The Gaming Den

What I've always wondered is are the rank and file stupid and just unaware that the libertarian program is the literal road to serfdom, or do they actually want to see the return of the worst excesses of the gilded age. I'm pretty sure company towns are still part of living memory, without the federal government to stop it why wouldn't say Walmart pay it's employees Walton Dollars instead of American Dollars?

Occluded Sun wrote:

nockermensch wrote:NOT PICTURED: Any attempt to answer the criticisms levered at your weird religion.

The 'criticisms' leveled (not 'levered') at my arguments (not religion) generally don't have anything to do with the arguments. In those rare cases when they do, they're trivially incorrect.

As I said before, I am disappointed in the quality of posters here. There are few things as satisfying as an intelligent, witty argument with excellent points and insults. That's not going to be happening in this thread, it seems, and it's definitely not going to be happening with these posters.

In truth, I'm somewhat at fault. I know better than to expect quality from people outside my intellectual weight class. I should stick to talking with people whose IQs are less then forty points below mine.

Look: you're more than welcome to fuck off now that you've so very clearly thrown in the towel. If you aren't going to defend any of the stupid shit you've said, then that is exactly what you should do. But when you fill your obvious retreat with a bunch of incredibly juvenile assertions of intellectual superiority and smug self-congratulation, it becomes very clear that you are not actually the intellectual heavyweight you think are.

Lord Mistborn wrote:What I've always wondered is are the rank and file stupid and just unaware that the libertarian program is the literal road to serfdom, or do they actually want to see the return of the worst excesses of the gilded age. I'm pretty sure company towns are still part of living memory, without the federal government to stop it why wouldn't say Walmart pay it's employees Walton Dollars instead of American Dollars?

I think it's mainly short memory-span. People who buy the libertarian clap-trap should be more than one generation separated from people who suffered from famines and absurd job conditions. I think people lack the experience of how horrible things can really get with unrestrained capitalism and then tend to think that the relatively nice state of things they experience is some kind of natural and inalienable right, instead of being the result of centuries of struggle.

name_here wrote:There was an underflow error on that test, I take it.

I appreciate the elegance of this. Well done.

Lord Mistborn wrote:What I've always wondered is are the rank and file stupid and just unaware that the libertarian program is the literal road to serfdom, or do they actually want to see the return of the worst excesses of the gilded age. I'm pretty sure company towns are still part of living memory, without the federal government to stop it why wouldn't say Walmart pay it's employees Walton Dollars instead of American Dollars?

I really like Sixteen Tons, and, when I introduce someone to it, I make a point of explaining what it means. I have yet to encounter someone who didn't know the song (thus prompting the explanation) but did know about the situation described. And I haven't met many people who were familiar with the song. So there's been a lot of "oh my god!" "seriously??" "that's awful!" and so on.

Point is, they may be part of living memory, but that doesn't mean it's a widely known, much less understood, phenomenon. Which is awful. I feel like that's a very important historical note.

Occluded Sun wrote:In truth, I'm somewhat at fault. I know better than to expect quality from people outside my intellectual weight class. I should stick to talking with people whose IQs are less then forty points below mine.

I will let someone else respond for me:

Stephen Hawking wrote:People who boast about their IQ are losers

Disgaea has taught me that if you're going to brag about your IQ (or EQ (Evil Quotient) in their case), don't settle for anything less than a million.

Koumei wrote:Disgaea has taught me that if you're going to brag about your IQ (or EQ (Evil Quotient) in their case), don't settle for anything less than a million.

I like how you phrased that such that saying, "actually, you should hold out for a trillion", doesn't actually contradict you.

I've been lurking this thread and now that the drama is over, I would like to congratulate all the filthy Stalinists in here on a job well done.

DSMatticus wrote:Look: you're more than welcome to fuck off now that you've so very clearly thrown in the towel.

I don't know about you, but I'm not going anywhere. What I AM going to do is stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and act as though, if I talk to you like a reasonable person, you'll return the courtesy. Either you're not willing to do that, or you're not able.

