Pepin

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.) This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement. I'll give it a shot. The odds that a single Big Bang would produce a single fine-tuned universe are incredibly small. For me and many others, this raises the question: What is the most reasonable explanation for a fine-tuned universe? 1. Chance. 2. An intelligent creator. 3. A multiverse. Your answer seems to be, "The fine-tuned universe doesn't need an explanation. It just is." I respect that. Such an answer would do away my original quesion, which was about contemplating the ramifcations of a multiverse (Bigfoot butlers). I mistakenly assumed that most atheists felt the need to explain the fine-tuned universe and went with the multiverse explanation. It appears that is not the case. They either go with Chance or feel no need to answer the question. Granted that you either seem to lack the ability to agree with logical implications or particular claims, or that you are not able to comprehend and respond to an opposing argument in any satisfactory way, I am going to withdraw from the discussion because I feel as though it cannot be productive.

Suppose someone proposes the moral theory that "It is moral for invading armies to rape the conquered women". As I understand it, you can't use UPB to validate or invalidate that moral theory, because it's too specific. It doesn't apply to all people at all times. If the statement were true, then logically the following statement must be true ­­ "To be moral, conquered women must submit to rape from invading armies" Such a statement could not be fulfilled because the women would have no ability to prefer a state of being that is the opposite of what they prefer. To go further, UPB can't allow for arbitrary distinctions that logically or rationally have no effect on reality, because this would contradict the aim of the theory to describe reality. If distinctions or exceptions are to be made, they must be rational and empirically verified. For instance, the theory that: "Consensual sex between to people is good" Could not apply to children because children have no ability to consent to such an act. The basis for this statement is not in opinion, yet rather in the science of: biology, psychology, and neurology. This is all to say that unless there is a rational reason to separate people into the category of "women" and "armies" (which might have women in them), then the statement must be generalized to a higher classification because the distinction being made isn't relevant to the claim. This would turn the statement to: "It is moral for invading people to rape the conquered people" With the generalization, the statement cannot be a universal statement because in order for it to be true, different behaviors must being prescribed to the same class which is contradictory.

Telling someone that they can always leave is like telling a caged animal that after some a just payment, a whole lot of necessary paperwork, and a good portion of their finite time... That they can be moved to another cage in some other zoo. Certainly different cages are likely to be better or worse in different respects, and the different zoo keepers are likely to have different rules and attitudes to the animals that they control, but what does that matter? You might know that prison A is better than prison B, but you would never argue that you'd want to live in prison A or any prison, unless you had no choice but to live in a prison.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the UPB. It is a methodology for validating or invalidating moral theories, just as the scientific method is a methodology for validating or invalidating scientific theories. To be without any rational or scientific methodology for evaluating ethical claims, there could be no way to validate or invalidate moral theories, which would mean the claim that "rape is good" or "rape is bad" would have no objective answer. Can you expand upon the second sentence? If possible, could you provide a concrete example of what you are saying, preferably in reference to rape.

We might have to agree to disagree on this point. If I went to Vegas and hit the jackpot at every slot machine in every casino, I would certainly wonder whether some higher power was helping me win. Whether scientists admit it or not, multiple-universe theory is driven by the human desire to explain our cosmic good fortune without bringing the “g” word into the picture. (That’s a bit of speculation, but I think some scientists have admitted as much.) This isn't a matter of disagreement. The fine-tuning of the universe can only have explainatory power if the multiverse theory is true. If the theory is false, then the fine-tuning could only be a description of the only universe that exists. If you can show me that the fine-tuning would have further meaning if the multiverse theory were false, I will certainly retract my statement.

Ethical statements must have the capability of being universalized, being acted on, and being an action that one prefers. Therefore, the statement "I prefer vanilla ice-cream" cannot have anything do with ethics. To make the statement "I prefer vanilla ice-cream" into an ethical claim, it would first be essential to add a verb into the mix. "I prefer eating vanilla ice-cream" The statement is now one that displays a preference for a behavior, but it is still not an ethical claim because it is not universal in that it binds nobody and is not independent of time and space.To fix this the statement must become "To be ethical, a person must eat vanilla ice-cream all the time" The action of eating vanilla ice-cream is now in an absolute category called ethics as opposed to having nothing to do with ethics. Someone who prefers to not eat vanilla ice-cream, and acts on such a prefrence would be considered immoral. There would be so many logical and practical issues with such an ethical claim.. What does having to choose between rape or murder have to do with evaluating ethical claims? Can you prefer sexual intercourse with someone that you do not want have sex with? Can you prefer eating vanilla ice-cream that you do not want to eat? Can you prefer any interpersonal action that you don't prefer?

