Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 11:43 pm But as far as the two premises go, mine has much more to recommend it.
Game set and match.

Why are you trying to win an argument?
Why aren't you trying to win at dying?

Demonstrate your commitment to your premises and kill yourself.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:10 pm Death is completely necessary. Everything dies, even stars.

That is mostly true, statistically true, but not universally true. Quantum information doesn't die and neither should we if we can quantize ourselves.

Game, set, match and war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hiding_theorem

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 pm That is mostly true, statistically true, but not universally true. Quantum information doesn't die and neither should we if we can quantize ourselves.

Dream on.

We are living things. I understand many inhabitants of Hiroshima were instantly quantized in 1945.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:34 pm I understand many inhabitants of Hiroshima were instantly quantized in 1945.

You mean they were instantly killed? Yeah. That was terrible. IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But you are the one who claims we should do that to ALL humans - "the sooner, the better".

So you've lost the factual AND the moral argument here.

Go home and kill yourself - the sooner, the better.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:37 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:34 pm I understand many inhabitants of Hiroshima were instantly quantized in 1945.

You mean they were instantly killed? Yeah. That was terrible. IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But you are the one who claims we should do that to ALL humans - "the sooner, the better".

So you've lost the factual AND the moral argument here.

Go home and kill yourself - the sooner, the better.

You've not made ANY case at all, let alone a moral one.
All you seem to want to do is condemn the earth to an eternity of human morons, polluting the world and destroying the rest of life on the planet.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:57 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:51 pm If your comment is meant for me, I'm afraid you are attributing to me ideas I have never entertained. I am totally a-political and regard all governments as evil.

So you do not govern your children? They are free to do as they please? I don't believe you!

You don't have to believe me, but why would I lie about it.
Now I admit I made a mistake. I thought I was talking to an adult about relationships between adults.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:57 pm To be a-political is to reject any claims to self-interests.

Claim to whom? One does not have to get anyone else's agreement or approval to pursue their own self interest. I don't care if you or anyone else accepts it or not.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:57 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:51 pm Governments are agencies of force with no other purpose than to control others to fulfill whatever purpose those with government power choose. I regard all use of coercive force as immoral.

So what purpose does discipline fulfil in your household? Are you suggesting that your children are undisciplined?

Well, I have children (and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren) but none in my household now. I did not raise my children with anything you would call discipline. When they were old enough to make informed choices, they could choose to do anything they chose to do, so long as they were willing to accept the consequences of their choices. I never had what others call, "discipline problems," with my children, so I guess you could say my children were undisciplined--and turned out very successful.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:57 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:51 pm [Technically, capitalism is not a form of government, like democracy, socialism, fascism, communism, empire, or a monarchy. Capitalism is actually an economic principle, and those who favor a government they think will support a, "free economy," and," individual freedom," believe capitalism can flourish under such a political system and call it, "capitalist."]

The power hierarchies of capitalism and socialism coincide. Either government becomes business or business becomes government. The dichotomy is bullshit.

The eternal struggle for "freedom lovers" is to keep the two entities separate. Separating church and state is the same thing as separating business and state.

Not exactly. Historically, the "church" very often was the "state." But it doesn't really matter, so long as there is a state, it will always meddle in all human affairs, social and economic.

Those who love freedom do not struggle with governments and have already made themselves free. "Government," and, "freedom," are contradictory concepts. A, "right kind of government," is an oxymoron.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:57 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:51 pm The only dichotomy you can accuse me of is the dichotomy between, "total individual freedom," and, "any form of government." I regard the former as the only moral state of a human being.

I am accusing you of not believing in anarchy. Sounds to me that you are political about freedom.

What do you propose be done to deal with people who rob you of freedom? You aren't going to put together some structure/institution to deal with such problems, are you?!?! Are you suggest we turn the other cheek when robbed of freedoms?

Why in the world would I possibly be interested in what you accuse me of.

I don't know who, "we," is, and I have no proposals for what others should do. Do whatever you like. I'm not interested in preventing you or anyone else from having any kind of structures, institutions, organizations, governments, or anything else you would like. I'm only interested in my own freedom and it is, like everything else in life, something I have to produce myself, which is what I do.

