Koroviev
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Koroviev
-
-
If you haven't read it already I highly recommend Dr. Gabor Mate's In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts. Whether you're dealing with addiction or not it's a fantastic book and if nothing else a wonderful lesson in empathy.
-
No, God knows what we will freely choose. We might think of it in terms of knowing a person's character. You might get to know someone so well you know exactly what they're going to do at a particular juncture. Your knowledge doesn't make their choice any less free. God knows you so well he knows everything you're going to do, even as he doesn't interfere with your choices.
But see that's where the problem is you can know someone so well you know most likely what choice they will make in a given instance based on circumstances, but that person could still surprise you. Knowing with 100% certainty before those circumstances arise which choice someone would make means there is no possible way that person could ever make any other choice, therefore choice is not possible. Also where is the line drawn does god know every choice he is going to make as well forever into infinity?
-
If no one is coercing him into doing it there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and in fact I'd go so far as to day I'd encourage it. Often people with special needs (cerebral palsy specifically) have a lot of cognitive issues as well, are extremely socially awkward, and really want to fit in with people around them. The main things they see that make the "normal" people popular around them are sports, humor, and (maybe) intelligence. Obviously you can't do much in the way of sports if your legs don't work and reading books is boring so often all they have left is humor. With lower than average cognitive abilities you don't stand much of a chance new, unique, and intellectually stimulating material, but the one thing that's always made people laugh is your disability.
I say I'd encourage it because the alternative is laying on the floor in your room playing video games all day, slowly wasting away. This guy, Zach, gets to have some fun, get some laughs, popularity, and what I'm sure, for him, is a really good workout (which probably also makes his physical therapist ecstatic).
Is it sad that they feel the only value they can bring is through self deprecation? Sure, maybe but some value is better than none.
-
1
-
-
All powerful doesn't make any sense to me as a concept. I don't even know what people mean by it. It's self-contradictory. Just a grandiose term to inflate the idea of God and to try to shut down people's reasoning centers when questions arise and to get around the whole idea of things not making sense, because they think God is so grand it's okay if he doesn't make any sense as that just feeds into the notion that he's beyond our understanding which is the anti-reasoning part of religion that doesn't want you to overthink things because it's pointless with such a grand and great and 'all powerful' god.
This is what I was trying to point out as well. I'd argue the same holds true for omniscience.
-
No, I'm saying eternal omniscience can know everything about a person's choices whilst still allowing those choices to be free. It's only time-bounded thinking that presumes omniscience and free will are incompatible.
Right, but "choices being free" means that god cannot know which you will make.
Randomness, which could also be called non-determinism or non-causality, negates knowledge. It creates false knowledge and negates the relevance of knowledge. Determinism is a form of consistency in regards the rules, logic, and flow of the universe. Doesn't mean we'll understand that logic, but that it exists. Randomness in this context is a lack of consistency, breaking the laws of physics (not what we think they are, but what they actually are), based on no logic or causality, which is naturally and inherently unpredictable. Thus physics like gravity always exist and if they 'go away' for some reason it's due to some deeper logic or physics as opposed to some 'randomness' in the rules. Thus the base physics or rules or flow of the universe has a consistency to it and is deterministic.
As regards free will you need some consistency for free will to be at all meaningful and to arise. A lack of consistency in the base causality of the universe would be a disruption to free will and thus anti-freewill in a fashion. Thus I contend determinism supports free will (if you have a definition that is possible) and that anything other than a deterministic universe would be 'more anti-freewill' than a deterministic universe. Thus you either, by this constraint of logic, think free will is an impossible concept or think that it exists in its most possible and strongest form in a fully deterministic universe.
Ok, yeah that definitely makes sense, and by that definition of determinism (as the opposite of randomness) I would completely agree that you cannot have free will without determinism, but would you not agree that you cannot have free will with the commonly accepted definition (above) of determinism which is more along the lines of pre-determinism?
-
A definition of determinism alone cannot decide wether its compabtible with free-will.
Because it depends on the definition of freewill, which right now am only aware of 2 that are internally fully consistent.
I absolutely agree, if the definition of determinism does not in and of itself contradict free will (i.e. if the definition is not "determinism is the opposite of free will" which some definitions are.)