Possibly someone here will be willing to engage in intellectual fisticuffs with wit and style. Or maybe someone reading will be willing to think about what I actually post and analyze it. It's even conceivable that such a person might be able to find a flaw in my reasoning and express it - and everyone would win in that case, especially me.

I'm not going to hope that you'll meet even rudimentary standards, though. That's no longer a plausible hope.

RadiantPhoenix wrote:I will let someone else respond for me:

Stephen Hawking wrote:People who boast about their IQ are losers

I'm not boasting about my IQ. I'm insulting other people's.

There is a significant difference.

Occluded Sun wrote:Possibly someone here will be willing to engage in intellectual fisticuffs with wit and style. Or maybe someone reading will be willing to think about what I actually post and analyze it. It's even conceivable that such a person might be able to find a flaw in my reasoning and express it - and everyone would win in that case, especially me.

So again. How does "Things that exist for a long time or propagate their existence tend to exist longer than things that don't meet those criteria" allow you to claim:

Occluded Sun wrote:My right to property is [existent].

Occluded, can I ask you one thing?

Given that your premise seems to run that "correct" views and goals will survive and "incorrect" views and goals will die out, how do you know which are which at any given moment in time?

Unless you are viewing things from a position of knowledge at the "end", any or all of the current viewpoints and goals existing could be as doomed as the dinosaurs. So it seems you would be forced to take a view that treats every currently existing viewpoint as equal, until it stops existing and is therefore "proven" incorrect? Is this an accurate description of your views, that Democracy and Dictatorship and Communism and are all equally potentially valid? Or do you claim some special knowledge of which will ultimately be proven "right"?

There is more than one way for something to be demonstrably true.

One way is for the world to cause people's positions on the issue to change from uncertainty or rejection to acceptance.

Another is to not alter any individual's beliefs, but change the distribution of positions on the issue.

That human beings have an inherent understanding of the concept of 'property' or 'territory' and an inherent interest in such is pretty straightforward. Mammals in general grok the idea of territory.

Once that's acknowledged, all that's needed is acceptance of the idea that a 'right' is more than a granted gift from a central authority. In this case, it would be something that people are fundamentally concerned with safeguarding and that any social covenant must protect.

Occluded Sun wrote:There is more than one way for something to be demonstrably true.

There are multiple forms of proof, yes.

One way is for the world to cause people's positions on the issue to change from uncertainty or rejection to acceptance.

...no. Whether or not people accept or adopt a viewpoint has nothing to do with the factual truth or theoretical proof of said concept. People adopt viewpoints which are acknowledged as unproven or wrong all the time. It's one of the major marks against conservative politics in this day and age, and fundamentalist religions which subscribe to a narrow, self-serving viewpoint like Young Earth Creationism.

Another is to not alter any individual's beliefs, but change the distribution of positions on the issue.

...no. For one, that's not a proof, that's fiddling with your sampling rate to try and justify a claim that you've already made. It's begging the question.

That human beings have an inherent understanding of the concept of 'property' or 'territory' and an inherent interest in such is pretty straightforward. Mammals in general grok the idea of territory.

...no. I can go pull a link to anthropological studies on Australian aborignes or something, but the fact is that not all societies have the same understanding or attachment to property as others. Today the majority of the civilized world does acknowledge boundaries demarcated on maps and things, but that's not because there's a universal principle behind it, it's just a very wide-spread concept that's the concern of a great deal of legal and economic interest and tradition. And while yes there are a minority of animals that are territorial, it doesn't always follow that they understand that in the same way you seem to think it does. They don't own the territory, they just defend it.

Once that's acknowledged, all that's needed is acceptance of the idea that a 'right' is more than a granted gift from a central authority.

The fundamental difference between a right and a privilege is one of limitation; the privilege is more easily curtailed or revoked and is expressly given rather than inherent. But even then, there's going to be some constitution or document that defines your rights and privileges and acts as the ultimate authority (central or otherwise).

