TheRobin

Why do you think I do?The point of my post was basically, that Mike (along with most determinists) claim that Determinism is basically science and rejecting it would be rejecting science. Hence I asked him what experiment would change his mind.Interestingly so far no aswer has come from any determinist, which should give a clue that it has nothing to do with science.

well I used to play a lot after I got into beta and have tons of cards, but I got really annyoed but, what I considered major imbalances in certain aspects, so I don't usually play. (I wish I culd just give or trade my cards away, that way at least somethign useful would come out of it). BUT all that being said, I might be up for some casual playing along with skype chatting or so

And how would you possibly proof or disproof that?

@Mike Flemming: You say the people who accept free will are the ones that have to come up with experiment proofing it. What possible experiment would hypothetically change your mind?

The question private vs public makes no sense. "public" is just a shortcut for " a lot of private people". So it's really about a group of private people vs another group of private people. Except the ones who call themselves "government " are usually not responisble for what they do, cause they do it in the name of someone else (i.e. the "public"). So the question is, why are politicians better businessman then people who actually are businessman and earn a living that way? (Or why should ONE private guy have control over an entire industry as opposed to allowing any private guy to try and provide the service as best as they can?)

As I understand it there are two different kinds of encryption at work. Once you have the Public/Private encrpytion for wallets and for when you send BTC around the network. This encryption is based around the ECDSA. For the blockchain you only have hash-encryption, which serves as proof of work, which you want to check for the integrity of the blockchain (but doesn't actually encrypt anything in the sense, that it makes it impossible to read for others) From the bitcoin wiki (emphasis added by me) "... Therefore, by being given a compact hash, you can confirm that it matches only a particular input datum, and in bitcoin the input data being a block-chain is significantly larger than the SHA-256 hash. This way, Bitcoin blocks don't have to contain serial numbers, as blocks can be identified by their hash, which serves the dual purpose of identification as well as integrity verification. An identification string that also provides its own integrity is called a self-certifying identifier." Also short explanation between encryption and hashing from another site. http://www.danielmiessler.com/study/encoding_encryption_hashing/

I'd say the whole "causal chain" argument is a red herring anyway. Of course, if I lift my arm that is caused by some process in my brain. So is any other behaviour. But just because state S causes behaviour B doesn't mean there was no choice or alternative. What determinist need to show is that state S can't possibly cause any other behavour that B. Where as the free will position argues that it could as well cause B1, B2, B3, etc. (or S1,S2, which then causes B1, B2,) Like, if you look after it happened it will always be part of a causal chain by definition. But the question is, whetehr that was the only thing that could've psosibly happened.

Okay, if you look at the Bitcoin Network as a mere transferring service, then I see your point.But do you understand the innovation behind it? (It being a decentralized concensus network, something, which experts in computer science have thought of as being impossible before) I mean, there are many uses for a network like this, currency being only one of them. And I would still argue, the currency has value, cause the way the network works has value to people. Like if it where only a transferring service (in the Western Union sense), that created it's own currency, I don't think the currency held much or any value either.

Thanks for the indepth explantion. I don't quite understand then how the Bitcoin network doesn't have value for it's application (which then in turn would be the basis of the value of the Bitcoin currency)

@st434: I apologize if this has been answered already, but how do you define "consumption"? And can you give some examples on how that applies to different things like, say, computers, art, a piece of paper, a pen, an industrial machine (to give a few ideas, cause some seem kind of "non-consumable" in the most common sense of the word (i.e. I don't "use up" my computer))

well, technically speaking, it's not theft but armed robbery. But I guess that doesn't make for as good a bumper sticker (at least in the english language).

Cool, thanks for organising that guys :)Btw how much does this room cost us now?

There should be an award for "Most entertaining Dunning-Kruger effect"

I just found this. Maybe it's of some interst and/or help. It's some articles and writings about invalidation and the problems it can cause. Imo very good read. http://eqi.org/invalid.htm

