This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Pendulate
Pages: 1 ... 567 89 ... 16
181
« on: June 13, 2015, 01:47:19 AM »
What was the purpose of the stream, initially?
182
« on: June 13, 2015, 12:57:46 AM »
The fermi paradox is anything but a slam-dunk. It's interesting, sure, but I don't think you should hinge your position on it.
Even if it were true, the other big problem is the formation of life after we're gone. If conditions for life exist elsewhere in the universe, which they do, then we'd have no guarantee that it wouldn't arise (it may even be inevitable). So in terms of ending all suffering, an earthly mass extinction seems like a band-aid solution. if there are aliens out there, it wouldn't change the philosophy a bit
it would just mean that now we have an entire universe to clean up
I know. I'm asking how we would go about it. Efilism tends to go hand in hand with anti-natalism, but clearly we would need to reproduce until we develop means of carrying out this goal. So the philosophy needs some refining. Also, does this now mean you support space travel? 
183
« on: June 13, 2015, 12:49:55 AM »
How can efilism be applied practically considering the likelihood of life having formed elsewhere in the universe?
i don't believe there is any such likelihood
see: the fermi paradox
The fermi paradox is anything but a slam-dunk. It's interesting, sure, but I don't think you should hinge your position on it. Even if it were true, the other big problem is the formation of life after we're gone. If conditions for life exist elsewhere in the universe, which they do, then we'd have no guarantee that it wouldn't arise (it may even be inevitable). So in terms of ending all suffering, an earthly mass extinction seems like a band-aid solution.
184
« on: June 13, 2015, 12:28:49 AM »
How can efilism be applied practically considering the likelihood of life having formed elsewhere in the universe?
185
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:53:24 PM »
Read the 'phenomenalist' solution at the bottom of the page and take a deep breath.
Nope.
Not fucking doing this at six in the morning.
"Never do probability theory and formal epistemology problems before 7am" - Russell Brand
186
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:48:26 PM »
There's a 2/3 chance it was tails, not 50/50. Even though a coin toss is always 50/50.
Shut the fuck up before you break me.
Read the 'phenomenalist' solution at the bottom of the page and take a deep breath.
187
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:42:46 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty_problem
I don't even get what it's proposing.
The point of it, or the details of the problem?
Both really =/
It's a problem of how a 50/50 coin toss can produce 3 different possibilities. If the coin is heads, she's woken up on Monday. If it's tails, she's woken up on Monday and Tuesday. Heads/Monday Tails/Monday Tails/Tuesday There's a 2/3 chance it was tails, not 50/50. Even though a coin toss is always 50/50.
189
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:26:45 PM »
Fun.
190
« on: June 12, 2015, 11:20:46 PM »
191
« on: June 12, 2015, 09:25:13 PM »
Reviews have been expectedly average.
192
« on: June 11, 2015, 08:19:38 PM »
So, just how different is the show compared to the books?
i don't actually care but whatever
Some people in the show die quicker, they skip characters, etc
is it generally regarded as significantly worse compared to the books
because if i were to get into the series, i don't know if i want to be watching a shitty show when i could be reading a decent(?) book
The books are miles better than the show.
193
« on: June 11, 2015, 01:09:40 AM »
Define 'punishment'.
As a practical means of removing somebody who is of no benefit and serious detriment to society, then perhaps
As a means of "giving them what they deserve", then never, because that's just nonsensical.
194
« on: June 10, 2015, 09:14:39 PM »
I find "discombobulate" hilarious for some reason.
195
« on: June 10, 2015, 08:51:33 AM »
Also Verb, you have to remember that however shitty humanity is, when it comes to making things better we're the only game in town.
Without beings capable of comprehending ethics, nothing ethical could ever be done.
196
« on: June 10, 2015, 08:45:38 AM »
citing the potential of something is fine--you're just conceding the possibility
that's not quite the same thing as an assumption Okay, then I still think the potential of the human to suffer more than the pig, through greater comprehension of his situation, is relevant. my argument is that the average human being is more of a detriment to society than not, which is why i find the distinction, if there is one, so imperceptible Perhaps, but the average human being does also have the potential to do more good than the average pig. And if you spare their life they'll owe you a pretty big debt. (Okay so that's not a completely serious argument) But the crux being that the potential suffering of the human is greater. That's the immediate utilitarian problem. Maybe that human then goes on to become a serial killer, but the probability of that is so low that it wouldn't have any place in a mathematical system of ethics. Maybe the average human does cause more harm than good, which could then be theoretically verified in that system, but I don't think we could ever verify it ourselves. It would just be one of those objective values that we'll never be able to precisely calculate.
197
« on: June 10, 2015, 07:53:04 AM »
And if they're guaranteed to die shortly after being stabbed, then I'm still inclined toward the human, because they would have a greater awareness of the situation/what they're going to leave behind.
And the pain of their friends and family are relevant as well, unless you want to remove them from the equation
i would apply occam's razor--don't assume this person has any friends or family, or even an awareness of the situation
we know the pig doesn't
But you cited the potential damage a human could cause as support for your view. So I don't think it's fair to forbid the factors I mentioned. They are just as relevant. If you remove all the differences between the human and the pig, it defeats the purpose of the question.
198
« on: June 10, 2015, 07:31:47 AM »
And if they're guaranteed to die shortly after being stabbed, then I'm still inclined toward the human, because they would have a greater awareness of the situation/what they're going to leave behind.
