neeeel
-
Posts
826 -
Joined
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by neeeel
-
-
. could we then suppose that all matter in the universe is collectively organized in such a way as to all be constituent parts of one mind.
I suppose we could suppose that, but why would we, or should we? what does it even mean "constituent parts of one mind?
-
I dont have much experience with 2 yos, more 5s and up, but it sounds like you are going along the right lines.
Yes, in effect, it doesnt really matter whether you reach the pool or not.its good to keep that in mind. Also, you can keep saying, "we are going to the pool, do you still want to go"?
Does he know you are going to the pool when you leave the house? Does he like going to the pool? Im sure even a 2yo can understand that if he wants to go to the pool, and the pool is thataway, then he needs to go thataway.
what is there off to the left that he wants to go see/do? Do you go somewhere else that he likes, where you need to go left instead of right? Anyway, I think you are handling it well, you are keeping him safe, explaining what you are doing and why, and not getting angry with him.
When he protests, what does he say, if anything?
you say you are worried about him being "too uncooperative"., who has planted the idea in your head that hes uncooperative?
-
1
-
-
It also happens here(as in, FDR), but probably to a lesser extent
-
Compassion is an internal reward: one does good, one feels good--without need for external rewards like praise, gifts, status, or money. You contended that you are "...fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards." Do you still think this, that all internal rewards are "just thoughts about external rewards," or do you agree with me that internal rewards can sometimes suffice to motivate an individual to perform a good act?
I dont see the difference between internal and external rewards. but if you are saying that people only do good to get rewards ( internal or external ) then I would agree with that.
-
I am saying psychopaths lack internal rewards for doing good (e.g., "doing good is its own reward") and, so, only do good for the sake of external rewards like prestige, money, or sex. A psychopath will never save a wounded animal out of sheer compassion, to gain the satisfaction of an internal reward, for example, because the psychopath's "compassion circuits" don't exist. They may enter into a love relationship because of the external rewards that brings, but those rewards don't include love, because the psychopath's "love circuits" don't exist. And a psychopath may support justice, but only out of sadism or self-interest in having a safe society, but not because he believes in justice as a principle.
But you agreed that everyone acts good only because of rewards? And now you are saying they can act out of "sheer compassion". It seems like a contradiction to me
-
not my style of music, but nice glossy sound. How did you get to work with joel kazmi?
-
Indubitably. Do we agree that without rewards of some kind, no-one acts good?
You were making the point that sociopaths only do good when the result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. I was pointing out that you ( and I ) do the same, and now you are agreeing with me, that everyone acts good only because of rewards. I am a bit confused, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying about sociopaths.
-
internal rewards are still rewards
-
1
-
-
What external reward is one thinking about when one is feeling benevolent towards a wounded bird?
Obviously I cant exactly answer this question, as its hypothetical. Could be things like approval of others, warm feelings of "doing good" or "being good" having your discomfort over an injured animal assuaged,
-
Yes, we judge in temporal things, necessarily for our own survival and the survival of society. No one is disputing this. "Judging" refers to final judgements of a person's value before God.
Re: the boldfaced text: we have free will but the only reason we don't always use our free choices for evil is because we have the right neural architecture. Psychopaths have free will, but they have zero reason in their brains in terms of emotional rewards and penalties to choose to be good. If they choose good it will be a result of external rewards/penalties making choosing good seem worthwhile. Ergo, we should not boast about our own moral superiority because it is just by the grace of God or his substitute Evolution that we have our psychopathic desires suppressed.
I am fairly sure that you also do good for the same reasons, ie external rewards or penalties. I doubt anyone is good just cos they are good. Any internal rewards are just thoughts about external rewards
-
And if there is no consent and the husband sleeps with another woman then it is not cheating.
What definition of cheating are you using? I dont get this.
-
Have you tried limiting fluid intake for a few hours before sleep?
It sounds like this is a psychological problem, not a physical problem, are you in, or planning to have, therapy?
-
Compromise is similar but different in that you both lose something to go from negative to neutral (ending a dispute). Neither really gains so much as neutralizes a negative. If there was not a negative situation there wouldn't be any need for a compromise in the first place.
going from a negative to a neutral is a net gain
-
1
-
-
You're confusing trade with compromise... they are not the same thing.
No. Your definition of compromise was "A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose."
I am pointing out that this definition also fits trade ( I suppose you could quibble about whether trade is a dispute, and so it doesnt apply, but in general in a trade both parties are giving up something. )
Also, if compromise really was lose lose, then no one would do it.
-
A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose.
yes, they give up something, to gain something more important ( to them). So, win win.They value what they gain, more than they value what they are giving up, the definition of free trade.
both parties "give up" something in a trade. Are you saying trade is lose lose?
-
Compromise is lose-lose
I think this is horribly incorrect. It could be that I misunderstood your use of the word "compromise" though
-
"Can", sure, but "should"? Universally preferable means that the behavior in question should be done by everyone.
right, but Graham said "can" not "should".
-
You could go with "two people can not simultaniously murder each other", I just prefered theft.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems perfectly possible that 2 people can simultaneously murder each other
-
The first thread glitched, so lets get this rolling!
That "the total value of the economic states of two people in a room may not decrease", is a statement of UPB.
It is a statement of UPB because it is an equilivent statement to "two people in a room may not simultaniously steal from each other".
Pretty short.
Im not sure thats what UPB says. 2 people in a room CAN simultaneously steal from each other.
-
1
-
-
I got INTP-T
-
Of course I don't expect you to agree with me. This is a matter of interpretation. I can certainly see a parallel in the two stories. It's a logical comparison. But you keep repeating yourself. I'll drop it after this post and let you get the last word. I do appreciate you clinging desperately to your view. Still, I would love to hear anyone else chime in.
right, its not that you are being dishonest, or illogical, its that I am "clinging desperately to my view"
absolutely disgusting
-
nothing to do with hyper rationality. Its to do with you being dishonest and illogical
-
Ok. So you don't see the Taoist story as pointing to the philosophical death. I respectfully disagree. Let it rest.
No its pointing to how we can never know whether an outcome is good or bad. And that is how you are interpreting it as well.
Except when you need to use it to prop up your other narrative.
-
OMFG!! you cannot be serious?
I AM NOT COMMENTING ON THE STORIES!!!! I AM COMMENTING ON YOUR USE OF THE STORIES
story 1 says changes/outcomes can never be fathomed
story 2 says changes can be fathomed. because YOU are equating eating the fruit with a bad outcome ( philosophical death or philosophical dead end).
story 1 says "We cannot know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome"
story 2 says "We DO know whether eating the fruit has a good or bad outcome, eating the fruit ends in a bad outcome ( according to YOU, not me)"
again, this is not about what I believe, whether I agree with the stories or not, how I interpret the stories, or anything like that
its about how YOU are interpreting the stories, and the logical contradiction that ensues.
Attempted logical proof for God
in Atheism and Religion
Posted
You cant even be sure of your own. Youve never seen a mind, or experienced a mind. The only thing you have experienced are thoughts, and one of those thoughts says that thoughts come from a mind.