In this case, it would be something that people are fundamentally concerned with safeguarding and that any social covenant must protect.

Hah. There's not a lot of universality when it comes to social covenants. If you were trying to define something as a right because everyone agreed to it, you wouldn't have much at all. Hell, we exist on a planet where we can't get every culture to agree that rape is a bad thing, much less that personal property should be respected.

Occluded Sun wrote:There is more than one way for something to be demonstrably true.

One way is for the world to cause people's positions on the issue to change from uncertainty or rejection to acceptance.

Another is to not alter any individual's beliefs, but change the distribution of positions on the issue.

That is quite possibly the weirdest fucking thing I've ever read. Things don't actually become true or not true based on belief in them. You are assuming that only information that is true can stand the test of time, but that is obviously false. For example: religion. An institution of belief completely without evidence that has stood the test of time. Ideas don't have to be demonstrably true to sustainably proliferate themselves. Human beings are not actually perfectly rational actors with complete access to the collected wealth of human knowledge, and a great deal of money and effort is spent convincing people (successfully) of things which are not true. We even have a name for it - advertising.

Occluded Sun wrote:That human beings have an inherent understanding of the concept of 'property' or 'territory' and an inherent interest in such is pretty straightforward. Mammals in general grok the idea of territory.

Once that's acknowledged, all that's needed is acceptance of the idea that a 'right' is more than a granted gift from a central authority. In this case, it would be something that people are fundamentally concerned with safeguarding and that any social covenant must protect.

Firstly, you are making shit up. Modern property rights are only a few hundred years old. Describing something as inherent to humanity which has not existed alongside humanity for 99% of human history is absolutely stupid. That is not what inherent means. The number of social covenants which did not include modern property rights is "all of them except a few." You cannot look at history through a lens that filters out all the things that don't support your argument.

Secondly, you are still begging the question. You are claiming that a human interest in having a right to property demonstrates that property rights objectively exist because... humans have an interest in the right to property. So not only is your premise factually fucked, it wouldn't even get you to your destination in the first place. You are assuming that an interest demonstrates a right in order to conclude that an interest demonstrates a right. Here's a novel question: how do you prove an interest demonstrates a right? I.e., answer the question everyone is fucking asking you.

Ancient History wrote:...no. Whether or not people accept or adopt a viewpoint has nothing to do with the factual truth or theoretical proof of said concept.

Yeah, but... in practice, that's not especially relevant.

A proof that someone is incapable of accepting, whether because their emotional responses won't permit them to consider it, or they lack the brainpower to comprehend it, or whatever... can't cause that person to change their mind. It doesn't matter how valid the proof is. In practice, I'm reasonably sure that all human beings have blind spots, defects in their rationality. And I am absolutely certain that any entity will have limits on what and how they can comprehend.

A valid proof, when shown to someone who can think sanely, will convince them. The problem is that the definition of 'sanity' is very difficult to make in a way that isn't circular. The ultimate deciding factor isn't what any person thinks is correct, or any group of people. It's reality enacting the consequences of actions that makes one position 'right' and another 'wrong'.

...no. For one, that's not a proof, that's fiddling with your sampling rate to try and justify a claim that you've already made. It's begging the question.

No. That objection is not addressing the point being made; it doesn't matter whether it's a valid criticism of the argument you're putting in my mouth.

Reality permits many different positions to be taken on whether (for example) existence is good. We know this empirically. We also know that time operates on those various definitions of 'goodness', ultimately restricting what definitions are actually made.

There doesn't need to be any argument made to convince a person, or a group of people, that their definition of 'goodness' isn't correct. Time eventually causes entities whose definitions of what is desirable lack certain properties to cease to be.

The process itself has no morality. It's like sifting sand through a screen. Bees do not need to rationally reach the conclusion that making hexagonal cells is good. It can be completely determined by inborn instincts, and the
preference for six over five or seven can be totally arbitrary from the hypothetical viewpoint of any bee or any colony of bees. It can even be random. But it's still inevitable that any preference other than for six-sided cells will eventually not be present any more.

