Lilburne,
In my opinion, you only philosophically poison debates. I was using methodological individualism. But because you possess a semantic hang-up on the word "society", do not practice methodological individualism, and thereby have not been able to transform the concept into methodological individualism as I have been able to with intellectual skill, then it is not my fault, but your own theoretical failure.
Yet I'm done. You have attacked my life enough. You have attacked my values enough. I incline to be around some people that actually maintain peace and civility instead of creating, in belief of what you do, unneccessary, spurious divisions in most of your countless post, after post, after post towards others. In my opinion, this post of yours is just another example of your lack of being able to penetrate intellectually into the meaningful substance. It's called practice what you preach. You preach methodological individualism after the fact, but failed to practice methodological individualism initially while interpreting my post. If you possessed the knowledge and usage of methodological individualism in the first place while interpreting my post, then you wouldn't have failed to see that I was using methdological individualism in that post of mine. This only goes to prove the failure of your theory in practice, not a failure of mine. You ended up only refuting yourself.
It is my belief you do this because you desire conflict instead of peace. Since in all my posts I have maintained peace, and you only philosophically attack this peace that I possess and maintain, then I can not be near a person that I believe desires violence which is you.
To others that do not care to maintain peace and civility, then I really don't give a rat's ass what you think either and that's my opinion. So be it.
I have proven natural law and natural rights and they remain maintained. I now await for others to do the same.
To everybody else that does care about peace, some day I think some people will get what's coming to them. Hold out, maintain your spirit in joy, and God Bless
wilderness: Yet I'm done. You have attacked my life enough. You have attacked my values enough.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
wilderness:some day I think some people will get what's coming to them
wilderness,
While I profoundly disagree with your theories, I wish you personal prosperity, comfort, and safety. Take care.
Sincerely,
Lilburne
Nitro,
Because my natural right is my life. That's as personal as anything in this world can ever be.
Lilburne - Don't. That post of yours is wholly disrespectful at this point.
<Mod censored trollish post>
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Lol, fair enough. I am a bit of a troll.
You seem quite confused. Armstrong wanted to know why/how people act purposefully, and how human action differs from the spatial trajectory of comets, for example, or the occurrence of earthquakes. I answered that question (others did as well). Next, I told him that he needs to actually support his materialistic position; put forth some kind of argument.
No, you people straw man'd my argument to mean something I SPECIFICALLY STATED TWICE I did not mean. By the way, I wasn't directly supporting the materialistic position (even though I do support that). I was asking for arguments which support the position that our decisions aren't based on physical interactions of chemicals inside our brain, especially given that we know that when our brain's have been physically hampered or harmed in some way, our decision making abilities are likewise hampered or harmed.
Please, offer one single argument for that position, because we have already offered many, such as the drugs argument I made earlier. All you stated is that drugs may effect our decisions but that doesn't necessarily mean our decisions are made by chemicals. Fine, but it does point in that direction, offer one which points in the other.
First, all arguments dealing with this subject are laughable at best, both because they lack the necessary empirical evidence, and because they cannot be known a priori. The causal directions of stimuli are spurious, the system in question is extremely complicated and intricate, and both arguments are counter-intuitive. Which ever argument seems more intuitive is a matter of preference.
Behaviorism failed.
But more than that, you're the one who put forth a proposition; either validate it, or move on. You're not going to force a debate here.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Lines of evidence which support that our brains run on chemicals, and that humans aren't some special case.
1. Drugs (chemicals) affect our decision making abilities
2. Brains exist. Not just in us, but in much smaller animals who don't have the same complexity as we do, but do have the same or very similar structures.
3. Animals brains function similar to us. We have countless examples of animals learning very similarly to us. Pavlov's dog ring a bell. We even have chimps who have learned language, acted with purpose, and have even done things like apologize for past harms.
4. Human's aren't instantly granted the power of acting with purpose. A zygote doesn't have any more purpose or consciousness than an amoeba. They grow, their brains grow, and as we watch those brains grow and make more and more connections between neurons eventually surpassing the dog who played with them as a infant, and the chimps. We see that people who don't make those connections don't gain those abilities. So it's not a case of correlation != causation.
5. Artificial Intelligence. We see that the principles which our brains are founded on can be simulated on small scale's within computers. Neurological networks actually work at solving problems running on computers. Now they are admittedly smaller problems then the one's our brains can handle, but they are also orders of magnitude smaller scales.
6. Evolution explains why we have the desires most of us have. Which is to live and reproduce, and all those things which further our lives. The single most beneficial tool at achieving that is our brain. So of course our brain is ingrained with an urge to live and reproduce, and to do those things which help us do that. But evolution hasn't evolved us to perfection, and some of the tools that were beneficial earlier or are still beneficial in some ways but not others can lead to our own harm.
Lines of evidence to suggest something other than physical interactions and chemical reactions.
.....
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Yeah. Mine are just layman's understandings of neuroscience, but I know enough to realize dualism is really just another god of the gaps.
