Kevin Beal

Yes, absolutely. You've captured exactly how I feel about it.

Yea, it does make sense. I think that what I did was use "reducible" in two different senses without pointing out the difference. First I used it in the sense that smaller systems make up larger ones (word -> sentence -> essay) and then in a second more particular sense in which a reduction is supposed to account for a phenomena in a way that is either eliminative (rainbows & sunsets)(illusory) or non-eliminative (solidity as molecular configuration)(non-illusory). Thinking back, I'm not even sure what I was driving at with the few paragraphs. Of course you are right with your analogy and very well put, I think. I unreservedly concede that point. The way that consciousness is generated, which brain regions are involved, what kinds of neuronal activity are involved in what kinds of conscious experiences is all possible, I'm sure. But the actual conscious experiences themselves aren't reducible in the eliminative or non-eliminative sense. Not in the first because it's real no matter how you cut it, and not in the second because you can't do the check for consciousness like you can for the metal rod in water. To quickly re-iterate the point of the second half of my post (given this distinction), to say that consciousness is superfluous fluff on an already working machine (epiphenomenalism) and is not itself causal, is to say that consciousness can be reduced eliminative-ly. But showing how this doesn't work logically means consciousness is (or can be) causal introduces the causal self-reference I talked about above. And once you grant all these things, you are basically already saying that people do things because they chose to do them, and that this choice was causal. Which is just another way of saying that we have free will. Hopefully that is clearer. I apologize for the confusion!

And this John Searle video is pretty great and relevant concerning the issue of ontological subjectivity:

I've probably just misunderstood, but I think I disagree with your analogy here. I actually spend about 40+ hours a week writing javascript, which I love, and if I understand it rightly, it's a literal reduction all the way down to the bit. The same javascript always produces the same bits. Unless, maybe, you're using new Date() or Math.random(). I don't know enough about computer science to say... John Searle's point is that, unlike javascript, consciousness is irreducible to the actual synaptic firings. There are neuronal activities which enable people to experience the color red, but the actual conscious experience of the color is not literally reducible to whatever neuronal subsystems that are involved in vision. Looking into a pool of water and seeing a straight metal rod appear to be bent, is something we can check to see if the perception is the reality: that the rod is in fact not bent, but straight. We can't, however, do this same sort of check with consciousness itself. This is not a matter of just not having the right tools, it's actually to do with the nature of consciousness. You can't, for example, say that I'm not seeing red when I am. The perception as it relates to reality may be an illusion, but the actual conscious experience: red, is not an illusion, it just is. The existence of consciousness is fundamentally subjective, unlike neurons. There is no conscious unit that is comprised of neuron-based units. There is nothing to point to concerning consciousness, where with neurons, we can point to very specific regions of the brain responsible for sensing pain in my leg. The temptation is to think that something that exists subjectively cannot act causally on things that exist objectively. This is pretty clearly false, though, if you consider that money doesn't actually exist objectively. Pieces of paper composed of certain fibers and inks exist objectively, but money as we actually understand it, exists subjectively. More on that here. And it's causal relationship to our transactions is very real. As far as free will specifically is concerned, whenever we have a causal account of chosen behavior, we will have a gap in this account "between the causes of my decision in form of beliefs and desires and the actual decision, and there is another gap between the decision and the performance of the action". If free will exists, it happens in those gaps. Determinists seem to claim that a reducible account from consciousness to neuronal activity is possible here in these gaps, and thus free will is an illusion. It is my belief that, not only will no account ever be possible for this (due to irreducibility), but also that conscious intentional states involved are causally self referential. Which is really just another way of saying: I do something because I have decided to do it. The causal relationship described by "self-referential" being: "I will succeed in carrying out my intention to raise my arm only if (a) I do raise my arm and (b) my intention to raise my arm causes my raising of my arm". If the arm raises itself, or my intention to raise it is not involved in its raising for whatever reason, then it's not a causally self-referential account. By the same token, if my conscious decision is not causal in the carrying out of that decision, then free will does not enter into the equation. This is why consciousness must be made out to have no causal relationship with anything real by determinists. It has to be described as superfluous fluff on top of an already working machine. As soon as you concede that consciousness is itself causal, you make free will possible. And that's why any account of determinism that is simply "the universe is causal" is a red herring and does not actually address free will at all. I hope that makes sense. A lot of it is new information for me, but as Einstein put it "if you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough", so put me to the test if anything doesn't make sense

Apparently the quote is Einstein's "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"

Fiver actually told me this would happen...

Haha. I do this too, although usually not out loud. I heard a quote somewhere before that goes something like "if you can't explain an idea to a child, you don't really understand it" or something to that effect. So, often I imagine myself explaining theories to myself as if I were another person who had never heard the idea before. Most of the time my explanations aren't to my own satisfaction, and in so doing, discover what it is I don't yet know, but wish to know.