Well it's complicated to explain and not easy to understand (my book has a whole chapter for it along with other chapters which relate, like a chapter on free will & consciousness, and frequent contention shows it's not easily understood), but put simply it's just that everything follows logical natural "laws" or "physics". That everything flows in a causal logical fashion and that the rules are consistent and nothing escapes these rules. Depending on your definition and understanding of randomness you can say this means no true randomness in the universe (no results unrelated to anything that prior existed). Some people think you need some sort of gap in determinism or causality for freewill but I disagree and think that randomness or non-causality, in this sense, would be anti-freewill, not pro-freewill.
Ok, I think I see what you're saying, you cannot make choices if everything is random because you have no prior knowledge from which you can base those choices. However, I'd call that consistency rather than determinism.
-
We must distinguish between temporal omniscience and eternal omniscience. Temporal omniscience would negate free will as you describe. Eternal omniscience would not, because it is looking at events "sideways" to time. God created beings capable of free will, discovered what they would do in what situations, and then created those situations. He selected the freely choosing beings he wishes to exist, to exist.
Are you saying that eternal omniscience allows for knowing the outcome of every choice but not knowing what choice will be made? Whereas temporal omniscience would know not only the outcome of every choice but also what choice would be made?
Some definitions of determinism also specifically state it as being anti-freewill. I do not think all definitions of determinism are legit. The underlying concept holds without some of these derived definitions that don't fit with the underlying concept of a causal deterministic universe. Much of the trouble with discussing determinism comes with these conflicted definitions and with how some people group what they think logically follows from determinism into the definition, when what they think logically follows from determinism doesn't in fact logically follow.
Gotcha, so I guess the question is what's the definition of determinism?
-
Some people define it as such, but I think that's due to an erroneous interpretation of the consequences of determinism. Determinism doesn't mean predetermined or prescripted as that implies things are before they are in a sense. Events happen when they happen, but no sooner.
but isn't that the literal definition of determinism?
Full Definition of DETERMINISM1a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural lawsb : a belief in predestination2: the quality or state of being determined -
I believe free will and determinism are compatible, but don't believe there is such a thing as omnipotence or omniscience. And I was stating my view in regards to moral responsibility, which doesn't require knowing with 100% certainty. If I know there is a high likelihood of my actions leading to eternal damnation of others then whether or not it happens doesn't necessarily matter in regards to how I would be morally judged. If I set up an evil trap that could by chance kill someone and no one happens to fall into it, the fact that I ran that risk still means I was kind of evil for taking that chance for no moral reason. I was suggesting that you could call the Christian God view evil whether or not omniscience was had.
Ah, that makes sense yes I definitely agree that entrapment is immoral. I'm a little confused on free will and determinism though...isn't determinism by it's very definition the opposite of free will. If everything is pre-determined you do not have the free will to make choices counter to what is pre-determined.
-
What would be the point of creating hell if no one was going to go there? Even a human can know what they're willing to do in some situations and what is possible. So doesn't take godly knowledge or omniscience to know he would create and send people to hell.
He knew many would choose hell from the options on offer, yes.
As a human I agree that yes you can know with a high degree of certainty what people will do in certain situations or given certain choices, but omniscience requires knowing with 100% certainty, negating free will, and omnipotence requires the ability to change what people will do, negating free will and omniscience. There can be an argument for determinism or free will but not both.
-
Reading the /. headlines this morning and came across an article on Basic Income ( A.K.A. Guaranteed Income, annual unearned income, etc.) and I felt like I was missing something. The idea of having money taken from me (through taxes) so that they could give a percentage of that back to me just didn't seem to sit right. Even if this was implemented while or after abolishing the welfare state so it does not raise taxes (theoretically it would cost no more than welfare costs now) it seems like it would just raise demand thus raising prices, thus raising cost of living, thus invalidating the whole system.
It turns out it was referring to an article from the VICE network which I'm pretty sure is just another liberal media shill, but then I found an article Charles Murray wrote about it and thought well maybe, just maybe, I'm missing something.