I have already made myself free and am in very little danger of anyone taking it from me. I'm certain my freedom is at no risk from the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or any other supposed threat to freedom. A life without any risk is not possible or desirable.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:13 pm Quantum information doesn't die ...

That's true. You know what else never dies? Rocks never die. Santa Claus never dies. History never dies. Shadows never die. Some of these things change and some may cease to be, but they all have one thing in common that is the reason they never die: quantum information, rocks, Santa Clause, history, all never die because they all are never alive. Turn something into quantum information and you turn it into something dead.
[/quote]

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:06 pm What would you do if somebody put a gun to your wife's head and said "I'm going to make love to her now".

It is actually none of you business and I have no idea why you care what I would do, but that hypothetical situation is very unlikely. None of the kind of people either my wife or I are likely to encounter in our social life would ever do anything like that [perhaps you travel in different circles], but even if something like that started, since both my wife and I are usually armed (and my wife is very good with her guns), before I could do anything, my wife would have ended the situation.

If she didn't end it, I would. Of course there might be some risk, and I would not take it for just anyone, but my own self-interest in this case for the one I love and who makes my own life worth living would justify the risk.

Now let me ask you a hypothetical question. You see a man in a pond drowning. You know nothing about him but know if you do nothing he will almost certainly drown. The problem is, you are not a terribly good swimmer and are fully clothed and there is not time for you to undress and you are likely to drown yourself if you attempt to rescue the drowning man. You happen to be the husband of a stay-at-home wife who takes care of your five children and you are their sole support. What do you do? And why?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:34 pm All you seem to want to do is condemn the earth to an eternity of human morons, polluting the world and destroying the rest of life on the planet.

And you want to rid earth from human morons, but you don't want to rid us of you.

I guess what you are really trying to tell us is that you want to rid earth of morons, but you aren't one of those morons.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:58 pm That's true. You know what else never dies? Rocks never die. Santa Claus never dies. History never dies. Shadows never die. Some of these things change and some may cease to be, but they all have one thing in common that is the reason they never die: quantum information, rocks, Santa Clause, history, all never die because they all are never alive. Turn something into quantum information and you turn it into something dead.

You ARE quantum information. Everything is quantum information. Even rocks.

I am betting you are going to struggle to define "liveness". It's just a value-statement ABOUT quantum information.

You prefer some configurations to other.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:26 pm If she didn't end it, I would. Of course there might be some risk, and I would not take it for just anyone, but my own self-interest in this case for the one I love and who makes my own life worth living would justify the risk.

What I am hearing you say here is you would risk dying for your wife. Which kinda goes against your original statement...

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:01 pm I would not sacrifice my life for anyone. For those I love, I will do everything I can to stay alive to protect them and provide them with all I possibly can. I certainly won't be any good to them if I'm dead.

You may not be good to them dead - that's hardly the point. You would risk death to protect them.

ergo - you value something more than you value your own life.

That's what sacrifice looks like in practice. A priori, not a posteriori. Nobody has the foresight of whether they will live or die when they choose violence over subjugation.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:35 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:58 pm That's true. You know what else never dies? Rocks never die. Santa Claus never dies. History never dies. Shadows never die. Some of these things change and some may cease to be, but they all have one thing in common that is the reason they never die: quantum information, rocks, Santa Clause, history, all never die because they all are never alive. Turn something into quantum information and you turn it into something dead.

... Everything is quantum information.

There is no hope for philosophy. The same baseless superstitions just keep being repeated, only in new language. Pythagoras said, "all things are numbers," which of course was nonsense. The new Pythagoreans say, "everything is quantum information," witch is the very same ontological nonsense. I hope when you discover, "quantum information," is nothing more than a human way of describing certain physical phenomena you will not kill yourself as the followers of Pythagoras did when they discovered that same mistake about numbers.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:35 pm I am betting you are going to struggle to define "liveness". ...

Not me. You're the one who attributed life to quantum information: "... Quantum information doesn't die and neither should we if we can quantize ourselves." I think in it is generally agreed to, "not die," means to, "stay alive."

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:35 pm You prefer some configurations to other.

Absolutely. I like my women flesh and blood. You can keep you quantum floating abstractions.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm There is no hope for philosophy.