I'ts not that I don't want to post here, it's more that the addressing of the arguments and such are very time and work-intensive when done in text.I could post you some links though so arguemtns or perspecitves that you might find intersting. In regards to you free will argument: This might be of interst to you http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/flickers_of_freedom/2013/12/peter-tses-the-neural-basis-of-free-will-an-overview.htmlIn regards to your negative hedonism argument: I want to mention that, if you accept that this is the only rational goal, then you have basically accepted an objective morality (As in, "IF you want your behaviour to be rational you SHOULD aim toward peace of mind", so that would negate your moral skepticism.BUT I'd also say, that peace of mind argument isn't sound or factually correct. 1) You can't downtune just the emotions you don't feel comfortable with. It's only one master-dial so to speak, not individual ones. Also feeling uncofortable is an indicator that there's real harm around you (or the possibility thereof), so it's short-term uncomfort for long-term benefit. (Like, feeling uncomfortable around certain people, may lead to sume ugly breakup, but afterwards you'll feel a lot better and reliefed due to the lack of stress in your life as a result of not having these people around).So if your goal is happyness (or lack of unhappyness) in one way or another, emotions that make you feel uncofortable are the best guide to get out of unhappy situations and are not something to ignroe or try to will away, as that causes just more problems in the long run (even though it might save you some discomfort in the short run).There are also some contradictions (when you talk about what one should do in one's life or what would be rational, or that one should focus on things he has control over) relative to your moral skepticism and determinism (if there's no free will, there's no control at all anyway. and if there's no moral stance, then there are no "shoulds".)In regards to feelings and relationships. I would recommend you Stef's "On Truth" and " Real-Time Realtionships " for some good methodologies and arguments in that regard. Ha, I guess I ended up giving at least some arguments after all, oh well Hope it was of some use or interest,

Interesting list and arguments. (Not that this means I think the reasoning is sound in all aspects though, but I don't like debating in text, as this usually get's very difficult in terms of text-size and ability to respond the specifics).Also just an fyi: Listening to Stef and reading the website will (hopefully imo) definitely disturb your piece of mind

But can't you basically make up any word, by combining the action + unwanted and it would immediately become immoral by that reasoning?

Well, to be fair, I'm not a determinist and I downvoted your latest post too, because it was just insulting and non-productive. Maybe you'd want to take a break from debating with people if you're at a point where you want to insult them.

My guess is that, Josh's original fear, that this Ebola might be transmittable thorugh air wasn't accurate. And if that's not the case, (and at least from my little understanding of Ebola), it can be "relatively" easily contained as it would then only spread through direct contact of bodily fluids

It would mean that there's a principle called gun-ownership, that says, if there's a conflict between you wanting to own a gun and someone else wanting you to not own a gun, you'd be right to own the gun and could use force if necessary to defend your gun from being taken against your will.

Okay, then a right would be " A principle used to determine who's right in a conflict"

Okay, that makes it a lot more clear. Though now it sounds a bit overly generalizing (not that I know any better, so if you've thoroughly researched that ignore my comments). Like, is England really that way everywhere or just some major cities? Similar with latin america, aren't some countries quite safe and nice while others are really horrible?Another idea that came to mind: Have you looked into regions like Thailand? (Definitely very safe though you'd want to buy bottled water for sure. Then again, is that that big of a deal?) Or on the other hand, there are already a lot of homeschoolers in the world, have you tried finding out where some of them live and aren't bothered (too much) by the government (as a method to figure out what possible places might be an option)?

Then I don't know what it is that you're asking. (Also, what things are used for is at times the essential chracteristic that defines them, so if you want to argue that what something is used for can never be a definition (or part of the definition) of the thing itself then you're incorrect.)

How about this: If there's a conflict between 2 or more people the right tells you who's right. (Including who's right to use force if necessary, if the other person doesn't accept that)

I'm really sorry that this is the challenge you're facing. What a horrible and insane way to treat kids in Sweden (though ofc that's nto that much differetn in other countries either). I just want to say that I think you might be completly missing the point when you're worrying about lower living standards. I mean you'd have to subject you child to severe mistreatment both by the school system itself which will try to make your child more or less blindly obey the teachers, without having any care or empathy for your child as a person, but also also by the school bullies from which there is no escape, for 5 days of the week.To me this sounds a bit like living in a town where 99% of the people KKK members and having adopted a black kid and then say "Yeah, I know it's bad, BUT it might lower my living standards if we omved somewhere else." Alos what specific standard are you worried about? In most of the countries in the world (or at least in the northern hemisphere) you still have access to housing, heating, clean water, food, medicine and even internet. So what exactly is it you fear of not having? What also might help: Just imagine having to explain to your kid why you didn't move after you put him in public schooling for a few years and imagine how that might make him feel.