ofd
-
Posts
645 -
Joined
-
Days Won
11
Everything posted by ofd
-
No, it's teleological reasoning, asking for the purpose. Eg, a heart expands and retracts so that blood can be pushed through the arteries and veins, so that oxygen and nutrients get to the cells, so you can procreate and make another heart. The main difference between say physics and biology is that biology deals with entities that procreate themselves. For this procreation there are rules different from physics (like sexual attraction) and you can judge how good organisms are at replicating themselves.
-
That's where you are wrong. Evolutionary psychology and game theory explain ethics.
-
The salient point is that even smart and rich people are clueless when it comes to their ideology. Their individualism, which helped them prosper and grow rich, doesn't let them see obvious solutions to the problem of safety. They needed an external expert to tell them what everybody who studied history for a few minutes knows. Feudalism is the most stable political relationship and that liberal democracy is a blip in time enabled by cheap money and cheap fossil fuels.
-
From time to time you can play mouse and see what rich people think and say when they are amongst themselves. It's pretty different from what is discussed on radio and TV, needless to say. The change of perspective from the daily grind to problems we might face in the future and the solutions are eye opening. https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
-
I have enough Köttbullar, Gravlax and Marabou chocolate to last me a lifetime. Hope that's enough preparation for a non Swede. -
Fair enough.
-
Well, then you were misinformed what Kant's all about. Kant's ideas are pretty simple, when you break them down. 1) You can't gain knowledge using a prioristic reasoning 2) Our senses are made up in such a way that we interpret the enviroment in a specific way 3) Ethics has to be universal if it is to be an ethical system at all It speaks for the laziness of most people on the libertarian part of the ideological spectrum that they take Alissa Rosenbaum's word for what Kant said instead of actually reading him. The problem with pure logical positivism is the frame of reference. A dog gets different empirical information than a human who perceives the world differently than a tick and so on. None of those perceptions is better than the other, they are either functional for the proliferation of genes or they are not.
-
Can you give us some examples of those?
-
Robert Nozick found some good arguments why the NAP doesn't work in theory. The best is that it doesn't allow for degrees of aggression. Shooting a gun into a crowd violates the NAP. If you put one round in a chamber and spin the drum of a revolver and then play Russian Roulette with the crowd, the NAP is violated just as much though the chances of the gun firing are 1 / 6. You can universalize that and say no matter how many chambers are in the gun, the NAP is violated when you point it at a crowd and pull the trigger. That's when you have hit the jackpot, because from a certain chambersize on (say 400 000 chambers in an imaginary gun), driving a car is more lethal than shooting the gun. Thus, driving a car violates the NAP.
-
It doesn't matter how close you stick to the data or how honest you are. Until you can create new data with experiments at will, interpretations are a just so story because you cannot test hyptheses against each other.
-
Read up on endogenous money before embarassing yourself.
-
It's an immunological reaction to Communism.
-
Ah ok, makes sense now.
-
Where do you find that in my post?
-
This quote and similar ones by Aristotle is responsible for the stagnation in physics from Ancient Greece to the Middle of the 17th century. Only when Aristotle was ignored could you study physical phenomena objectively. A ball doesn't want to hit the ground like Aristotle said, it is subject to gravity and so on. Ironically enough, the application of this mindset to biology causes other problems, where you can't see that biological organisms and their parts act in a teleological way. A heart pumps blood so the organism gets nutrients and oxygens. Ignoring this purpose driven unity of parts of the body, the body, and groups in general eventually led to an atomistic view of the society in general where everything goes and tactical nihilism is the general attitude of intellectuals.
-
Sure, but since split brain patients can't experience the will as described by you, it works against both.
-
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
ofd replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
Here is how an argument works: You make a claim and provide evidence. The latter part is missing. You could have spent the time you invested in replying by having a look at his videos and provides example that support your thesis. Since you did not I have to assume that there are none and that you made it up. -
I fail to see how this is self evident. Experiments with split brain patients make it clear that unconscious action are justified after the fact with made up rationalisations. No matter how hard you press those patients, they will always have an explanation for what they did.
-
Uhh... S.D.Attenborough, not just toxic but mad.
ofd replied to barn's topic in Science & Technology
Is it so hard to say that you can't point to a specific instance that verifies your claim? -
You haven't seen the alternatives.
-
As Jonathan Haidt put it, you are the rider on the elephant. Sometimes you can change the direction but when the elephant wants to go somewhere you can't do much to stop it. That depends on the type of alien If they are like us (eusocial apes) we can expect them to have a similar morality if the same evolutionary pressures applied to them. If they are like eusocial insects (ants) they will have a more collectivist morality. As for tribes, their basic morality (don't steal, don't kill within your in-group) is the same as ours.
-
That's pretty easy. Humanities like say history don't have a method to test their hypotheses. Any interpretation interprets facts and basically any explanation of the same facts is good as another one. In science, you can repeat experiments over and over, change parameters and wha thot. That's not possible for humanities which is why they are a bunch of just so stories, even without ideology.
-
A large number of positive outcomes determines good behaviour, those get selected for and turn into morality. A group in which members don't steal from each other has more chances of survival than a group where stealing is not seen as morally bad. Over generations, this behaviour becomes engrained in our genetic memory and becomes morality. The groups that had dysfunctional behaviour and a dysfunctional morality were outcompeted by more moralistic groups.
-
What you describe (minus the ideology part) is how science works. You make observations, develop theories, pick one that is parsimonious and falsifiable. If another theory can explain more observations, is more stringent / more parsimonious you pick it, instead of the old one. Simply applying logic to 'evidence' (I think you mean observations) doesn't work for a simple reason. There are multiple theories to pick from. Seeing the sun rise and then fall again may lead to two different theories: the sun wanders around the earth or the earth wanders around the sun. Applying logic to that doesn't help you, unless you have additional evidence (parallaxes of stars) than finally kill the other theory.
-
I have no idea what this means. You have to elaborate to make yourself clear.
