Kevin Beal

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I just mean to point out that a person can be hypocritical and still have a conclusion be true which is why a lot of people don't care about this performative contradiction. The point of the analytical rejection is to show how how a conclusion can only be logical if the methodology is logical (it can't be accidentally logical, for example).

But even more than hypocritical, it's just plain illogical. Stef talks about this in great detail in his recent Analytical Rejection argument. He starts by saying: The focus has to be on the methodology rather than the conclusions: In the case of the person arguing against UPB, it is the methodology that we focus on. For more you should read the full essay.

I tried 3 times to start doing sentence completions before I actually worked it into my routine. I thought it was just a little too much like homework, and the concepts a little impersonal, like I was just going through the motions. If you try it out and don't find much value in it, then I think that's reason enough to stop. I wouldn't do it simply because it works for somebody else. I think that the point is in encouraging you to be conscious of your values so that you may be more effective in living it, and in so doing, increase your healthy self esteem (for want of a better term). I have a morning routine every week day that involves stretching, eating 2 hard boiled eggs, having some bulletproof coffee and doing that morning's sentence completions. Simply doing anything at all toward living my values (like doing sentence completions) does help me, the way that a simple physical exercises do. It helps flex those muscles, and the day itself feels more valuable. Everything is an opportunity cost. It takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at something, and there are things that I, without thinking, have become a master at, such as distracting myself, rationalizing anything, and other things that I don't really want to be as good at as something like programming computers for example. Most of the sentence completions are general enough that they can apply either very abstractly or to specific events in my life. And I try and make them work for me. I push my completions further by eliminating qualifiers, being specific and thinking about how it relates to my life and the day ahead of me. I don't have the patience to plan out very much, and if I lose sight of why I'm doing something, I'm probably just going to drop it. By doing sentence completions and reminding myself of my values, I start with that and the actions I take come more from that, and less from habit. So that I stay out more ahead of things and guide my life a little more, rather than be passively tugged around by life. I save journaling and dream work for the end of the day, usually, when I have less of a time constraint.

Horrifying! I googled it some more and there is only like two people writing about this that I could find. This is not someone who should be giving people advice. She should lose her job, immediately.

Broken Heart - by Dr Dog

Well, I think so. There's probably something I'm not considering, but there is this quote of Stef's that I really like "virtue, like a muscle, grows in resistance". Which I think is true. A definition of virtue that I like starts at a bare minimum that you don't do any evil. And then I think from there rationality and honesty constitute virtuous behavior. I really hate things like racism, but if I were to speak out against racism around where I live, I would meet no resistance. Everybody pretty much agrees that racism is a shitty thing. But if I were in 1920's america saying things against the racism that was around then, I could very well get myself beat up or worse. I think it's fair to say that the second is more virtuous than the first precisely because it's more risky for me socially. Standing up for a woman accused of being a witch during the inquisition could've got me killed, and so I don't think that you've always gotta stand up for what is right and true, but I think that the risk involved is integral for virtue, generally. I think that Stef talking about a lack of culpability for women, or that spanking is immoral and the other unpopular things in a public format is very virtuous. And that virtue breeds the respect and admiration that myself and lots of other people feel in response. I think to a lesser extent, simply being true to yourself in the face of people who aren't very healthy is virtuous. Like not saying returning an "i love you" to a person who is saying it just to manipulate you. There is everyday virtuous behavior too, that doesn't involve becoming a public figure or getting beat up, haha.

I think it's an interesting topic I think that when people talk about having good values, they are talking about a rational and healthy estimation of the worth of a thing. Like, because I have a decent understanding of cause and effect across larger segments of time, I can forgo something instantly gratifying in exchange for something that will be ultimately much more gratifying (like farming!). Similarly, I have a decent understanding of ethics and a capacity for empathy so I value actions which are virtuous over actions which are more comfortable / familiar. I suspect that if we were able to take all of the things a person values relative to each other and were able to judge it healthy or not, we could see whether or not the person really values themselves. And I think that is a big part of where depression and low self esteem comes from. I really like Nathaniel Branden's sentence completion exercises because they are all about getting you to think about what your values are, and it has done a lot for my own self esteem to think about what my values are and act toward them. So, I think it's an important area of discussion. Definitely worthy of exploration.