Hah. There's not a lot of universality when it comes to social covenants. If you were trying to define something as a right because everyone agreed to it, you wouldn't have much at all. Hell, we exist on a planet where we can't get every culture to agree that rape is a bad thing, much less that personal property should be respected.

I strongly suspect that if I asked you to demonstrate logically and objectively that rape is a bad thing, you wouldn't be able to do it. That doesn't mean that there is no objective truth on the matter. It does mean that you are not justified in claiming that your position actually reflects that truth.

Concepts of property ARE universal among human beings. They're present across species lines, they're certainly present across ethnic, cultural, and racial lines in humans. But the details vary greatly, yeah.

Every human group has ideas about how the world works. Very few groups, historically, managed anything even remotely close to the modern scientific method. And that method was really only developed once.

The validity of the argument is not dependent on how many people across time have made it. Its validity is dependent upon its relationship to the greater reality in which the human socially-constructed 'reality' exists.

Occluded Sun wrote:There is more than one way for something to be demonstrably true.

As explained by others, people believing things does not make the true, and things being believed is not demonstrative of them being true either. If I were recommending specific reading material you will never read I would go with Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained But any posting on Less Wrong should explain at least one way that human being's minds are imperfect truth detectors.

Occluded Sun wrote:That human beings have an inherent understanding of the concept of 'property' or 'territory' and an inherent interest in such is pretty straightforward. Mammals in general grok the idea of territory.

No it isn't. It is straightforward to people who are deliberately raised to believe it is the natural state of things, such as in most of the western world. But that doesn't make it inherent, just something we get used to, like running water and indoor plumbing.

Occluded Sun wrote:all that's needed is acceptance of the idea that a 'right' is more than a granted gift from a central authority.

Which is not something you have demonstrated any proof for. In fact all currently existent forms of right are in fact derived from a central authority. And don't even fucking Declaration of Independence me, because those were "endowed by their Creator" another central authority.

But while we are talking about central authority did you know that the entire concept of personal property developed in England was based on the premise that everything belonged to the King and you only got to do anything on the property because the King let you because he couldn't manage it all? And that even still you were still bound to do only the things the King wanted to let you do, because he is the King and it is actually his? And that when you passed land to your kids, it is only because the King gave you the right to pass your rental to the kids, and if the King choose not to grant that you couldn't.

Seriously dude, the concept of personal property since it's inception has always and 100% of the time relied on the premise that every right you ever had to do anything with property and to exclude others was all derived from a central authority.

And when the first citizens of Virginia tried to declare that their property now belonged to them and not the King, and so the State of Virginia had no right to tax them on it, the State of Virginia told them to suck a barrel of cocks, because they had inherited all the rights the King used to have, and that the only reason the citizen was allowed to own property was because the State of Virginia gave them limited rights.

Kaelik wrote:As explained by others, people believing things does not make the true, and things being believed is not demonstrative of them being true either.

Yes. What's the point?

My argument centers around the recognition that reality constrains the types of value judgments that can be made on certain topics. That, ultimately, is what we mean by saying that something is objectively true or correct - the relationship between the claim and reality. How the claim is generated isn't important in this context (although it's certainly important in others).

No it isn't. It is straightforward to people who are deliberately raised to believe it is the natural state of things, such as in most of the western world. But that doesn't make it inherent, just something we get used to, like running water and indoor plumbing.

Yes, it is. Many different types of creatures have a concept of claimed territory and its defense. This is a widely acknowledged and fairly uncontroversial fact, rather like the shape of the Earth and the rate of falling objects in the absence of air.

Which is not something you have demonstrated any proof for. In fact all currently existent forms of right are in fact derived from a central authority. And don't even fucking Declaration of Independence me, because those were "endowed by their Creator" another central authority.