1. Drugs (chemicals) affect our decision making abilities 2. Brains exist. Not just in us, but in much smaller animals who don't have the same complexity as we do, but do have the same or very similar structures. 3. Animals brains function similar to us. We have countless examples of animals learning very similarly to us. Pavlov's dog ring a bell. We even have chimps who have learned language, acted with purpose, and have even done things like apologize for past harms. 4. Human's aren't instantly granted the power of acting with purpose. A zygote doesn't have any more purpose or consciousness than an amoeba. They grow, their brains grow, and as we watch those brains grow and make more and more connections between neurons eventually surpassing the dog who played with them as a infant, and the chimps. We see that people who don't make those connections don't gain those abilities. So it's not a case of correlation != causation. 5. Artificial Intelligence. We see that the principles which our brains are founded on can be simulated on small scale's within computers. Neurological networks actually work at solving problems running on computers. Now they are admittedly smaller problems then the one's our brains can handle, but they are also orders of magnitude smaller scales. 6. Evolution explains why we have the desires most of us have. Which is to live and reproduce, and all those things which further our lives. The single most beneficial tool at achieving that is our brain. So of course our brain is ingrained with an urge to live and reproduce, and to do those things which help us do that. But evolution hasn't evolved us to perfection, and some of the tools that were beneficial earlier or are still beneficial in some ways but not others can lead to our own harm.
If you chose to push your argument all the way to the necessary conclusions (that is, if you were logically consistent), you would get to behaviorism (though the movement isn't entirely homogeneous). Now go read the refutations of behaviorism.
Either way, you have yet to put forth a definitive or coherent argument supporting your position. I want proof, and an actual argument.
Sam, what is going on here?
yes, we have minds because we have brains. we are 'selves' because we have brains. our actions occur within the universe and have not some mysterious divide from physics, chemistry, et all
yet for all that. living people have purposes, and are agents. tsunami's and earthquakes do not have purposes and are not agents. do you disagree?
>>>>All you stated is that drugs may effect our decisions but that doesn't necessarily mean our decisions are made by chemicals.
what does it mean for a decision to be caused by chemicals? do chemicals muse over issues, do they ponder and consider, and believe things, and go on to decide matters?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
do chemicals muse over issues, do they ponder and consider, and believe things, and go on to decide matters?
What else would you suggest does all that? Complex, interrelated physical/chemical processes in your brain produce emergent phenomena, one of which is your acting, pondering, reasoning, and deciding "self".
Z.
I think that nirgraham's point is that the language we use in describing intentionality is still useful, even if 'free will' or mind/body dualism is false, in the same way that the symbol 'hand' is still useful even if 'hand/palm-fingers dualism' is false.
I can agree that the language is useful, but I think using that language to justify a categorical difference between people and nature presumes free will or mind/body dualism e.g. It's wrong because you have purpose, but the earthquake didn't so it wasn't wrong. Saying those chemicals in his brain shouldn't have been in that pattern to shoot someone, is exactly like saying that earthquake shouldn't have happened. Or let's bring it up one higher. It's exactly like saying the chemicals in the wolf's brain shouldn't have been in that pattern to rip that guy's throat out.
Say what ever you will about not having proof of behaviorism, there is not even evidence to suggest that the difference between those two things is anything more than a difference of scale and complexity.
Intentionality (at its most meaningful in jurisprudence) has to deal with proximate behavior and accountability norms of actors by definition. The question of free will or determinism is totally irrelevant; one may be accountable for an action one was not even near or aware of (your equipment dropping a box on someone walking by). The whole inane 'free will debate' and the obsession some libertarians have over it only arise because of the ridiculous and impossible attempt to associate moral responsibility with jurisprudence.
Yes, thanks. Upon reading nir's post again, it seems that this may indeed be his point. The emergent nature of these phenomena does not preclude language and reason (another two emergent phenomena, btw) from acknowledging their existence. A better analogy (than the hand) would be a wave: it's nothing but a complex physical pattern (oscillating matter/energy) which language and reason have found useful to acknowledge as a specific separate entity/phenomenon. A wave emerges from oscillating matter/energy, just like our 'self' emerges from the complex chemical/physical patterns in our brains. The wave disappears when the matter/energy stops oscillating, just like our 'self' disappears when the chemical/physical patterns go away (or veer outside the realm of 'self' patterns).
z1235: our 'self' emerges from the complex chemical/physical patterns in ours brains.
our 'self' emerges from the complex chemical/physical patterns in ours brains.
Which probably is just metaphysical speculation, again.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
There is empirical evidence (electrical shocks, drugs, brain surgery, etc.) that support a 'self as a pattern' hypothesis. Of course, it's far from proven but, to me, it's the best explanation I've seen.
To us (humans), an emergent phenomenon would be meta-(beyond-)physical, by definition; a whole that language and reason recognize as something more than a mere sum of its parts -- but physical/material nevertheless. We find it useful to acknowledge certain states of matter/energy existence and like to give them names: 'wave', when matter/energy moves a certain way (oscillates), and 'self' when chemical/physical patterns fire in our brains a certain way.
Not metaphysical, empirical.
