ownership argument is the reason for that. You can't reasonably claim ownership over something that I bought from someone who made that thing, right? Someone who exchanges value for value has a much better claim than someone who simply states that they own something, obviously. There is no ontologically objective sense in which we say that property "exists". And the temptation is to say that therefore property is a false concept, but it's the same thing as saying that this is not my argument / position because it doesn't exist in an ontologically objective sense. By "ontologically objective" I mean things like rocks and trees which you can touch. As opposed to ontologically subjective which is things like dreams, consciousness, web developers (jobs), money (independent of fibers and inks), things that "exist" in that they are represented as existing, but have no physical existence. Perhaps a needlessly complicated idea for this discussion, but it's important in addressing the previously mentioned temptation to dismiss property on the basis of lacking physical existence. After all, there is no signature written in the aether surrounding my computer or my body. Hopefully that makes sense.

That's very interesting. I'd love to hear more if you don't mind. I don't know how you know so much about me, but I would like to understand. And it's not like I'm never around women. I just want to be clear about that. I don't want to give the impression that they aren't in my life. My therapist is a woman, my roommate, half my co-workers, some friendly acquaintances and I'm a big fan of my best friends fiancé. I grew up in a female dominated household. I have nothing against women. I quite like women. Some of my favorite people are women. I don't know what image you have of me, but I felt like clarifying that in case you pictured me as some vaguely misogynistic hermit who avoids spending time with women. And you're right that it's not the same sense of the word "friendship". At least not with the Scott fella who was called a "bitch", but it was the same with Karen's current boyfriend when she said that she didn't want to "just be friends". That's actually more what I was referring to. The Scott guy is not someone I imagine myself ever being, but where I do see it being relevant is how you avoid being that "super friend" and just be an actual real friend. I mean it's not like my unrequited feelings would just magically disappear (at least not right away). Some part of me would still be tempted to try and impress and win her affections. I guess, it just seems like dangerous territory, if not a plain ol' bad idea. And I knew guys who were these super friends to different degrees. Some where it was obvious he was being used, and other cases where it's harder to tell, and maybe it was just a series of miscommunications. And thanks for watching the video. I know it's an investment in time (her videos are not short), so I appreciate that

I think Lians makes a great point, for that's worth, but I wanted to add that while you cannot divorce yourself from fear and anxiety, I think that something you can work out of your life is self attack. The reason I bring that up is because so often for me, anxiety was quickly followed up by self attack or self loathing (since self attack has the connotation of being like physical abuse, like cutting). And instead of the anxiety informing me about situations, it would shut me down completely and I wasn't learning from the anxiety. The anxiety would be followed up with thoughts like "if I'm so anxious and other people aren't that must mean that I'm immature or overly sensitive" and this sort of thing. Or thoughts like "people won't like me, women won't find me attractive if I'm this anxious this often". And I think that's a real problem and one I'm finally getting out of. Some great podcasts on the subject: FDR1815 Flourishing Through Self Attack - A Mecosystem Listener Conversation FDR1394 Self Attack Through Fog - A Conversation FDR1392 Depression, Self Attack, Authority - A Masters Thesis FDR1258 Integrity and Self Attack (Convo) FDR1191 Ending Self Attacks - A Listener Conversation FDR957 Overcoming Self Abuse