Welcome to the boards, Paul! Thanks for sharing I'm jealous that you've been to a meetup. I haven't done that yet...

Introduction to Philosophy Series https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A Logical Fallacies Series Part 1 & Part 2 Productive Debates Series Part 1 & Part 2 Concepts Series Part 1 & Part 2 & Part 3 Notable Podcasts FDR280 How Do You Know? FDR582 Debating Amateurs FDR1327 Debating Tips Also, there is some epistemology in the free books Real Time Relationships and Universally Preferable Behavior. Also, welcome to the boards!

Mostly I mean feeling attracted to someone who is not going to date me and trying to manage my own discomfort around that. I'm not into dudes...

Well maybe it's a difference in defining "friendship" then. Because certainly I've had conversations with women who probably aren't after my D or my $. I do this daily with some very pleasant and nice ladies in my life. If that's your definition, then I've got plenty of friends who are girls. To be intimate, however, like disclosing really personal things you don't tell other people, sharing where your insecurities and vulnerabilities are, and the sorts of things that would, for me, distinguish an acquaintance from a real friend; I have a noticeable amount more trouble doing this with women without it becoming loaded and complicated for me. And I'm not convinced that this is all just my own baggage that I just need to get over. Some of it is my baggage, I'm sure, and having had a female therapist for the past (almost) 4 years, disclosing very personal things and sharing my insecurities and vulnerabilities, it's been loaded and complicated at times for me. But I have at least some idea of how much of that is my own baggage and where it's just reality. If I have enough closeness to be really vulnerable with a woman and there is mutual trust and respect and all of that, and she's available and anywhere near my age, then it seems insane to me that I would just stay friends with her. Being how rare that is (at least for me) I would be working double-time to have a romantic relationship with her. I've noticed disappointment when I try and have that with women that I don't date. Either I come to want to date them and it's just not going to happen, or the connection ended up being superficial. Just simply being friends in the way I mean "friends" just never happens in my life, and I'm inclined to believe that it happens this way generally. Any disagreement, I believe, is simply about miscommunication. So hopefully I've communicated it well enough to find agreement. If a guy tells me that they have this and it's not a family member or something like that, then I'm very suspicious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwPg2oarG_c

It was needlessly confusing for me to quote an unrelated thing you said. (sorry!) What I'm referring to is: Although, the argument also bears on the genetic fallacy insofar as it describes the methodology used to reach their conclusions. It's called the "analytic rejection". Please give it your focus. It's an important thing to understand.

Stefan very rigorously explains why it's not actually an ad hominem as you had previously stated, in this video:

I think that of course it's possible. I've had female friends in my life. I just posted the video to highlight what I see as a problem. If I'm not attracted, it's usually fine for me. I try not to worry about it. If they are attracted to me, then that's not my responsibility, so long as I'm not leading them on. If I am attracted, then I just know that I'm never going to be satisfied with friendship. It's never going to work for me and I'm either going to pursue it romantically or drift apart pretty quickly. If I'm not attracted, but she is, then I find it difficult personally to know what is leading her on or not. Maybe other people don't have that problem, but I've been accused of it a couple times. So generally I stay away from friendships with females, unless I know there is no attraction either way and I actually enjoy spending time with them. This hasn't happened since high school for me... I'd be happy to have female friends, but there's a significant issue of attraction to consider that you don't have to think about with guy friends. All the guys I've talked to about it have had similar experiences / attitude. Women I've talked to about it don't seem to think it's that big of a deal whether or not there is attraction. That seems so weird to me, but maybe that's because I'm missing something. I don't know.