Ah, but they were Deists... and Age of Reason Deists are just atheists who haven't realized it yet. Get rid of all the references to an actual deity and replace them with references to the nature of reality creating specific order and structure out of initial randomness, and you're all set.

Occluded Sun wrote:A proof The Word of God that someone is incapable of accepting, whether because their emotional responses lack of faith won't permit them to consider it, or they lack the brainpower God hardened their minds to comprehend it, or whatever... can't cause that person to change their mind. It doesn't matter how valid the proof Word of God is. In practice, I'm reasonably sure that all human beings have blind spots, defects in their rationality are hellbound sinners. And I am absolutely certain that any entity will have limits on what and how they can comprehend.

You're almost at the point where you see your religious beliefs for what they are. You're this bearer of a Higher Truth that we're just too emotionally stunted or IQ deficient to see.

Occluded Sun wrote:

Ancient History wrote:...no. Whether or not people accept or adopt a viewpoint has nothing to do with the factual truth or theoretical proof of said concept.

Yeah, but... in practice, that's not especially relevant.

No, it is in fact extremely relevant. We are right now in the United States needing to deal with the reality of rape, climate change, and being at the zero lower bound, and the conservative positions on all of those are actually antifactual and directly detrimental to the country.

A valid proof, when shown to someone who can think sanely, will convince them.

"Sanely" is a moral measure. It's not a quantitative measure. You can't prove anything in terms of morals. It's all qualitative and subjective judgments.

The problem is that the definition of 'sanity' is very difficult to make in a way that isn't circular. The ultimate deciding factor isn't what any person thinks is correct, or any group of people. It's reality enacting the consequences of actions that makes one position 'right' and another 'wrong'.

By that argument, anyone trying to fly was a witch because gravity proved human beings were supposed to be on the ground. We live in an amoral universe; it is impersonal and does not punish individual "evil" behavior or reward "good" behavior.

...no. For one, that's not a proof, that's fiddling with your sampling rate to try and justify a claim that you've already made. It's begging the question.

No. That objection is not addressing the point being made; it doesn't matter whether it's a valid criticism of the argument you're putting in my mouth.

You made an argument about "changing the distribution of positions" - that is just fumbling with the sample group. It doesn't produce a real change in the results, it just groups them to better support the position you've already come to. Which is begging the question.

Reality permits many different positions to be taken on whether (for example) existence is good. We know this empirically. We also know that time operates on those various definitions of 'goodness', ultimately restricting what definitions are actually made.

...no. "Good" is not an empirical measurement. Hell, we can't even say existence is good. There are plenty of people that would in fact argue existence is bad. Case in point.

There doesn't need to be any argument made to convince a person, or a group of people, that their definition of 'goodness' isn't correct. Time eventually causes entities whose definitions of what is desirable lack certain properties to cease to be.

"In the long run, we're all dead." Living a "good" life does not assure you of immortality.

The process itself has no morality.

Good and evil are moral qualifiers.

It's like sifting sand through a screen. Bees do not need to rationally reach the conclusion that making hexagonal cells is good. It can be completely determined by inborn instincts, and the
preference for six over five or seven can be totally arbitrary from the hypothetical viewpoint of any bee or any colony of bees. It can even be random. But it's still inevitable that any preference other than for six-sided cells will eventually not be present any more.

Okay, you're trying to make an argument based on teleology. This does not work in real life; bees are not destined to make hexagonal cells any more than hexagonal cells are empirically the best shape for bee cells to be. There may be advantages to the hexagonal shape and the bees may have had a competitive advantage if they used the hexagonal shape for cells, but that's not to say that there aren't bees out there that don't use hexagonal cells.

I strongly suspect that if I asked you to demonstrate logically and objectively that rape is a bad thing, you wouldn't be able to do it. That doesn't mean that there is no objective truth on the matter. It does mean that you are not justified in claiming that your position actually reflects that truth.

Using that argument, you can just as well say that you're not justified in claiming your position actually reflects the truth.

Concepts of property ARE universal among human beings.

Not so much.