No, I think that's a good description. I think that technically though, a value describes the estimated worth of something as compared to another thing. I value your pen more than I value my five dollars, for example. I value spending time watching TV and rubbing my bloated hairy belly, but I value making a living more, so I get up and wash myself and drive myself to work. The "because" in each of your examples either reference how you measure that estimated worth (language enables me to survive), or pointing to the evidence that you do in fact value it (value other people's perspectives because I'm ask for it). Both can lead to the other. I can notice that I value something because I do it and only then later discover how I make that judgment of it's worth, or I can reason my way toward understanding it's worth and then act consistently with it. I don't know if that helps at all. Just some thoughts I had.

How are harms objective and measurable? Not trying to put you on the spot or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

There used to be yearly BBQ's, but I don't think that happens anymore. It takes a lot of work to set up and organize and market, etc, but if you want to work on that then that sounds like it could be a lot of fun. I might show up for something like that. I can't speak for Stef or Mike, but I imagine that the problem with asking Stef to host it and put it together is that he and Mike already have a ton of stuff on their plate and so if you want something to happen for the show, they are much more likely to consider it if you actually do some of the work yourself and demonstrate through your action that it's a valuable proposition. They get suggestions everyday probably and a lot of them sound good in theory, but if you aren't willing to work at it yourself, you aren't likely to convince them. I thought it would be a great idea to have all the podcasts in a single place in a convenient web-based podcast browser. Something like a Philosophysician 2.0 (if you know what that is). And so I actually built it. Several iterations in fact to show as a prototype, hoping it would get integrated into the main site. I pestered Stef for a while and he posted about one version in the donator section and I got some good feedback, but it didn't quite fit into how the current site is setup. And then Mike became operations manager and we talked about how we might make it work and so I designed a few mockups, he liked them and I got to work. I got JamesP to help me out who did an awesome job designing an API and setting up the database and some other back-end development magic. With some consulting, more feedback and a lot of work (and a TON of tags a listener put together for a separate project), I've got a beta up and running and I think it's pretty damn cool. You can check it out here. (An official launch is coming up!) I would suggest, that if you really think this is a good idea to get people together, that you try it out yourself maybe in a smaller way, like all the people in the state you live in, or something like that. You could even do it to raise funds for the show! It does sound like a fun idea, and I hope that you do.

No. A chess program doesn't consciously decide things. There is no meaning or understanding that it experiences. Using terms like "decide" and "think" when describing artificial intelligence is metaphorical. When talking about it with humans, we mean it literally.

If I have the same beliefs and desires and am placed in the same situation I have to respond to, I am going to choose the same course of action, obviously. If I have the exact same desires and beliefs, of course I'm going to respond the same way. That's still not determinism. All you've accomplished is saying "if everything is the same, then everything is the same". Or, "if events are taking place in the same manner, then they take place in the same manner". When you say something as vague as "input" anything you want can fit in there, including an event where free will took place: "input X = choosing to swat a fly". Also, consciousness does generate it's own effects. Emergent phenomena can be causal as that new state, independent of the atoms that compose it. Water splashes, solids hit, minds think. Atoms don't do any of these things. Causal descriptions have to take into account what the objects involved actually are. Rocks don't think or act, but humans (when they are conscious) do. And that's important. Where is your account of this? How does this figure into your brand of determinism? If you don't actually address it, then you aren't really talking about people, much less consciousness and free will.

I think I know what you mean. And think that I agree. In fact, I've almost completely stopped saying that to adults about their adult lives. If we say "I'm sorry" or "I love you" or other kinds of connecting phrases too much and too readily, it does diminish it, for sure. I think that goes too for phrases that aren't as important as those, like compliments or words of encouragement, etc. That being said, yelling at and hitting a child like you were an animal is definitely something that warrants those words. It's not a reflexive "I'm supposed to say this here" kind of thing, I am truly sorry.

I'm very sorry about that. It's a horrible and dehumanizing thing to do to anyone, many times more so to a child. And I think you analysis is spot on, for what it's worth. I hope there is another call setup soon and that you can join us

Totally. That's why I have no idea what determinists mean when they say "outside the causal chain", as if the totality of "causality" were some grand physics equation.

A fly lands on my leg -> I choose to swat it -> it flies away unharmed That's a causal story. The circumstances of the fly on my leg cause me to decide what I would like to do about it which results in the fly getting away because I missed. Is this not causal? Of course it is. The idea that causality == determinism is not true.

Ok, so it's different. I have absolutely no idea how or why it's different, because you don't say. Or how this difference actually addresses the issue. If you just say that it's what people call reason but determinist style, then you've completely ignored the criticism. We have no idea how this is supposed to resolve the issues of preferred states or reason independent from mere belief. You imply that it does resolve these things, but provide nothing for me to actually come to the same conclusion myself. It's not even a bad argument. It's not an argument at all... Also, The Robin makes a fantastic point.