I would say that to associate any particular theory of the physical sciences with consciousness is empirical, though to call this 'speculation' seems as unfair as to call relativity 'speculation'; whatever inadequacies may exist with the theory it is not substantively comparable to idle proposition mongering of the sort one would associate with those who blame Hitler's anti-semitism on some experience of his childhood.
However, as to the proposition that human existence is necessarily material, and qua material necessarily deterministic, is no 'speculation' at all, though it be metaphysical indeed, it is a necessary consequence of 'existence' itself and to deny this is to not be speaking of 'reality' at all; and to have moved outside the boundaries of logic, proposition and thought altogether.
wilderness: trulib:I have been asking you about your theory on the nature of ethical statements - namely, are they objective or subjective. Now, in your response to me and to others, you've said some things that make me think you are an objective ethicist and some things that make me think you are subjective ethicist. Very perceptive. The objective/subjective is a false dichotomy... I can use both terms without conflict because the way I define the terms is in a complimentary way.
trulib:I have been asking you about your theory on the nature of ethical statements - namely, are they objective or subjective. Now, in your response to me and to others, you've said some things that make me think you are an objective ethicist and some things that make me think you are subjective ethicist.
Very perceptive. The objective/subjective is a false dichotomy... I can use both terms without conflict because the way I define the terms is in a complimentary way.
Well this is the heart of where we are misunderstanding each other then! Do you not recognise that there is a difference between the way you decide what flavor ice cream you like best, and the way you decide whether you think the Earth is round or flat? The former is a subjective subject, based on your preferences alone. The latter is an objective subject, based on your assessment of objective evidence. This is a real dichotomy.
wilderness: trulib:You are expressing a preference with regards to the content of ethical statements. To me, a natural law theorist is something much more than a libertarian, it is someone who believes that ethics is an objective discipline and that libertarian ethical statements are correct. I believe my preference is correct.
trulib:You are expressing a preference with regards to the content of ethical statements. To me, a natural law theorist is something much more than a libertarian, it is someone who believes that ethics is an objective discipline and that libertarian ethical statements are correct.
I believe my preference is correct.
Do you believe your preference for ice cream flavor is correct in the same sense? If yes, then the above is a trivial statement. If no, then you are implying that ethics is different to picking ice cream flavors, in a way that makes it possible to talk about correctness and incorrectness in ethics.
wilderness: trulib:(1)subjective physicist When I read that all I see is a physicist who is using his own individual means to study physics. Subjective in this sense means individual.
trulib:(1)subjective physicist
When I read that all I see is a physicist who is using his own individual means to study physics. Subjective in this sense means individual.
No. A subjective physicist would argue (in a debate with a physicist who disagreed with him over the content of a physics claim) that we should all adapt his preferred physics theory, because it is "cool" or "fashionable", or will bring good consequences, or because it appeals to our inner-sense of what physics statements are preferable. "Support the Round Earth theory! All the cool kids are doing it! Don't be a square and go around saying the Earth is flat!"
Such a physicist would be laughed out of town, even though the content of what he is saying - that the Earth is round - is actually a good theory for us to adopt. He is supporting it - and arguing why we should support it - for all the wrong reasons. He has mistaken physics for a subjective subject, where there is no correct and incorrect, just preferences.
wilderness: trulib:(2)or an objective film critic. When I read that all I see is a film critic who has made their knowledge about a film certain.
trulib:(2)or an objective film critic.
When I read that all I see is a film critic who has made their knowledge about a film certain.
No. An objective film critic would claim that anyone who disagrees with his assessment of how good a given film is simply incorrect. He will claim to have an objective way of measuring the quality of a film, so that he can provide evidence or proof that one film is better than the other. Again, a film critic claiming to be objective would be laughed out of town. He would be mistaking film criticism for an objective subject.
A normal film critic could make objective statements like "this film has 500 special effects shots", "this film got 5 stars in Empire magazine", "this film is directed by an Oscar-winning director", but it is clear that these are just pushing the subjectivity back a step. They are saying if you like lots of special effects shots then this film may appeal to you. They are not bridging the is-ought gap and saying you ought to like films with lots of special effects shots.
This parallels subjective ethicist arguments, in that they say (merely) if you want a wealthy/peaceful society then you ought to adopt the libertarian ethic and oppose the State. Objective ethicists go further and say we ought to adopt the libertarian ethic because ethics is objective and the libertarian ethic is correct (and all other ethics are incorrect). Hoppe claims that his argumentation ethics is the proof of this.
wilderness:Some philosophers have choosen to use terms to get around this subjective/objective haggling by using other terms such as: agent-relative, agent-neutral, and ontological realism.
If you are happier using these terms, then we can. You can replace all my previous utterances of subjective with 'agent-relative' and objective with 'agent-neutral'. To me, the pairs of terms are equivalent.
So the question is: Is ethics an agent-relative subject like picking ice cream flavors or an agent-neutral subject like the shape of the Earth?
I think we should focus on this one issue for now, so we are not talking past each other. My responses to your other paragraphs depend on us having a mutual understanding that a dichotomy exists here.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government