The validity of the argument is not dependent on how many people across time have made it. Its validity is dependent upon its relationship to the greater reality in which the human socially-constructed 'reality' exists.

I have no idea how you expect that to work. You can't point to personal property as an obvious and universal right based on the fact that everybody says so when you have communists and anarchists that say personal property doesn't exist.

Ancient History wrote:No, it is in fact extremely relevant. We are right now in the United States needing to deal with the reality of rape, climate change, and being at the zero lower bound, and the conservative positions on all of those are actually antifactual and directly detrimental to the country.

In this particular context, I am not concerned with specific assertions about politics. I'm discussing abstract truths. The validity of the science of nuclear physics is not dependent on whether we're in WWII. Whether the atom bomb will work matters to politics, but not vice versa.

"Sanely" is a moral measure. It's not a quantitative measure. You can't prove anything in terms of morals. It's all qualitative and subjective judgments.

Ah, but while the decision of what positions to take may be subjective from the perspective of an entity, there are actually objective truths that render certain decisions correct and others incorrect.

By that argument, anyone trying to fly was a witch because gravity proved human beings were supposed to be on the ground.

No, that's not how that argument works.

We live in an amoral universe; it is impersonal and does not punish individual "evil" behavior or reward "good" behavior.

It neither punishes nor rewards, true. It carries out the consequences of chosen positions. However, some consequences, seen from the perspective of entities within reality, are reward-y, and some are punish-y.

You made an argument about "changing the distribution of positions" - that is just fumbling with the sample group.

I did mention that concept, but it is not 'fumbling with the sample group'.

Which is begging the question.

No. 'Begging the question' is assuming a conclusion, making what you're supposedly trying to determine a premise of the argument. That is not what I'm doing. We don't need to make any initial assumptions about what 'goodness' is. But we can recognize that reality accumulates certain concepts of 'goodness' and excludes others over time.

...no. "Good" is not an empirical measurement. Hell, we can't even say existence is good. There are plenty of people that would in fact argue existence is bad. Case in point.

They don't argue that existence is bad, they argue that human existence is bad.

"In the long run, we're all dead." Living a "good" life does not assure you of immortality.

Evolutionary morality doesn't particularly care about individual lives. But from the point of view of lineages, it may well be the case that everything eventually terminates. From the assumed perspective of maximal heat death, it wouldn't matter how that state was reached - even the specific course of events would essentially have been erased, making any hypothetical past as likely as any other. In that perspective, no evaluation is significant - and it is objectively true that such is the case.

Okay, you're trying to make an argument based on
teleology. This does not work in real life; bees are not destined to make hexagonal cells any more than hexagonal cells are empirically the best shape for bee cells to be.

Actually, they are the best shape for them to use. And they are destined to use them. But it is not a teleological argument, no. Teleology : my argument :: Aristotelian physics : Newtonian physics.

Ancient History wrote:No, it is in fact extremely relevant. We are right now in the United States needing to deal with the reality of rape, climate change, and being at the zero lower bound, and the conservative positions on all of those are actually antifactual and directly detrimental to the country.

In this particular context, I am not concerned with specific assertions about politics. I'm discussing abstract truths. The validity of the science of nuclear physics is not dependent on whether we're in WWII. Whether the atom bomb will work matters to politics, but not vice versa.

"Sanely" is a moral measure. It's not a quantitative measure. You can't prove anything in terms of morals. It's all qualitative and subjective judgments.

Ah, but while the decision of what positions to take may be subjective from the perspective of an entity, there are actually objective truths that render certain decisions correct and others incorrect.

By that argument, anyone trying to fly was a witch because gravity proved human beings were supposed to be on the ground.

No, that's not how that argument works.

We live in an amoral universe; it is impersonal and does not punish individual "evil" behavior or reward "good" behavior.

It neither punishes nor rewards, true. It carries out the consequences of chosen positions. However, some consequences, seen from the perspective of entities within reality, are reward-y, and some are punish-y.