I know! That's why I am doing science, not philosophy.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm The same baseless superstitions just keep being repeated, only in new language. Pythagoras said, "all things are numbers," which of course was nonsense. The new Pythagoreans say, "everything is quantum information," witch is the very same ontological nonsense. I hope when you discover, "quantum information," is nothing more than a human way of describing certain physical phenomena you will not kill yourself as the followers of Pythagoras did when they discovered that same mistake about numbers.

1. Numbers don't exist.
2. I don't subscribe to the Pythagorean OR the Mathematical religion
3. Information IS a way of describing phenomena, but it's not just that. It gives us the power to manipulate reality. That's how we invent medicine, quantum computers and all these useful things which help us live longer.
4. To claim that science today is "the same" as science in the days of Pythagoras" is to deny all technological progress.
5. Our languages are absolutely different from the languages Pythagoras had. The languages we have in 2020 allow us to talk to machines (computers). Pythagoras couldn't do that.

When we find a better description of the universe than "quantum information" we have made scientific progress.
The religion of "quantum information" will die - a new one will be born. Quantum Information is the God of 2020 - it will die, and a new God will take its place.

And that's OK!

That is how it has always worked. That is how human knowledge progresses.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm Not me. You're the one who attributed life to quantum information: "

I did no such thing! I merely pointed out that everything alive is quantum information, not everything that is quantum information is alive.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm ... Quantum information doesn't die and neither should we if we can quantize ourselves.

You are quantum information. You die. You went wrong somewhere.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm Absolutely. I like my women flesh and blood. You can keep you quantum floating abstractions.

Well, what's "flesh" and "blood" made of?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:36 pm That's what sacrifice looks like in practice. A priori, not a posteriori. Nobody has the foresight of whether they will live or die when they choose violence over subjugation.

Call it whatever you like. It's not a sacrifice to take a small risk for a greater gain. If you want to call it, "sacrifice," it's no skin off my nose.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm

When I was very young and was taught in Sunday school, that selfishness was wrong and only unselfishness (altruism) was good, I knew there was something wrong with what I was being taught. When I asked why I should be unselfish and give up what I wanted for the sake of someone else who would then be getting what they wanted thus making them selfish, I of course, received no answer.

Heh. You had a bad Sunday School teacher.

You don't want to say that, IC. It was not just Sunday School teachers, it was every Christian I've ever asked those questions of, and they all give the same non-answers as you.

Now, now, RC...you can decide not to agree with someone's view without implying an insult to them or even to the quality of their thinking IF their assumptions were right.

So one can fairly say, "I understand your reasons, but still think you're wrong," without going on to say anything like "that's a non-answer," or "you're conventional."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm

When I was told I should be unselfish because that pleased God and I would be blessed for it, it was obvious to me that everything everyone did was selfish--because they expected something good to result from their so-called unselfishness.

I can't say what you found in your own heart on that account. I believe you. But I there's a serious problem with that hypothesis: it's incorrigible. That is, like Determinism, it cannot be proved, but also cannot be falsified. There's no act anyone can point to that a cynic can't say was ultimately "selfish," even if that's not the case.

That's exactly the kind of non-answer I always receive, or perhaps I should say, evasion, because it evades the question.

I don't think it does. When the charge itself is structured in such a way as to be incapable of disproof, you can't fault people for not disproving it. And that's precisely the problem in the cynic's program -- since he can't be refuted, he may believe he's right; whereas, since his view is incapable of correction or absolute disproof, he could as easily be quite wrong.

Which it is, is going to turn out to be on grounds other than the cynic's irrefutability.

As Kierkegaard says,

“…one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, one is also deceived in not believing what is true; one can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived.”

I don't accuse you of that. But I point out the problem. Cynicism appears "safe" to the cynic: but it's not. It can as easily betray him as can gullibility, but with this additional deception; that the cynic, unlike the gullible man, may well believe it is simply impossible that he is being deceived at all.

You are right, "there's no act anyone can point to that a one can't say was ultimately 'selfish.'" If you believe that is not true, all you have to do is provide an example of one such case of someone doing something, that, in their own best estimate, is not ultimately in their own best interest.