Atheism has nothing to do with the multiverse interpretation of QM as QM has nothing to do with the existence of a diety. It would make more sense to say "some theorists feel the need to explain" as opposed to simply "explai"n because using the term explain is assuming that there is a need to explain. This is not to say that the multiverse theory is incorrect, but it is important to understand that there is no need to explain emperical fact, especially through the use of the concept of the multiverse. For instance, in the case that a single universe theory is true, there would be no need to explain the fine-tuning, rather the fine-tuning could only be an interesting yet irrelevant feature of the universe. It would certainly be an interesting observation, nothing more, nothing less. The argument is going is in the direction of assuming the validity of the multiverse and throwing another arguement on top. This is rather ineffective because you have not provided any case or reason to believe that the multiverse theory is true. Any conclusion can only be as strong as your weakest presmise. But I'll assume it is true. So, a deity may or may not exist in this universe, but whether either is true or false does not matter because a deity must exist in some universe. Is this what you are claiming?

Would make sense to say that those thathave unhealthy genetic tendencies would benifit the more from peaceful parenting that those who do not have such genetic tendencies? I feel as though that less peaceful parenting would have little effect on a human with a healthy genetic disposition, but that it would have a rather drastic effect on one with an unhealthy genetic disposition.

Voluntarist cannot logically have or take issue with any voluntary form of contract. The position assumes that in a voluntary contract that no property rights are violated and that both or all parties agree to the terms and conditions of the contract. It is important to realize that voluntarism is a proposal that property rights are universal, and people ought to respect this fact. People do have the choice and ability to not respect property rights in that they can rape, murder, steal, and any other violation of property, there is nothing stopping them from committing or attempted to commit such acts. To propose that ethical rules are nonsensical because people can break them is to not realize that ethical rules could not exist if people did not have the ability to choose. This is to say that rules are only needed if they can be broken. To say otherwise is to say that we need the law of gravity to keep people from going on the earth. To say that a voluntarist society would not have rules is to omit the entire concept of the NAP on which a voluntarist society must be based on. People of course can come up with their own rules, and it is likely that communities will form with different rules. But in order for a community to be compatible with voluntarism, they must respect property rights. Many people like to come up with odd scenarios in which people do not violate the NAP, and profit from inefficiency or shady tactics, but such an idea is antithetical to what people say will occur in completely free market. If people are free to choose, and society in aggregate is rational enough to understand the essentials of ethics and philosophy, then why would people choose to associate with those who are in opposition to such principals?

I loved the conclusion. If I was in Abby's position, I think I would have been a little speechless.

-Though I am unsure where the concept of numbing is coming into play in the dream (as of yet), I would say that dissociation is something I am an expert at. I ran into a lot of issues with pseudoseizures where a big theme was becoming disconnected from my body, time, self, and everything really. -Doing some brainstorming on this one. In school I was always unsure of who I was going to sit with. I also developed some eating disorder where I wouldn't eat or really feel hungry at lunch in high school. Thinking a bit deeper, there were some church events held in a cafe that I had a tough time getting through due to the seizure issues. There was one awful time where I had five really terrible ones within an hour, and the feeling of almost completele dissociation didn't go away until I took a long nap. Another thing that pops into my head is that I tend to get pretty anxious when I go out to eat at resturants. I really don't have any of these issues anymore for the most part. -I feel as though it is, though I am unsure why it would be. What comes to mind is that it was a number that I rather despised as a kid, because it was not even, and there is no real way to balance it out. I was pretty OCD with symmetry as a kid. This thought is pretty odd, but it feels like it is relevant and makes sense with the dream, I find the arrangement of the people on the stage to make sense and be a solution to this lack of symmetry. A1B2C3D Why those inbetween would be facing away from the audiance I am unsure of. -The darker intent was more of a feeling, but to put it into words, it would be that Anthony was potraying himself as a means of success and well being and convincing people that this was true. A second level to this is that he was capable of making a real change in the lives of the people on stage through some sort of irrational process, like whatever he did to those people worked, but it would not work for anyone else in the audiance and was more of a means of trapping people into a relationship. Though I didn't include this before, when I say touch, I mean spank.

I worked out in the morning. Some 22 year old guy came into the sauna and gave me a motivational talk and some money advice, which I found to be rather random useful, and I somewhat thought I was hallucinating because of how random it was. Then I saw my therapist and made some progress in that I was able to bypass my defenses a little more than usual. So far the process has been him trying to get my to experiance emotions by asking how something makes me feel, and me not feeling anything. That day, I felt a little something, which made me a little happy, which is ironic because the emotion(s) I felt were more negative. I also did a decent amount of meditation, thinking about my past, and a few other forms of self-work (journaling and self IFS mainly). I think I likely listened to some FDR podasts, though I can't remember if I did that for sure. I continued to read a few books, one by Jung, the other being a graphic novel about a logician. Also some science videos. I don't think I interacted with people much beyond that.