I've probably just misunderstood, but are you saying that what he has written is like clubbing this woman with knowledge? That it's abusive in some way? If so, I'd be interested to hear how you understand that to be the case. Maybe it's just some block of mine, but I don't think there is anything abusive or trolly or inappropriate about what he has written. Also, I'm not sure I understand where you got "You feel bad for hitting them" from. My interpretation of what she wrote was something like: "I don't feel bad, because...". And I don't understand your advice to validate people. Surely, we shouldn't validate people in making mistakes or doing things which are immoral, right? I confess to having had more than a couple unproductive and escalating exchanges with people online, so it could be some failure on my part. But if you're game, I'd be interested to read your reply

First off, just echoing what others have said: that's an incredibly petty thing she said and I'm really sorry this is even something you'd have to consider Well, that's kinda the point. If you need certainty, it can be a good idea to be vulnerable to see how they use that power. If they use it against you then it could provide the certainty you need to never look back, and get the most vivid and unfiltered expression of the abuse, to hold on to, so that you remember that whenever you meet new people who are like that and who you definitely do not want to get into a relationship with. I didn't take this advice and in hindsight, I wish that I had. Not that I ever wanted to continue having a relationship with my mother, but I had some ambivalence for a long time about how I actually made that break. The exception is with parents who might actually fuck up your life in some way like physically beat the shit out of you or call the cops on you or something a psychotic person might do. Or, if you're already certain. Then I wouldn't see the point.

I think it's a good response. I might change the running across the road bit to something like burning the dinner and maybe change "hitting my wife is bad" to "hitting wives is bad" so it sounds more like a general rule. That is, if you're going to engage. Obviously she didn't watch the video since her comment makes no sense in response, so, it might be pointless to engage. It's a really good response though, I think, for what it's worth.

Both examples have ontological aspects. Action is real. Ethics would make absolutely no sense if it did not bear on the real world. Ethical theories like Argumentation Ethics and UPB don't say anything about what the possible outcomes of actions may be. The argument from effect may be important, but it's not actually a criticism of the theory. It's a criticism of reality (assuming it really would result in whatever outcome). And as far as a practical application goes, it's not limited to debate. If someone acts hypocritically, then you are justified in rejecting them and criticising them on that basis. By quickly and methodically rejecting hypocrites, you save yourself a lot of time, and it also means that you cannot sustain statism, religion and other similar cults. By offering people these frameworks, you give them the same ability. And you don't want to debate people who don't understand that hypocrisy is bad or won't look at themselves. Assuming you are actually having a productive debate with someone, then it's not that far from getting them to accept enough of UPB or argumentation ethics to avoid moral evils like statism and religion. Libertarians bickering about stupid shit is not the fault of ethical theories

This is not what the argument is, though. Which is why I suggested revisiting it. You are being lazy. It is a necessary contradiction because you claim to have reasoned thru the position while saying that reasoning (part of free will) is not real. I have made the case in the last and a few other posts as to why reason requires free will and it's covered in pretty much all of Stef's videos on determinism. Take the time to actually see what it is you call "superficial" and "lazy". Because this obvious strawman is definitely superficial and lazy.

What is truth? It's that which accurately describes what is real. This exists subjectively within human minds. Rocks perform actions. The condition of satisfaction for beliefs is that the belief actually represents reality, and actually even more than that when you're talking about reason; i.e. that your capacity to reason was causal in the accurate conclusion: your true belief. (Stef's analytic rejection goes more into this). If you believe whatever you believe because antecedent causes forced you to believe it, then it makes no sense to say that you reasoned it through. The reasoning is epiphenomenal in this case (as I describe in my previous post) and is not itself causal. So all you know is that you have beliefs with no satisfiable conditions of satisfaction. If you are a determinist, then no, nothing is true. All your arguments are static on a TV screen. The moment you start talking about reason and causally generating belief and action as a conscious being, you are talking about free will. You don't understand the performative contradiction argument. Please go back over it because you completely missed the point. You don't escape it by falsely asserting that free will must be "outside the causal chain" (whatever that even means).

Not exactly: FDR554 Argumentation Ethics http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_554_Argumentation_Ethics.mp3

It was a very enjoyable chat. Thanks for setting it up Ivan! And thanks Joel and Mark too!