LovePrevails

FYA: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/36775/285345.aspx#285345

Does that really follow? I can understand if the conclusion is "Therefor determinists believe in free will"This looks like a scope shift to me "Determism is true" =/= "truth is a preferred state" with a tu quoque fallacy: My doctor says smoking is harmful to your health My doctor smokes Therefor the smoking-is-harmful hypothesis is wrong I know you will probably respond that by trying to change you're mind they are implicitly stating that truth is a preferred state, but that is not to prove your conclusion -> that is a subjective preference not 'an objectively preferable state for "the universe as a whole" ' or something like that the determist does not deny that people have subjective experiences, only that their subjective experience is more akin to watching a really realistic movie than playing a computer game can you explain if I'm missing something?

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?" As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose. the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will existsyou do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept this is just clever rhetoric, it's not a rational argument, there's nothing in it. in a deterministic universe humans still experience subjective states, it has the experience of accurate/inaccurate within that subjective state, even though the states are predetermined, thus concepts exist within the consciousness - You can see it kind of like watching a movie. I can't change the end of the movie but i still experience the movie. I still hurt when the heroine hurts and feel glad when the guy finally gets the girl. That doesn't mean I have any say in the movie.

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?" As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose. the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will existsyou do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better. Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood" That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say "Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose? If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not. If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false. If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact." Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left" Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do." Responses?

So you admit you have the capacity to agree or disagree with something?So you're not a determinist. BRAVO.

well, this conversation is clearly going round in circles. We each understand one anothers positions fully and we disagree. bye.

yes I think this is what we have been trying to argue!I don't say that our response is the all or we are definitive because I'm still a bit agnostic on the whole thing, but it certainly seems that way Well, of course a lot of people thing that their value system is the best for this, and not all are empirically correct in their thinking!I agree we seem to have pretty good value systems! But value systems we see as not-life-enriching --- it's to us to show by example the benefits of our way and try and spread the good shit to those who have less life-affirming views where we can. I've not seen any evidence that moralistic thinking is helpful in that, and plenty to the contrary... Alright sure, someone might want to harm someone else if you just describe them as malicious you are being very reductionist in your view it doesn't say anything about the whys and wherefores of course they might disagree, "I'm not being malicious, I'm serving justice, they deserve it!!" or "I'm not being malicous I'm showing no one messes with me" "I'm not being malicious I'm being assertive in fact this comes down to moralistic thinking itself, if you ask anyone who does want to hurt anyone else why, they always seem to have what they think is a really great and reasonable justification for it, even if you think they find it bonkers it usually comes down to the other person deserving it in some form

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate. There's no moral implication but the results are the same. Yes you can frame it that way. I'm mostly pointing out that this preference is a meta-preference which makes it more important than other preferences. It determines the entire framework in which the interaction takes place and all of the other preferences play out. Can I just make this perfectly clear again -No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without. For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge" they are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily, choose associations. I understand this desire to take morality out of it. But as I've pointed out, you can argue it's subjective to call someone "bad" but it isn't subjective to call them "malicious." So if we assess that another person is malicious, should we refrain from accepting that assessment? Is determining that someone is malicious a moral judgment or not? regarding your first comment, great point, I see you're saying UPB or morality is a framework from which we can judge all cases etc. I'm still not sure it's necessary Regarding the second comment ah - I see where we're going wrong here - I would say "malicious" is a moralistic not a value judgment just the same as "bad" maybe you could give some eamples of "malicious" activitiess and we can show the difference more clearly a value judgment would be like, "When you told Andy what I said, I felt really sad, frustrated and vulnerable. I know you were angry at me, but even still, I value my privacy, so I'd like you to tell me that in future I can trust you not to be indiscrete about private information - even when we've had a falling out." -> I know that's long winded, but it's just an example to get the point across, ----> that is a value judgment as opposed to "Telling Andy what I said was really malicious!"

I don't disagree with anything you are saying - you would simply conclude that it is not this persons preference to respect your preferences, or even work out a consistent set of principles on whose preferences come first and therefore your preference is to dissassociate.There's no moral implication but the results are the same. Can I just make this perfectly clear again -No One is arguing for non-jugdement - value judgments are inherent in the human condition - all that is really being said is ascribing a moral tone to those judgments you are adding something which does not inhere in them that you could probably do without. For the rest of your point is really redundant in that light, no one is "teaching the child not to judge" they are actually teaching the child to self-empathise and connect with their feelings, preferences and needs rather than focusing on the other person and their story about what their qualities are. With that sense of self-empathy the child can just as easily, perhaps even more easily, choose associations.

it's just posturing to make the gov look like they're doing something it's all symptoms symptoms symptoms if they really cared about stopping problem drinking they would put out a high-profile television broadcast on the effects of child-abuse and talk about some of the ways to reverse the effects.