I can't really offer criticism since it's mostly a collection of conclusions and not much methodology. Whenever I hear someone who advocates moral relativism, determinism or stoicism, some big red flags go up for me. Maybe entirely wrongly, and I'm not an expert. Obviously if these conclusions are true, then to deny them would be at your disadvantage, but if they aren't true, then it seems to me to be especially important: (This completely ignores the truth value of any arguments you may have) A completely logical extension of moral relativism is holding yourself and others to lowered or non existent standards. Not holding people to standards that are true regardless of who said it, that is, binding on people because it is logical, rather than an imposition of will, leaves just the imposition of will, and since that is not something anyone, including a moral relativist, would feel comfortable with, you are left with not holding people to any standards. The reasoning looks something like: 1. objective ethics if true would apply to anyone because it's true, and not because anyone in particular said it (another way of saying objective) 2. ethics are not objective 3. moral arguments are all false, considering 2. 4. holding people to moral standards is to lie to them, either through manipulation or ignorance 5. what is really happening is an imposition of one's will over another person 6. an honest person would not impose their will on another person 7. an honest person would ask people to behave a certain way because they would prefer it 8. one person's preference is not any more valid or objective than another's C. An honest moral relativist would never hold anyone to any standards of behavior (including themselves) A completely logical extension of stoicism is psychological suppression and repression. As Epictetus said "Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them." which is to say that you inflict suffering and misery on yourself. It would then be a cruelty you do yourself to allow these feelings and judgments to sustain themselves. Thus, the "healthy" thing to do would be to suppress discomfort. The reasoning looks something like: 1. events don't cause experiences 2. people experience suffering 3. people inflict suffering on themselves in response to events 4. save for the masochist, anyone would choose to feel positive emotions over "negative" ones 5. to have mutually exclusive choices over how you feel in response to events makes those feeling choices arbitrary 6. our feelings and judgments in response to events cannot be said to be true or false, considering 5. 7. suppression / repression serve to keep the truth of your experience out of conscious awareness (defense mechanism) C. There is no such thing as psychological suppression / repression This doesn't mean that you do these things. I don't know you, right? And if the conclusions are true, then to say that something bad happens as a result of accepting that truth is pretty meaningless. I mean, you can't just decide to believe that something is untrue because it could have bad consequences. But you can see that if you're wrong and you apply it the way I've shown, it's serious business. You don't want to be wrong about things like this.

Also, Daniel has a really awesome video about how to think about what therapy is, what makes for a good therapist, the importance of self therapy, etc. It's a must listen for anyone who wants to gain more self knowledge through this sort of analysis and coaching: And you are more than welcome Ari!

I think that's against the forum guidelines... Just kidding

Yea, I've checked out that series too. I didn't finish it, but it's really good stuff

Making the Social World by Searle (which I'm reading currently) is also really good It's mostly about language, intentionality and how they create power structures (for better or worse).

I've taken lots of selfies and have them on my facebook profile. I was told that I need to take them off of my timeline so that I don't appear like a totally vain person. So I did. I didn't realize that it was considered so unhip. I don't get it. I like selfies. But I also want to be hip to the hop... Is that what the cool kids are saying nowadays? Wavy gravy? Tubular?

(I haven't seen the video yet) They can be taken away via contract. Generally rights describe obligations, authorizations, certification, responsibilities, duties, etc, and power structures generally. These are institutional facts that are represented through contract. When people talk about having a human right, or a right to healthcare or education or a decent living, etc, they are talking about getting the benefit of a contract that they did not sign, and that they did not uphold. Imagine me renting a granny unit from you. You expect me to pay, but I contend that it is my right to have it without paying. It's theft. That's all it is. But if all we are talking about is contracts, talking about it being a "right", that I'm entitled to it and so forth, is to confuse the issue. My "right" to my paycheck is conditional on me carrying out my duties. I am not entitled to it. If it's a "human right" then if you can account for immorality logically, then there is absolutely no need to invent such a thing. The only "right" that UPB even mentions is property rights. And Stef provides a logical proof for property rights using the analytical argument which he recently detailed. I'd be interested to see how he distinguishes property rights from human rights in the video... *presses watch video later button*

I'm not sure that I understand what exactly your question is, but if you are asking how you can be such a sophisticated biological and physical person in a universe that tends toward entropy (disorder), then I think that actually it's probably a lot more consistent with disorder and entropy than you might realize. If we look at a human body for the amazing piece of "machinery" that it is, then you aren't really looking at the larger picture. The number of fatty lipids that bumped into each other in water was surely in the billions (if not trillions) before any could successfully share the the amino acids that it stored in any kind of sustainable way (a protocell). And how many billions of protocells had to be destroyed or consumed before any unicellular life could come about. And it was a billion years before any of these unicellular organisms could live symbiotically enough to form multicellular life. And how crazy long it took for this basic life could find a way to breed sexually. We haven't even got a thousandth of the way to humans, and already countless extinctions took place. The vast vast majority of all of these accidental organizations of cells failed into entropy. Even further, all organisms eventually die and give way to entropy. The life of successful people is full of failure after failure. The only way that civilization can survive in fact is to embrace the creative destruction and anarchy of civilized life. As humans we are "programmed" to see patterns wherever we can. We even see it where no pattern exists. But the truth is that reality and life itself is overwhelmingly chaotic. The fact that we are human, have consciousness, rationality, live in modern times with endless entertainment, sophisticated science and technology, should be cause for enormous relief (and maybe even gratitude). It reminds me of a really great video by Stef: Please let me know if this is helpful at all!

I already did several times. But, my comments are not to you. It's meant to inform the debate generally since there is a lot of what I believe are mistaken presumptions. If the debate is not properly defined, debate will just go on forever, just like the thread we had three years ago. If I can save people some unnecessary frustration or grief, then that would be great.