You made an argument about "changing the distribution of positions" - that is just fumbling with the sample group.

I did mention that concept, but it is not 'fumbling with the sample group'.

Which is begging the question.

No. 'Begging the question' is assuming a conclusion, making what you're supposedly trying to determine a premise of the argument. That is not what I'm doing. We don't need to make any initial assumptions about what 'goodness' is. But we can recognize that reality accumulates certain concepts of 'goodness' and excludes others over time.

...no. "Good" is not an empirical measurement. Hell, we can't even say existence is good. There are plenty of people that would in fact argue existence is bad. Case in point.

They don't argue that existence is bad, they argue that human existence is bad.

"In the long run, we're all dead." Living a "good" life does not assure you of immortality.

Evolutionary morality doesn't particularly care about individual lives. But from the point of view of lineages, it may well be the case that everything eventually terminates. From the assumed perspective of maximal heat death, it wouldn't matter how that state was reached - even the specific course of events would essentially have been erased, making any hypothetical past as likely as any other. In that perspective, no evaluation is significant - and it is objectively true that such is the case.

Okay, you're trying to make an argument based on
teleology. This does not work in real life; bees are not destined to make hexagonal cells any more than hexagonal cells are empirically the best shape for bee cells to be.

Actually, they are the best shape for them to use. And they are destined to use them. But it is not a teleological argument, no. Teleology : my argument :: Aristotelian physics : Newtonian physics.

Occluded Sun wrote:In this particular context, I am not concerned with specific assertions about politics. I'm discussing abstract truths. The validity of the science of nuclear physics is not dependent on whether we're in WWII. Whether the atom bomb will work matters to politics, but not vice versa.

In abstract truths, whether the atom bomb will work matters very much to the atom bomb, insofar as it's a bit of engineering based on observed and reproducible phenomena. Politics and science might only have a tangential relationship, but the atom bomb relies on it. It's as non-abstract as you can get; it's a practical application.

"Sanely" is a moral measure. It's not a quantitative measure. You can't prove anything in terms of morals. It's all qualitative and subjective judgments.

Ah, but while the decision of what positions to take may be subjective from the perspective of an entity, there are actually objective truths that render certain decisions correct and others incorrect.

No. The universe doesn't make value judgments. Only we as intelligent beings can argue that a decision is correct or incorrect, for the universe it just means a couple molecules moved this way or that way. There are actions that are better or worse for a specific purpose in a specific context, but that's it.

By that argument, anyone trying to fly was a witch because gravity proved human beings were supposed to be on the ground.

No, that's not how that argument works.

Feel free to give an example then.

We live in an amoral universe; it is impersonal and does not punish individual "evil" behavior or reward "good" behavior.

It neither punishes nor rewards, true. It carries out the consequences of chosen positions. However, some consequences, seen from the perspective of entities within reality, are reward-y, and some are punish-y.

From the perspective of the deciding entity, some choices have better outcomes than others. The universe itself is not intelligent and renders no judgment. The universe isn't even just a passive actor like the Gamemaster for all living things; it just is.

You made an argument about "changing the distribution of positions" - that is just fumbling with the sample group.

I did mention that concept, but it is not 'fumbling with the sample group'.

Which is begging the question.

No. 'Begging the question' is assuming a conclusion, making what you're supposedly trying to determine a premise of the argument. That is not what I'm doing. We don't need to make any initial assumptions about what 'goodness' is. But we can recognize that reality accumulates certain concepts of 'goodness' and excludes others over time.

Two things here:
1) Your bit on "distribution" assumes the conclusion; it is begging the question.

2) This is completely separate from your "goodness" fallacy. You can't even define goodness. It's not an objective thing. To quote a much better philosopher:

...take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act, like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

...no. "Good" is not an empirical measurement. Hell, we can't even say existence is good. There are plenty of people that would in fact argue existence is bad. Case in point.

They don't argue that existence is bad, they argue that human existence is bad.

Would you prefer me to find some people that think this whole material world business is a bad deal? I can do that.