Alright, great point The cotention is that all behaviour is a manifestation of undelying needs and preferences, and by focussing on behaviour rather than needs we are more susceptible to deemphasising practical solutions in lieu of entering debates on a persons morality (real or perceived) that escalate into non-productive conflicts. By focussing on needs and preferences underlying behaviour we have a greater chance of helping others find ways of meeting those needs in ways that are more socially constructive. Just like the kids in my video who found they got a better quality of companionship from relating well to others than putting their restless impulses before the preferences of others There is no clear distinction between exploiter and exploited, perhaps, in this paradigm, because it holds that "exploiter is in the eye of the preference-holder" One says "he's being exploitative" the other says "he's following his rational self-interest" the other says "he's being assertive" the other says "he should ask politely" this form only suggests that individuals express themselves in terms of their observations, feelings, ,needs and requests - and the evidence seems to suggest that this is a much better form than labelling "you exploiter" - because it doesn't put people on the defensive and shift people to debating whether the judgement is true or false instead of focusing like a lazer on discovering what all parties needs and preferences are and if they can be met or not You may well use UPB as a measure of who you really want to be friends with and who you don't, but I don't imagine it really is more effective in practical conversation then leaving the moral judgments out and focussing on having our goals met : "win/win or no-deal"

This parenting podcast, I think, bears some relevance: Alright you wonderful, wondeful people! Here is the new podcast!

Hope you will enjoy and share this 11-minute-long child-rearing podcast Alright you wonderful, wondeful people! Here is the new podcast!

I wouldn't necessarily consider it a moral consideration, although it depends were you draw the line on extension of respect for preferencespersonally I often think my mum "overmanages" her cats just the same as she tries to "overmanage" everything, and there is no need as cats are very independent animals! the real question to ask is : is it really a serious danger for the cat going outside or am I just managing my own anxiety about her getting hurt? If you conclude that you are just overworried you might want to let her out for a couple of hours to see if she's happier and moans to get out less. If you think it's a real risk then maybe it's best to keep her inside, I like to respect my cats preferences but sometimes I may want to put them in the kitchen at night so they don't get hair everywhere or wake us up etc. it just depends

I have to disagree, because this is something people deal with in everyday life! most "moral challenges" are like -> should I be for this or against this ideology? anything regarding every day conduct is absolutely most worthy of consideration ]I can't answer the question fully, not being an expert, but I would say for a start that one should not physically harm their pets. If the pets are going insane it is almost always because the humans who are caring for them are insane, you can see that on shows like The Dog Whisperer, where he teache the owners to be a little more assertive and less mal-adaptive, their pets get signals and start being more managable. Dogs want a leader more than a friend because it is great pressure on a dog if he has to feel like he should be the leader of the pack! How does he lead a human?? he has no idea how to do it and so goes a bit mad. A parallel is you bought the pet/chose to have the child - so you have a responsibility to feed and look after it. It's cruel not to. Avoid causing unnecessary physical or psychological suffering for the animal (spending long times away from pack animals, leaving them on their own, when it is in their instincts to be part of a group for example - their very biology commands them to suffer in those circumstances) That's all the help I can offer but thanks for a great question.

Here are some vague suggestions If you get a job to stockpile a bit of cashish, don't go for the highest paying job go for the job that you will learn most new skills from or the most valuable skills if you don't fancy staying in a job for life, as soon as you have stopped learning from the job start looking for a new job that will teach you different skills (unless of course you love the job) rinse repeat, until you can start using your skills to look for better jobs or start your own business Another good option may be voluntary service overseas, you can travel the world working in other countries, meeting beautiful people and learning practical skills that will be of economic value when you get back the most important thing is to be always learing new things that you can do to be of value to other people, that's where you will find your income and fulfillment since it's a great thing to know you are being useful to others