Would this be a good compromise between the left and the right? Does it somehow both increase and decrease state power at the same time? Could it bring both families and communities together? Or is it just another ploy to get more government control over peoples lives, another way to introduce central planning, and another government plan doomed to failure?
Charles Murray - "GUARANTEED INCOME AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE WELFARE STATE"
http://www.fljs.org/sites/www.fljs.org/files/publications/Murray.pdf
/. headline - The Campaign To Get Every American Free Money, Every Year
vice article
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-campaign-to-give-every-american-free-money-091515
the economist article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/11/government-guaranteed-basic-income
found this thread right after I posted apologies for the overlap :https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45105-the-living-wage-ripped-apart/
-
Nice, if this were a poster i'd buy one.
The video on the link is comical, How to Speak Without Bias....
- Caucasian People => European-American Individuals
- His or Her => Hir
- Poor people => People living at or below the poverty line
I think the second one is still heavily misogynistic, why should the second letter be from 'His' and the LAST letter from 'Her' (It should be "HES"). How terribly offensive
That video is very prejudice!!!!! They completely missed all of the rest of the pronouns:
Taken from the University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion page (has since been removed)
http://web.archive.org/web/20150828143254/http://diversity.utk.edu/2015/08/pronouns/
-
If we're still talking about atoms (again from my very limited knowledge) the issue is the only methodology we have to "see" atoms changes the position of the atom the more precise we get. There's a much better explanation of it than I could give in A Brief History of Time by Stephan Hawking, but in a sense the more precise we are the less certain we can be about the position of the atom. This is where Schrodinger's cat comes from.
-
come on guys, obviously "The Bern" is going to waive his magic wand and make it disappear just like the student loan debt I don't know why everyone's so worried........
-
Fantastic link!
I haven't quite gotten all the way through it so I don't know if he touches on this, but from personal experience with my wife being a teaching student there are A LOT of really crappy teachers out there. I wouldn't want any of her classmates teaching our kids, most of the teachers in the schools she's worked at openly hate kids, and even the "good" teachers don't really ever seem to think about what or how they are teaching.
-
Just taking your points one by one as to cut down on the length of the posts
This metaphor only goes so far, you did not attack any of my actual points. Are you implying that the programmer does not design the very fabric of the game you inhabit? Are you implying a programmer can not make a game where the collective benefits from good or evil? Sure, a human programmer working with finite resources cannot account for every instance of the game played, that is where the metaphor breaks down. However an omnipotent being with the ability to see all permutations of existence of the universe absent of time is not limited by this factor. Remember, time is fundamentally no different than the other three spatial dimensions, except in how your mind chooses to interpret it.
No my points were simply that a programmer does not exist in the "reality" of the game and that programmers are not omnipotent or omniscient even in the context of a video game, at least not a game where there is free will, thus the metaphor does not hold at all.
As I said a "creator" could exist but however this does not make that creator a "god," it just as easily could have been a being that accidentally kicked something over causing the reactions that ended in us. Either way this is not someone who needs to be praised. It also kind of invalidates the bible doesn't it?
As to the multiverse theory you are claiming that something outside of our universe that contradicts the laws of physics (in our universe) exists within our universe.
Again being all powerful (omnipotent) and being all knowing (omniscient) are contradictions. If a being knows with 100% certainty what is going to happen in every situation then that being does not have the power to change what is going to happen (otherwise it wouldn't know with 100% certainty), also if there is a being that knows with 100% certainty what will happen in every situation then that is determinism which means no free will. If a being is all powerful (omnipotent) then that being has the power to cause us to do whatever it wants which also means no free will. If a being is all powerful that means it has the power to (among other things) change the outcome of the future (i.e. not determinism) which means it cannot know with 100% certainty what will happen in the future.
If something that cannot exist in our universe (i.e. invalidates the laws of physics) but can exist in another universe that is no different from not existing. If as you said every particle
Limits in our understanding to this point in time does not equal god. Also, if I understand right we cannot directly observe the position of an atom because our method of observing an atom changes it's position, as opposed to some un-observable force changes the position.
-
From what I can tell 2009 was an abnormally high deficit year. Average deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1974 is -3.1%, in 2009 it was -10% the highest by far the deficit had ever been. Since then, as the article says the deficit has gone down by more than half, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was specifically something President Obama did. More likely it was market forces correcting and mostly the US reducing much of our spending on the unsustainable war (a move just about any president would have made).
