Rick Horton

The point is that morals aren't universally acted on, even if morals are generally agreed on. And morals are best acted on when prioritized to that hierarchy of self values. Moral activism outside of one's pyramid of importance is a misplaced use of action. It's probably pretty vanilla, but in a way it needs to be dealt with because it has underlying questions that stir up the idea of UPB. Not necessarily in a way that hurts UPB, but it is test worthy.

Arguing with emotion is fine, and sometimes honorable. I don't agree with that assessment, but maybe you were saying when you argue like a jerk it's to be authoritive and not social.

Nothing much. What's up with you?

Wow man, that's really juicy material. [:O] I haven't tried that gambit, yet. I don't think I'd put it the way you did, either. I mulled the possibilities of that kind of conversation in my head and came to the same possible awkward conclusion, so I don't go there. It always seems like if I say something like that, it will just come off to them that I'm just too lazy to pay taxes and I'm excusing my laziness with some bullshit blue collar malarky. Usually I try the you against me approach more direct, and leave the cops out. First I get the person to say that the government isn't evil, and that the government is WE the people. Then I try to steer them into proclaiming that the government is a reflection of him. THEN I say, " If you are the government, and the police force represents you, why don't you just come to me if you have a problem with me not paying a tax? Why not? Are you scared to? Would it feel wrong? If you want my money why don't you, yourself come over and try and take it? When you want your grass mowed why don't you come over here and demand I mow it? When you want your kid to go to college why don't you come over and tell me I have to pony up some cash for you or you'll beat me up and put me in a cage? The answers always lead to aggression because they mostly don't accept responsibility for forcing the government to force people, and then the government forcing them, etc... on and on the cycle goes round if you're on that ride.

I think you said 'we went to war' or something along these lines - several times. Oh, good point.

I think it's fair to use we and I don't see how that is statist.

Right, right, but projection or not, we "are" or atleast I know " I am " and I know this because I'm experiencing "something" for sure, and that experience "is" something. So when I decide, I can safely say that I had to at least think about the possibilities before making a selection. There's no scientific evidence that we don't actually do that, or that "I" don't do that.

It's taking self observation, thought, and feedback to reign in the beast from within!!! But y'know, I mean, I am moving more and more to that good place where I can communicate with more positivity. This video was NOT that!

I've just GOT to add that I've learned a lot about myself since this video, and although I think I made the points I needed to at least put some questions on the table, I was more of an oppenent than an ally to myself because I was being really condescending. Not on purpose, but I'm learning as I go that I need to communicate with a lot more honor than I used to. I don't think insulting people made this video productive or at least as productive. It comes off like a pissing match, an ego trip, etc.... The thing is that I made a pact with myself that I would never delete these vlogs, because I think I should bear the responsibility of the outcome of them, and learn how to become a better man. So, yeah, I think I made a lot of good points in this video, but I CANT stand it, at the same time. Watching myself act like that is a constant reality check of how not to communicate.

What an appropriate area of the forums to share my vlog about the Zeitgeist cult. Yes. I said cult, lol. Oh well. I mean whatever floats their boat, but seriously I'm getting a LOT of thumbs down, and hateful responses to the video over at the tube, and not any rational rebuttals. Maybe it's not a cult, but then, maybe it kind of is, because most members seem to shut down rationality at the point imperical evidence starts invading their dream. Here's the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9vxfp86n4

I think I agree on this regard if this is what we are calling choice, and free will. We have limitations. Computers have limitations, etc.... I do think that in order to have something called free will it's essential to know you have free will. The self awareness principal seems like it gives the idea it's real meaning. Awareness plus choices, plus decisions equals free will. I'm not saying that's concrete, but it does seem right, and important in this conversation. Being, and feeling present seem to be almost a requirement. I guess because if you aren't aware, free will doesn't come with any responsibilities, and the responsibility part seems to come from the self awareness part in conjunction with the decision part.

Why not? Care to explain more? Well, the 2nd quote was somebody elses, but I'll address the first. The difference is that I have no way of knowing a computer's experience of reality if it has one at all, but I do know mine, and the choices I make are choices I'm aware of that have options. Depending on what I choose I get a different result. It's impossible to rationally argue any of this, because none of this is at a point where science can give an answer. As far as gut feelings go, I think they are valid in being a prime motivator of the initiation of truth. I agree that it's not good enough, but it's the first prod in a certain direction most of the time. I could have used the word hunch, maybe. From following my hunch further I'm confident that the best answer at this point is that I experience the ability to choose, and that experience is definitely a part of my reality. The reality. The only provable reality. I have to make choices, so in that way free will is determined to happen. I don't however find there to be any reasonable explanation that could be put forward to conclude that our decisions were always going to be the ones we chose. In hind-sight, yes, but in real time there's no explanation yet put forward that choices are illusions, or something like that.