And the pain of their friends and family are relevant as well, unless you want to remove them from the equation
199
« on: June 10, 2015, 07:27:07 AM »
Well ok, but that doesn't address the utilitarian problem. you cite the psychological trauma that would incur if the human was stabbed, but you also cite the possibility of the pig suffering trauma as well
are you saying the human is more likely, or are you just contradicting yourself
also, remember that they're gonna die, so
they won't be suffering forever
I'm saying the human's psychological trauma would be greater than the pig's.
200
« on: June 10, 2015, 07:16:10 AM »
oh, and by the way:
the number of mass shootings that took place in the US last year: over 300.
the number of times a panacea for cancer has been found: 0
just a little fun fact
Well ok, but that doesn't address the utilitarian problem.
201
« on: June 10, 2015, 06:40:40 AM »
you could make the argument that you should save the human, because humans have more ethical capabilities than pigs
That's an interesting angle actually, but I think we have good reasons to believe that humans can suffer more than pigs; if not in the initial pain from the stabbing, then in the psychological trauma it can inflict. That's not to say pigs can't be traumatized too, but I think a utilitarian would have to choose the human in this case.
202
« on: June 10, 2015, 06:34:30 AM »
And I'm not even disagreeing with him; addicts may be weak, but it wouldn't have much to do with any 'choices' they make because the concept of choice is highly diminished with clinical addiction. well, for my dad, his addiction was to nicotine
he would smoke every day for as long as i can remember until i was twelve, when he woke up one day and said "i'm done", basically
and he quit, cold turkey
no problems, no complications
and he said it was one of the easier things he's ever done
so for me, whenever i hear stuff like, "you can't just stop an addiction", i'm very very skeptical
call it anecdotal, because that's what it is, but that's just my experience
I quit smoking, drugs and alcohol cold turkey as well. It was about 5 years ago, I'd been kicked out of my house because of them, and suddenly it struck me how I was just wasting my life. So that was it. And it was remarkably easy. But I still can't deny that if my bad habits had led me somewhere else, I may not have quit at all. I'm not sure how you'd reconcile your views on this with your views on determinism, unless I'm missing something. Your dad's decision was commendable for sure, and we should of course commend people for overcoming addictions, but could he really account for why it was as easy to overcome as it was? If another addict, who has tried and failed more than once, was in exactly the same circumstances as your dad, would it not be easy for them as well? I just don't think anecdotes are particularly compelling here. Sure, they're good for motivation, but you still can't account for why you're motivated by one anecdote and not another. Psychologically it runs a lot deeper than that. Philosophically it's not coherent at all.
203
« on: June 10, 2015, 06:08:48 AM »
you haven't been able to define the difference to me
It's possible humans suffer more when stabbed.
i don't think they do, and i don't think there's any real reason to think so
i mean, is there? really?
when you can't see the distinction, that alone should raise a red flag, in my opinion
I think there's a distinction. It just doesn't negate any ethical responsibility to the pig.
204
« on: June 10, 2015, 03:58:54 AM »
The truth of the matter is that you can't conjure willpower out of thin air
Yes, you can. Of course you can. All you need to do is not be psychologically ill.
I mean, come on.
Of course. We did it yesterday in the lab. C 6H 12O 6 + Psychological Health 3 → H 2O + Willpower
205
« on: June 10, 2015, 03:50:13 AM »
It's far more complicated than that. You can't "will" yourself out of addiction any more than you can will yourself out of depression. i did
my dad did
not saying everyone can, but let's not make generalizations
I'd say that was largely (if not entirely) due to your circumstances at the time. The concept of willpower, as in something you can just magically manufacture all by itself, makes no sense to me, neither psychologically nor philosphically And yes, I do think meat eaters are addicts, but I only gave up animal products myself because I was at a point in my life where being ethical was important to me. And the obvious difference here is that meat addiction is condemnable because it harms others, while other addictions only harm yourself. And I'm not even disagreeing with him; addicts may be weak, but it wouldn't have much to do with any 'choices' they make because the concept of choice is highly diminished with clinical addiction.
206
« on: June 10, 2015, 03:29:28 AM »
 another one:
addicts are weak.
Do you think people suffering from depression are weak?
Nope. But you can't just...stop being depressed. You are able to stop drinking, doing drugs, having sex, etc.
It's far more complicated than that. You can't "will" yourself out of addiction any more than you can will yourself out of depression.
you can stop yourself from going to the store and buying a 6 pack and drinking it in one sitting before going to work that day. that's a very specific set of steps you could have entirely avoided by choice.
You're using rhetoric, though. The truth of the matter is that you can't conjure willpower out of thin air, whether that is to cure your depression or to stop feeding your addiction. If an addiction could simply be avoided by choice, it wouldn't be an addiction. There are deep psychological issues involved that render the concept of 'choice' largely irrelevant.
207
« on: June 09, 2015, 09:31:27 PM »
another one:
addicts are weak.
Do you think people suffering from depression are weak?
Nope. But you can't just...stop being depressed. You are able to stop drinking, doing drugs, having sex, etc.
It's far more complicated than that. You can't "will" yourself out of addiction any more than you can will yourself out of depression.
208
« on: June 09, 2015, 09:06:20 PM »
another one:
addicts are weak.
Do you think people suffering from depression are weak?
209
« on: June 09, 2015, 06:08:28 PM »
randomness in quantum mechanics
I'm yet to see evidence which suggests quantum indeterminism has any kind of effect on "classical" physics.
But, hell, I'm no physicist.
What about physicists making quantum measurements? Wouldn't that make micro-scale indeterminism affect us on the macro scale?
210
« on: June 09, 2015, 05:16:15 AM »
Don't you hate it when you're reading a sentence and it doesn't end how you testicles.
Pages: 1 ... 567 89 ... 16
|
Show Posts