Also, just for clarity sake national deficit is related to but not the same as national debt. Deficit being difference between what the government collects and what it spends. Debt being net of annual deficits less any surpluses.
Cheers!
-
1
-
-
Basically what you are saying there is akin to saying that a programmer has little effect on the reality of a game once it's released and being played by players. Are you really coming from there? Sure you have free will in the game, but only to win or lose the game and you can tap into rewards/traps predefined into the system by the programmer. IE this is why being moral is also the means to the best most productive society, by sheer coincidence of physics..? Maybe. If the universe were designed top down, every single action of every single particle (even the undiscovered ones) could potentially be manipulated by some unknown force, appearing to be completely random (IE causeless) to humans. Once again, physics shows that there is indeed a God because if there is no discoverable cause to the observed and constant effect of wave/particle duality on the quantum scale, logic and physics are broken while if there is indeed a God, we are all not insane and there is indeed a cause to the effects of all reality.
Once a game is released the programmer ceases to exist within the "reality" of his game, yes. Now the programmer can revisit the game (patches) but that is more akin to a tourist than a god. If you are saying "god" is like the programmer of a video game then sure, that "god" potentially could exist, but that "god" would have no influence on our day to day lives, and for all practical purposes would not exist except to create a new (slightly different) universe through "patches". A programmer would know the outcome of almost every reaction a non-playable character would have to the actions of a player, but NPC's are far from having free will. Even with NPCs a programmer is not omniscient since a programmer cannot predict every action a player might make (this is how people find bugs and exploits in code). For a programmer to be omniscient and omnipotent, both generally accepted traits of a god, the programmer would have to design a "game" where every action, choice, victory, or defeat was predetermined by the programmer. This however would again take away free will and that's making the big assumption that no one ever figured out a way to break the game, thereby removing the omniscients and omnipotents of the programmer.
Just for clarification are we working off the same definition of "god?" If so would you agree that a being that is not omniscient and omnipotent that being is not a god?
-
1
-
-
Even if there was a "god" who started everything who was outside of time, or our dimension when we talk about existence we are talking about things that have an effect on our reality. If it has no effect on our reality (i.e. it cannot be observed directly or indirectly) then it does not exist.
If there is some being who purposefully (or accidentally) kicked off the chain of reactions that lead us to where we are today that does not make that being a god (assuming the generally accepted definition of "god"). If that being no longer has an effect on observable reality then that being no longer exists.
omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive. If some being is omniscient then that being must know what actions humans will take before they take them (i.e. determinism)
omnipotence and free will are mutually exclusive. If humans have free will than "god" cannot have the power to change them.
omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. If a being has knowledge of everything that will happen then that being does not have the power to change what will happen.
As Stef as pointed out many times when people claim things that are self-contradictory (i.e. a square circle) the burden of proof falls to the person making that claim.
-
Freud
in Philosophy
I'll take a look
Freud opened the door to the Oedipal complex, the subconscious, and the concept of psychic distortions arising in childhood, all patent concepts. If you'd like to move through the door instead of waiting at it, I recommend the following essay:
Beyond Psychoanalysis, by L. Marcus
still working through this
-
Fountainhead -Ayn Rand
Anthem - Ayn Rand
In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts - Gabor Mate
1984 - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
-
1
-
-
What is the problem with no one, no neiboors you disagree with running the show in fornt of your kids?
The problem with "no one" is that there are other people out there whether you like them or not. The problem with "no one" is that we are social creatures. The problem with "no one" is that then the only thing you have to turn to in a crisis is the government. Personally, the problem with "no one" is I travel a lot for work, so if something happens to my wife or kids, when we have them, it could potentially be 12+ hours before I can be there.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/04/kentucky-sheriff-defends-officer-handcuffed-child
First we force you to send your kid to public school, then we "diagnose" them with a disorder, then we need a police officer to keep them from "acting out" who handcuffs their elbows together. Yay public school!!!!