But that doesn't pass the cynical test, for a number of reasons. One is simply that we have no idea what people's "own best estimate" really is. We have to believe what they tell us, or doubt it, but in each case, not on certain grounds.

Secondly, it's a really open question as to whether or not people even know what's motivating them. And isn't that the cynic's claim? Isn't he saying, "You think you're being altruistic, but really, you're being selfish." But if even the person committing the act can't be relied upon to know his own motive, how is it that the cynic thinks he can judge that same man's motive.

And, of course, your test is no good for other reasons, too. I gave you several such cases as you call for, such as a woman giving birth, a soldier giving up his life, and so on, and in every case, you said it was not an example of altruism...for just the sorts of cynic's reasons I predicted you would. So my examples were correct, then.

Possibly the problem is that you misunderstood, and thought I was giving examples of what I believe, rather than what the cynical anti-altruist can say to "disprove" any sort of case of altruism. So I wrote...

• Why did that man donate his kidney? He wanted gratitude from the donee, and he hoped the press would show up and say what a great guy he was...

And you replied,

This is how you think?

Answer: no.

This is how the cynic dispenses with any cases of apparent altruism. Personally, I think he's not on any good epistemological grounds in doing it. It might be that the soldier gives up his life not for a good reason but for a bad one. But it might also be the case that he gives up his life for a very good one.

I remember reading a first-hand account of a survivor of WWI. Apparently, he and his troop were holed up on a hillside, with barbed wire above them. They had what were called "bangor torpedoes," which were tubes of metal filled with explosive. The idea was to push the tube through the barbed wire, detonate the torpedo, and blow the wire apart so the men could get through.

Anyway, they were lying on the hillside, and one of them crawled up and inserted some bangor torpedoes on the top of the hill, then rolled back down to the troop that was ducking for the explosion. But suddenly, one of the torpedoes dislodged, and came sliding down the hill toward the horrified troop on the hillside.

With but seconds to go, one of the men didn't hesitate. He jumped up the hill, seized the torpedo, ran it back up the hill, then fell on it to hold it from coming back down. Of course, he was killed in the ensuing concussion, but his friends were spared.

This kind of altruism is impossible, according to the cynical egoist. Nobody does anything unless it benefits him. So now, the cynic has to invent an elaborate explanation as to how being gutted by a bangor torpedo was in the interest of the brave young soldier.

And at some point, such explanations seem a little dusty, don't they?

There is no shortage of fools, however, who have bought the altruist lies and regularly throw themselves into the volcano to save their people.

That is true. But it does not tell us whether or not good altruism can exist, and whether or not good altruism is good. It only tells us that some altruism can be phony or misguided.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm It's a mistake to think that having a reason to sacrifice is the same as having a selfish reason to sacrifice.

Well, you've got me there. I just do not see the difference between having, "a reason," and having, "a selfish reason." If someone has a reason, isn't it necessarily their own reason? Is there something about a reason belonging to one's self that, in some mysterious way, taints it? [/quote]
No, I think not. But one's own reason can be selfish.

A rapist has his reasons. So does a child molester. So does a thief, a murderer, or a gossip...except in those cases of true dementia, when there are no reasons for what a particular person does.

So one's own reasons can be bad, but they can also be good. What's unduly cynical, I think, would be for us to suppose that any kind act a person appears to do must secretly be motivated by a belief that he or she is going to get something out of it. In cases of true altruism, the good of another supersedes the selfish goods.

I really think you miss my point.

Perhaps. Perhaps you can make it again.

I don't care what terms you use, selfishness, altruism, or sacrifice, if they mean ultimately giving up, surrendering, or destroying anything of a higher value for the sake of anything of a lower value they are immoral.

Agreed. But where we might not agree is what is of higher value and what is lower. I expect you'll find a great deal of disagreement among people on that question.

"Value" if it exists objectively at all, is something only secure in the assessment made by God Himself. Among humans, "value" is a verb...it's "valuing," a thing we do, as we try to figure out what the objective value of a thing might really be. That's why so many of us can get it wrong so often, and why so many estimates of higher and lower value differ.

We may disagree on what determines the value of anything (and we certainly do), but whatever one's value system is, within that context, sacrificing a higher value to a lower value is wrong.