This is a dream I just had and I am quite interested in feedback because it seems important. I am the type of person who gets dreams that seem to go on forever and ever. Also to note, I have lately been more and more lucid in my dreams, in that I am often able to think in my dream. I have actually had a few dreams as of late where I begin interpreting the dream, while I am dreaming it. Anyway, here is the dream. I was outside somewhere and I came across a whole ton of new FDR podcasts on my MP3 player. As I went through them, I was amazed at the quality as they have seemed to increase quite a lot. I felt lucky to have come across such a treasure trove of material that I had not been aware of previously. The dream jumps scene, and outside at the on the back porch listening to the podcasts, and my dog and cat were out there. My cat lay perched on railing and my dog on the floor. The more and more I listened, the more and more I went into a meditative trance. Really, it felt like I was high for the first time, and also similar to what was happening during my breakdown a month ago with the different parts of my brain feeling active, good, and pulsating. I was also becoming more aware of my emotional state, which I found to be good, but also kind of like an overwhelming power. Then I come back to reality, kind of like I had got lost in thought, and it seemed as though a decent amount of time had passed in the blink of an eye. There is a fox on the table in front of me, and it is quite relaxed, and I can see that it is looking at me though its eyes are mostly closed. I am quite surprised that the fox is not going after the cat. I wanted to pat it, but felt as though any sudden moves would scare it away. It was so calm and seemed to relax by the sight of me relaxing.I then see the shadow of another animal to the right of my cat, also perched up on the porch. The cat was this way <---- and the other animal was facing this was ---->. It also seemed to have come out of nowhere like the fox because it liked seeing me relaxed. I didn't want to approach it because I kind of knew that all I was supposed to see of this creature was its shadow, like that is all it wanted me to see. I decide that it is getting late and I ought to head in. I am now not listening to the podcast at this point in the dream. It is rather difficult to navigate, similar to how it was the first couple of times I got high, and my limbs felt quite sensitive. It was more of a feeling around approach as opposed to how I operate in real life, which is more impulsive habit. I am sure to let the cat in because I wouldn't want to leave it out there with the fox. Surprisingly, she follows me in. [Though my dog was out there as well, there is no sense in the dream that he is still out there].I walk around my house, slightly wishing the feeling in my head would diminish at least to the point where I could navigate normally, but I think, "I'll just get used to it, it is for the best". [For some reason in the dream I never thought to turn a light on instead of feeling my way around] The dream jumps scene to a cafeteria with a stage, similar to the setup at the middle school I used to go to, though a good a decent bit wider and a little more run down. I feel as though I am at a church, or at a school that is having a church event. There is an entire group of mostly elderly people and the sick watching the stage. Most are sitting, but some are standing. Anthony Robbins is up on stage, doing a demonstration for his new show that is about gaining confidence and living a new life. There are seven people up on the stage, four on their knees and facing my way, and the other three on their knees and facing behind, with their butts towards the audience. The people on stage seemed to be ordinary middle aged people to some extent, though they were quite chunky and desperate for change. I feel l know what is going to happen, because it is Anthony Robbins, but I am surprised by how it goes down. Anthony says something, touches them in a way, and the people posture, face, and body language make an incredible shift. They haven't become different people physically, but there is a different sense about them, like as if he had healed them. I am in awe. I look towards the older people who are in amazement as well. I realize that they can achieve the same thing, and so can't I. The dream jumps scene again, and I am outside among the trees in a forest walking and I am connecting and feeling my emotion oh so strongly. I feel as though I am gaining control over them. I am listening to a listener call by a very bright man, who wants to Stefan to interpret his dream. The caller seemed like he thought he really had something, and describes the dream. He was out in the forest, and he went into a lot of detail about how the interactions between the people in the dream [i can't really remember most of the dream, but it was a bit of fairytale type story]. There is one part where the listener sees a deer and it gives him advice on how to deal with the people, who seemed to be more animalistic in the dream.Stefan jumps in with his clarifying voice, and says "wait a minute, the deer was talking to you?". I am a little thrown off by what this would entail, but am rather intrigued. Stefan goes on to say "why do you think a deer of all animals would talk to you?". The listener became rather defensive, as if he knew the answer. "Uh, uh, uh" and goes on with a rationalization to explain it away. I think to myself, "well it is just a dream", but this idea is counteracted by the thought of the book "Man and His Symbols" by Carl Jung, and it was more just a picture of the book. I began to understand what Stefan was getting at in regards to the dream, and I think to myself, "woah Stefan, you really got him pinned down now".The dream doesn’t quite jump scene, but rather fades into the distance like it didn't even happen. My brain continues with the strength of feeling, and I can feel all of the different parts. I then realize that the dream Stefan had just interpreted was my dream, and that I was now experiencing emotion. I began to feel it more and more, stronger and stronger. It was intense.I decide at the moment that I need to face the reality of the past. I summoned up the image of Anthony Robbins in the church, and I am petrified. "How could he do that to those people" I thought. It was like I saw the hidden insanity behind the show, and that there was a much darker intent.The front and sides of my head were in vibration the most, and at this moment I realized that I have full access to my brain and I wanted to let all parts experience and let out the anger, shock, and disgust in regards to that event. I hear an internal yelling of the parts of my brain that seems to eventually go away, most all parts feeling in harmony. I get to the part behind my head and do the same, and this part seems to be much more reactive towards it and scared of it. I would say that this is the conceptual area. I silence all of the other parts and it continues screaming, and won't stop. I don't freak out though, because I realize it is necessary. I then wake up, rather confused, my head still pulsing like mad. Did that really just happen? Did I really just have such an incredible dream I wonder. I get the inclination to write the dream down. I am still feeling quite high. I then wake up once more. I am rather confused and disorientated. I forget that I had a dream and I begin to think a little and do a few things, and then it starts coming back to me like a nagging thought. At first I don't want to write it down because I am tired and groggy, but I then figure that it is important and that I won't remember later if I don't do it now. I go to get the computer beside me and in my bed, and this doesn't make all that much sense to me because I wouldn't leave it there, but I just went with it.The dream jumps scene a bit and I then see the computer all the way over on the table next to me, and I am lying in bed. I can't get up, kind of like I am paralyzed. I realize that my eyes are closed and that this is similar to what happens when I am in deep meditation and seeing through my mind's eye [that is how others explain that event]. Now I do actually wake up for real. My head was in the buzzy and active state, and I feel as though I was coming out of it. I felt as though I was really deep into sleep and that my mind was having a really difficult time waking up my body. It takes me a few minutes to remember I even had a dream. I went to my computer next to my bed and began writing.