Don't judge the point by how it's articulated, substitute "wrong" for "not in the best way of..." or something similar, you're a smart guy, you can get the meaning of something without picking apart flaws in how its communicated. "I really enjoy looking at you", well, the same parts/child-training analysis goes for the person who says that. We are also trained to be manipulative, dissociated or to lack self knowledge. Loveprevails, This is why I try to reframe moral terms into objective terms having to do with values about health and sustainability. We can somewhat effectively use words like "evil" if we define them in certain ways. I usually tell people that when I use that word I mean someone who purposefully and unnecessarily harms others through action or neglect without any corresponding benefit to the others. This may not be a perfect definition but you can see a direction for a useful definition there. But often I'll just refrain from using this very charged word,, "evil," and use the more solid words malice or malicious instead. This I admit on the other hands: This can only be "realised" if it's true - and there is some dispute over this Some cultured DON'T use and "good" and "bad" language at all - only "pleasurable" / "unpleasurable" or "Favourable" / "Unfavourable and these tend to be less violent cultures - when the christian missionaries came along to try and convert one such people to christianity (I have heard) they found it impossible because when they tried to say things like "Sex before marriage is bad" the tribespeople were like "No it's not" because their only approximation of "bad" was "unpleasurable" which they clearly found empirically invalid. The question is not whether expressing things in terms of good and evil, our judgments according to criteria we have defined, is right or wrong! That is a contradiction in terms! The question is whether doing it this way is the best way to get our needs met, or get what we want out of life, or have harmonious relationships, etc. I do use terms like these (particularly virtues and vices) in situations where I think they are "short cuts" or appropriate but I'm increasingly coming round to the view that in any sort of confrontation situation (bringing someone up on something in the hope of getting our needs better met or improving the relationship or asking them to change their behaviour, or explore our feelings, etc.) they are deleterious to us getting the results we want,, because they are in a sense antithetical to self-empathy we are focusing on the other person and labelling them and talking about what is wrong with them, instead of foucuing on ourselves, our feeling, our needs, what underlies them and then how are we going to get them met most effectively? By a request? By a conversations? By an exploration to the ends of attaining more self-knowledge? whatever if we're focussed on the otehr persons flaws real or perceived our point of emphasis is not the most wffective point of emphasis for getting our needs met in my experience

again none of the approaches you ascribe to RTR are mutually exclusive one ought not to ascribe their anger to anyone because people don't cause our emotions, our emotions arise as a combination between what happens to us and our own schema and whether we think something is "for us or against us" as Nathaniel Branden put it in The Psychology of Self Esteem you can say you felt angry when someone did such and such and request that they change their behaviour it is up to them to decide whether to follow our request or not or maybe your request is jsut to talk about it and investigate or maybe they will suggest an alternative solution the point is you just express what you are feeling and what you want without ascribing "wrongness" to people as it tends to get their hackles up and makes you less likely to negotiate what you want in a situation

why don't you tell us what you got out of it?

You could cut it that way, I guess, since essentially what is being said is that only human consciousness ascribes "wrongness" to things, it doesn't exist in naturesomething is only good or bad in relation to someone - if I die tomorrow sucks to be me, but it's party time for the little worms who get to feed on my corpse - Yay! Still, I don't think moral relativism would be the best way to describe it because it's not really proscribing morality or even a lack of it it's not saying there is "no such thing as morality" - it's just saying that thinking of people in terms of whether they are good or bad may be a very inferior way to getting your needs met than thinking in terms of "are they meeting my needs, if not how aren't they meeting my needs, how can I request that they meet my needs without using language (such as moralisitc language) which is likely to put them on the defensive." I think this way of thinking is actually compatible with UPB because you could very well say "When you do such and such I find myself feeling a bit angry because I think when people say such and such they should live by the principles the are prescribing themselves, so I'd like you to do such and such" -> that isn't a very elloquent example, but the idea is there I hope. Tell me if this is a helpful clarification or not.

On this subject:

I hear this argument like, well has he ever debated any hardcore leftists (like say Noam Chomsky or Michael parenti) I think a great debate FDR could solicit would be between him and Peter Singer on the issue of Utilitarianism Why not? It would bring a whole load of philosophy students in to FDR

Yes lets link up

His reply: On a slightly different topic, he asked what I considered moral grounds for ownership of property. Among the other ways of acquisition (and not really having researched this point philosophically), I said: His reply: I had to admit to him, both his points had me stumped! (Don't worry, I got him back on other stuff) Perhaps I'm not thinking far enough outside the box. How does an insurance company make sure local polluting businesses don't just ring them through the cleaners by threatening increasingly more pollution? How do we avoid the problem of the commons with "shared" resources like the atmosphere and oceans? Am I even correct in assuming nature can be owned by claiming it? Surely there are a lot of ways around this? Peoples DROs or Insurance Companies get in touch with the companies DRO and ask them to sue their client for damaging their environment? Or they go to the company and say "Look, you are polluting here, we are willing to pay half way towards providing you with filters to clean your stuff before you release it into the environment, if you cooperate." Where there is a will there is a way