Of course -- but only when we know what is higher and what is lower.

===================================
Just a clarification: I wrote, "Since you despise her so much,

I must protest.

I never used the word "despise," nor implied it. Rather, I understand Rand, and have enjoyed reading her philosophy, but disagree with her. I find no need to dislike her personally, or even to participate in exercises of negative emotion upon hearing her arguments. I simply think she's wrong. There's no "despising" needed there.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm ... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are relational values, ...

Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty.

You misunderstand. "Moral duty" simply means "obligation to act on a moral imperative." It's not speaking of the kind of "duty" that, say, an army commander enjoins upon his recruits, or a Collectivist demands of his sheepish followers.

Every moral principle has an imperative, a duty associated with it. If, for example, murder is wrong, then it means that we all have a duty not to murder. If theft is wrong, then we have a duty not to steal. So don't tee off on the word "duty." It's automatic, in ethics. It has nothing to do with what you talked about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:35 pm Why should he not saw off his own leg or head, if he were so inclined? If he did, who would say, "John Galt, what doest thou?" Nobody.

Because we are talking about objective moral principles, which are those by which a rational human being must guide his life and make all his decisions if he is to live happily and successfully in this world. Such an individual never makes his choices based on feelings, desires, whims, or irrational inclinations.

Again, you misunderstand the point here.

You may imagine that "a rational human being" has a duty to "live happily and successfully in this world." But that cannot be established. "Happiness" is an emotion. No one can have duty to have an emotion. And "success" begs the whole question of what it is "rational" or "right" for a person to be "successful" in doing.

So your explanation really informs us of nothing. There are no "objective moral principles" that can be established on a "rational" basis, without first dealing with the problem of ontology. What is it "rational" to do? We can only know that after we know what a human being is FOR, why the human being is here at all, and what human beings true telos is. Only then can we assess how "rational" his behaviour is, and whether or not the "moral principles" he adopted were the best ones. Only then can we call him (in the much more substantial) Solonic sense, "happy."

Implying that what Goodyear did was some kind of, "inheritance," is deceitful.

Not at all.

Goodyear invented vulcanization, sure. But you are not going to say he discovered rubber. That honour goes to Amazonian Indians. Then, it goes to Giovanni Fabbroni. Then it goes to many others, before Goodyear ever got hold of it.

And that's the point. Goodyear, for all his innovating, was supported on the shoulders of all these predecessors. He was not some kind of magical individual who invented things ex nihilo.

Why are you arguing like a collectivist?

I'm not. I'm giving the devil his due. Collectivists are not wrong when they say that the myth of the tremendous individual obscures the role that previous generations and present society have played in that man's success. There is a substantial role there, in most cases. True geniuses -- the ones that completely depart all frames of reference in their societies and are indebted to no one for their achievements -- are actually very few.

Really, only one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm

What does this phrase mean? Again, I am always amazed when I see it.

How can one "force" one's views on another person?

If you vote for or support laws...

This can't be what you meant.

You know I wasn't proposing to "vote" for anything. I was simply making my case. If there was "force" involved, it was not of any physical sort...perhaps the compulsion of reason or of argument, no more...and did not deserve the term "force" in any sense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:04 pm
We've done well in the past; I see no reason to discontinue that now.

Yes we have, and quite frankly, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised, because I am not a compromiser and am unapologetically ruthless in expressing my opinions, and we are both radicals in our views. It is actually a wonderful illustration of how individuals, no matter how different, can interact benevolently when all coercion is excluded and reason is the only basis of their relationship.

Well, I'm happy for you not to compromise. And I'm certain we can keep getting along.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm Not me. You're the one who attributed life to quantum information: "

I did no such thing! I merely pointed out that everything alive is quantum information, not everything that is quantum information is alive.

You are quantum information. You die. You went wrong somewhere.

But you said, "Quantum information doesn't die and neither should we if we can quantize ourselves. If something doesn't die, it must stay alive. If that is not what you meant, OK, but I only had what you said to go by.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:08 pm Absolutely. I like my women flesh and blood. You can keep you quantum floating abstractions.

Well, what's "flesh" and "blood" made of?
[/quote]
Flesh and Blood.