I can't believe in determinism simply because it would put me back into the stoic void I have been for most of my life. What I believe/accept is highly correlated with how I act. I am quite certain that I have a personal prefrence in favor of the position because of the comfort it would provide me in regards to my past, present, and future, and life in general. Others might fear that it is true, and some might be positively influenced by the idea, but that doesn't describe me.

If governments are a group of people with the monopoly of force over a specific geographical area, and if this group of indivuals created a constitution, then to make any argument that uses the constitution as a basis is an affirmation of the government and its ability to use force. I mean, imagine it is the 1800's and a drug gang takes over a small isolated town. Now these are rather sophicated thugs, so the gang comes up with a document that describes how it ought to operate.They show the document to the town to inform them of how things will work. A week later, the gang starts acting in a way that does not adhere to the document they made up a week ago. What would be the sense of anyone who isn't in the gang pointing this out?

A person without a conscience is telling people to reject their conscience.

This seems ilke a trojan horse type plan, and I feel it would be dishonest. My prefrence is to talk just about reason, logic, and evidence, mostly because words confuse me to no end. Though I must admit that I do have some inclinations to take up a political persona and to run for congress. My promise would be to take the default position of most people and to not take action. If something good happened and someone praised me, I would be honest and say "how could I take credit for something when I have yet to do anything". If something bad happened, I would say "how could I be at fault for anything when I have yet to do anything?".

Reminds me from a quote from Nietzsche from The Will to Power "The ruling class identifies itself with the successes of the community" I would extend this with "the ruling class identifies failure with the community".

I like this research that shows genetic changes simply because it is more grounded and not really abstract. People seem to have a disposition against psychological arguments, likely because of what they imply, and they would seem to prefer more of biological explanation. I am quite like that myself, but I realize that there are far too many issues with such an aproach, the main being that it is a mechanism to distant myself from the personal.

I am a little confused on how to respond to your post, but I am also quite intrigued. Can you provide a little more background in regaurds to the theory you are talking about?