This is a vlog/response, etc.... about communicating better. It was inspired by criticism of another vlog I posted here, and of my general attitude. Check it out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBMDUeq8L0c

Just incase anybody is confused, and thinks this video is a simple reflection of the name of the video I want to let you know that the idea in the video is about moral hierarchies, not animals.

This is a great conversation. I really find resonation with the point about shaming language. I'm not honestly coming out against the word, "creepy". On the other hand, it does get used far too often and with no regard to the emotional consequences that can, do, will follow. Word spreads fast and reputations can be destroyed by shaming language. It really hurts a lot of people a lot of times.

It fits in, although I'm not sure how. I just feel it does from a gut feeling. But just knowing, "knowing" I have a group of possibilities, and then choosing from those does give me at least a good lattitude for choice making, and the possibility to let that extent of free will carry myself to a different state than a mere deterministic conclusion. It's not a perfect concept, surely, but y'know, it's philosophy so discussion brings clarity, or at least tries to get closer to the truth. As I see things at this point, here, free will is just self evident. It's an axiom.

Right. I agree. And one cannot, and doesn't have to prove they have free will to anybody, since both proving that and existence it's self are inherent to the observer. Just saying, and understanding, that I know I make choices is enough for me fundamentally and totally to make it true. This is because in my experience of reality I have to make countless choices everyday whether I want to or not, sometimes not, but I always choose from multiple possibilities. I know this as myself, the one who is thinking. What cannot be proven is the existence of anybody else outside of my experience. But proving my own experience, and the apparent rules and laws within my experience is futile. I think therefore I am. I can't think of a more rational approach than that, but it's not that I'm the best self communicator, although I practice constantly.

No. Not really. A computer doesn't really make choices does it? Anyhow, if they do, they still don't have self awareness (unless there is some new computer that does) I have self awareness so I have free will because I know "of" my possible multitude of choices, options, that I could choose, and I think about those ideas and decide. You know, again, I think therefore I am, and so I know I can make choices, therefore I have free will.

I think it's kind of a simple debate, although frustrating if over done. Since I think therefore I am, and I know in my reality that I must make choices, I therefore have free will.

In this vlog I'm putting forth the idea of a mechanism to illustrate just one more inherent flaw of the State and apparent liberty withing the State. I talk about one of the most important aspects of life. Bringing, or not, a child into the world. Please watch before commenting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HvrXSThKs

I imagine dog probably tastes pretty good. Depending on how you feed it, it "might taste pretty good". Probably like pork.

That's interesting. Can you elaborate?

As far as defining a word like choice, I see no way in pacifying a person who wants that defined. I mean, there are dictionaries, and the way it's applied here covers all of the concepts I've found that define the words in all of the various ways, except for when talking about the grade meat. Some words need to be defined. I trust that in any of the various ways you're interpreting it, it's going to work in this conversation. Also, thank you for pointing out that the pointing to my senses seemed to be condenscending. The repetition was purposeful, yes, but the argument needs to really be dealt with. In light of the fact I came off like "maybe a dick" in the video, I'll try and remember that next time I do one. On the other hand, yes, I have an edge, but that's just me. No harm meant. I'm not unhappy with the way I communicate. If I'm too abrassive for you, I expect you won't watch other videos.

The main problem, and I see and understand why this is always the hard topic, is that only the observer can be proven to exist. Beyond that, things like senses get all hypothetical, I guess, if you take it all the way to the extreme. But I know I make choices as much as I know I exist. It's axiomatic like that. I do however think that it's useful to point out our physical traits, since wheter or not it's all "in my head" doesn't "seem" to make a difference when working with the reality I experience. For example, I know that if I hear somebody knocking at my door, I can choose to answer or not.

Thank you for a proper rebuttal. Now, as I said before, the senses are choice making instruments (especially in a human's case) The proof is that we can decide what to do based on the input coming in. There is no reasoning that can provide that we don't. You can see in your experience that you do. There are choices of all magnitudes, from what shirt you choose to what breakfast cereal you buy, to who you date, etc... What evidence do you have that the senses you posess do not provide you with multiplicities of possible decisions, but rather one determinant one. The onus would be on the person who says the senses do not create a choice. I've argued already that they do. Further more without the senses you could not make a choice. This is different than random stimulas ability, because people can deside things that they wouldn't have decided, purely to go against the normal, expected decision. But first you have to say why we have senses, and I don't think the lion example holds up, especially in a debate about humans. A human doesn't necessarily follow protocol in situations like that, and we exhibit many more possible actions in situations than most lower intelligence species do. Try it in a human scenario, and that will get us closer to where the answers are applicable in the debate.