-
2
-
-
This is a great point and most of the people in my life don't fit the cookie cutter and I actually value them that way. They are, as you say, "Character Builders." :-)
But when it comes to choosing a mate, which I guess is what we're really getting at, or maybe choosing men to have strong friendships with, I think it is absolutely essential that they "fit the cookie cutter," or at least come really close. I can't imgaine being with a woman that wasn't an advocate of peaceful parenting. Or forming a strong friendship with a man that was fully supportive of war and thought soliders were "cool."
I like your tactic of being upfront and honest to filter people out; a policy I myself have used frequently. The only draw back to that strategy, I have found, is that the intensity of it tends to alienate others before they've even had a chance to see what I'm about. in my older age of 27, I have "tonned it down" considerably, with the general effect being that my conversations last a bit longer and I provoke something resembling thought in another person.
Before I was just "being honest," and "honestly," I was a little ball of rage and anger. (The Red Pill Rage one experiences after learning all this is QUITE intense.) Nobody wants to hang with somebody who's pissed off all the time and broods on negative things like politics.
It wasn't till I discovered Stef's show, which focused more on non violence and self knowledge, that I chilled out, rediscovered my ambition and got my life moving in a positive direction. Before that happened, the "honest" thing was me being very angry for many days of the week.
Did not make me popular, I can tell you. Nor did it make me very articulate or able to express WHY I was angry all the time.
This is off topic, but I was discussing with someone about how Taking The Red Pill turns you into a two year old. You reenter a time in your life where your "ability to understand, exceeds you capacity to express." Like a two year old, you "get it, but can't talk about it." And this is very frustrating, because the whole time you feel angry because of what you've learned, but lonely and isolated and confused (and more angry) because you can't THINK about Red Pill knowledge coherently, let alone express your new knowledge to anyone.
Back on topic. I think being honest is a good strategy for filtering non virtuous people, but I also think that there are a lot of people who would be interested in philosophy if it weren't being pitched with a "Hard Sell" tactic. (Rar! Reason and Evidence! Taxes are Violent! Single Moms are an economic plague! And if you disagree you're an unvirtuous, evil Statist that can fuck off and die!)
Even though those arguments can be made, fairly successfully, one does not, friends win, by pitching it with that kind of attitude.
Honesty? Yes. But not so blunt we turn away the women or men that would have made great friends and spouses, had they been exposed to an argument, instead of just our hostile mood.
Yes I completely agree. The honesty you bring should be like Stef was saying to the third caller on FDR3038, an honesty about your emotional state with an empathy for what the other person is going through.
I think the fundamental part of your question really hit me last night as I was listening to the single mom rebuttal, when he was talking about how hypothetical-single-mom could rely on friends, neighbors, and charity as opposed to government help, which is how can you be a FDR listener/thinker and still have close relationships with those around you. This is something my wife and I have been talking about a lot. We're planning on trying to have a baby soon but really have no one around us who thinks about things even close to the way that we do. The "solution" we came up with is that we need to put more effort into the relationships with others that we currently have. Unfortunately, often this feels like we are not being true to ourselves since, first of all it feels like we're putting more effort in than they are, and second these are not necessarily people we'd want to have our child spend much time around (aside from character building) since their views are so much different. Unfortunately the alternative is no one.
It seems like the "trick" comes back down to honesty and empathy. You need to be honest both with and about yourself, i.e. why do you want to be in a relationship with this person, why do you not, as well as be empathic to what they are going through, i.e. how is the "gun in the room" conversation going to effect them. This does not mean you should not have these conversations with others but it should help to frame them, and time them, in a way that is more productive for both parties involved. For myself personally it's having to constantly remind myself where I started and how long it took me to get to where I am.
As to opting out, I definitely agree with you that it's a very lazy path to take. Although, yes there are a lot of bad cases out there and a lot of bad women, and a lot of risk getting into those situations that does not mean you shouldn't try to find the good ones. Awareness is absolutely important, but not finding a good spouse and raising good kids with them is also not adding to the pool of good women, but rather giving more opportunities for the shitty men to reproduce which only adds more shitty men and shitty women.
Why does god need to be outside of time?
in Atheism and Religion
Posted
However, free will (at least the common understanding of free will) means your friend could surprise you, omniscience means there are no surprises.