I found it through Stefan's interview of the founder of the concept. I believe in the interview, it was said that it wasn't a widely used method, but is gaining in popularity. Someone in a thread somewhere recomended this book http://www.amazon.com/Self-Therapy-Step-Step-Cutting-Edge-Psychotherapy/dp/0984392777 The way I would suggest looking at it is that there is nothing really to lose if the theory is false. If it is false, then the aproach could be a waste of time, but is more likely to have the same results as journaling, instrospecting, talking about important issues out loud, or having mock debates with yourself. It isn't like you are going to go crazy if you start talking to yourself a little, especially since you and everyone else does it everyday. If the theory is true, then avoiding these parts is avoiding the reality of the situation. My own drive towards working with this system is to really have an understanding of myself, being able to think, and being free from the irrationalities that people have inflicted on me. I'd really suggest giving it a try if you are curious.

If specific concepts are derived through instances of a specfic class, and if general concepts are derived through specific concepts, then general concepts including logical abstractions must be derived through instances.

Well, in a way I kind of discovered mine, though I feel as though my experience is a little different. I had listened to a mecosystem podcast about a year ago or so, but I really didn't understand what it was about, and I what I did understand I completely misinterpreted. Over the last couple months, I had been getting a ton of stress headaches located primarily in the forehead region. It was rather weird because it was always contained to some relatively consistent volume. I started to think that I was literally feeling my brain, but this didn't make much sense to me because the brain lacks nerves. Due to some events that I won't go into, I ended up having a breakdown and discovered all these other parts of my head during it. It was also one of the first times I could really feel my emotions. I found that I could switch between the front and the back of my head, and it would have a strong affect on how people would react to me, and also being more in the back felt a ton better. Then I began to explore more and more of my head which was rather interesting, though I couldn't do the switching. It was a bit interesting because I found that I could do more than just feel and explore my brain, but that I could activate and deactivate different parts. Eventually I found a very angry voice l located somewhere in my head and I pinpointed it to an exact location. I somehow found a way to shut it up, not I am not sure how to describe what I did or what I did exactly. I found it to be so very interesting and awesome. A few days later I began to find the extent of other parts of my brain, and try to talk to them just to see if anything would happen. I had some theories about what was happening and eventually related it to the mecosystem, though I was unsure. Ironically I began feeling crazy and hesitant about what I was doing after listening to the premium mecoystem podcasts. To put it this way, the reality of what was happening sunk in, and I got a strong urge to stop these conversations. I am glad I didn't. I have been getting into IFS and am finding things quite interesting and useful. I feel a bit weird describing my experience with it, but after a few weeks of doing this sort of work, I want to suggest it to everyone. I don't know if a lot of this is specific to me or not, but at least from experience, I can't deny it, nor can I deny the effectiveness. My level of enjoyment, and also ability to think has increased significantly. I am still pretty new to all of this, but I am embracing it quite fully being a month or so in. If anyone could confirm or deny the idea that someone can feel/explore their brain, I would find this rather nice. I have been rather skeptical about that really being what is happening, but at the moment I am not really sure. Either way it doesn't really matter, but I am just curious.

I am going to have to say that the article is quite terrible, especially in the quality of the examples. Person X isn't making an argument, he is making a statement and supporting it with an opinion. If it is rearranged to "I think letting people have access to assault weapons is a stupid idea, therefore we should ban them", then the lack of substance becomes a little more obvious. Person Y's retort would need to be something like "letting people have access to assault weapons is a good idea, therefore we shouldn't ban them" in order for it to logically follow. Person Y's response doesn't really make sense in regards to what X said. It is not a straw man because of this, rather it is better to see it as the person introducing their position on the matter. It would make more sense for Y to say, "if it is a stupid idea to allow people access to assault weapons, then would this also apply to the agency that enforces the ban?". The first bit of what X says doesn't affect the statement. X is saying is "there’s no real evidence in support a link between violent video games and real world violence". The term "no real" can be substituted with "credible", which is value judgment that depends on expert consensus. Y's response actually makes a little sense, because they are saying that there isn't expert consensus. The word "some" in the context refers to a minority of experts. Neither are making arguments, but they are appealing to an authority. This one is pretty painful to read. To condense... X: My mother says sex before marriage will get me pregnant Y: Scientists shows that this isn't the case X: Scientists are lying Y makes an appeal to authority to counteract an appeal to authority. Certainly it is a valid appeal, but who in their right mind would respond to X's statement in such a way. Just a terrible example, especially with how X and Y are just making statements. It is a bit ironic that the idea of "free healthcare" is not questioned as the nirvana in the statement. I wonder if "free" is a weasel word. Not really sure how to go about this one to be honest.

I feel like it is trying to build a relation with unconcious parts, likely with an emphasis on the true self. I've just started doing some work with the mecoystem/ifs and this explanation seems to make the most sense to me, though I don't really have a clue