"In the long run, we're all dead." Living a "good" life does not assure you of immortality.

Evolutionary morality doesn't particularly care about individual lives.

Evolutionary morality doesn't exist.

Okay, you're trying to make an argument based on
teleology. This does not work in real life; bees are not destined to make hexagonal cells any more than hexagonal cells are empirically the best shape for bee cells to be.

Actually, they are the best shape for them to use. And they are destined to use them. But it is not a teleological argument, no. Teleology : my argument :: Aristotelian physics : Newtonian physics.

Okay, here's the thing: destiny. Does not exist. It also is the defining element of teleology, in that you're assuming a final cause in Nature. The fact is that there's no guarantee that hexagonal cells are the best form, just the best form they've come up with yet - and even then, plenty of them are fairly crap hexagonal cells.

Also, you're not even arguing Newtonian physics at this point, you're stuck on natural philosophy.

Ancient History wrote:Politics and science might only have a tangential relationship, but the atom bomb relies on it. It's as non-abstract as you can get; it's a practical application.

'It' is vague in this context. The bomb doesn't depend on politics, which is my point.

No. The universe doesn't make value judgments.

It constrains the value judgments which are actually made. Which is the point: the universe is not neutral about moral positions.

Feel free to give an example then.

I've been doing little else in this thread.

From the perspective of the deciding entity, some choices have better outcomes than others. The universe itself is not intelligent and renders no judgment. The universe isn't even just a passive actor like the Gamemaster for all living things; it just is.

The principles that make some moral positions viable and others inviable just 'are', yes.

Two things here:
1) Your bit on "distribution" assumes the conclusion; it is begging the question.

No, it doesn't. I make no claims about whether the universe imposing restrictions on moral positions is 'good'. It does, however, affect the definitions of 'good' which are possible across time. Meta-conclusions about the goodness of forces which constraint definitions of goodness are not relevant here.

2) This is completely separate from your "goodness" fallacy. You can't even define goodness. It's not an objective thing. To quote a much better philosopher:

...take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet you act, like there was some sort of rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.

I'm very fond of Pratchett. But every so often, he makes a really stupid argument. You can't grind up the universe and find an atom of water, either. Doesn't mean there is no such thing as hydrogen hydroxide. Nor can you find a molecule of dolphin. Doesn't mean there are no such creatures.

Whether the design of dolphins is 'good' isn't really a meaningful question. Whether the design of dolphins is 'good for living in Death Valley' is meaningful and objective, and the answer is 'no'.

Would you prefer me to find some people that think this whole material world business is a bad deal? I can do that.

And those groups are notoriously unsuccessful. Religious systems that render their followers bad at succeeding in reality tend not to last long, and people find excuses to change religions to make them 'work' in the context of everyday life. When religions don't change that way, they tend to go extinct.

Evolutionary morality doesn't exist.

Ha ha ha! That's very funny. You might as well argue that *I* don't 'exist' because there's only a cloud of protons, electrons, and neutrons (and assorted force carrier particles, whatever).

Okay, here's the thing: destiny. Does not exist. It also is the defining element of teleology, in that you're assuming a final cause in Nature.

Much of the point of evolutionary theory is the recognition that we don't need teleological explanations to account for the order in the world. Your argument is factually incorrect.

'Destiny' in an evolutionary sense does exist on certain issues.

The fact is that there's no guarantee that hexagonal cells are the best form, just the best form they've come up with yet

Actually, the geometrical proof that they possess the properties that render them the 'best' choice goes back to the ancient Greeks. Don't tell me that you're rejecting geometry, now.

People have actually worked out the 'best' shapes for bees that lived in more than four dimensions. The bees we actually know move about in three spatial and one temporal diimension, though, and for them, hexagonal cells are objectively and truly the best shape.

Occluded Sun wrote:

Ancient History wrote:Politics and science might only have a tangential relationship, but the atom bomb relies on it. It's as non-abstract as you can get; it's a practical application.

'It' is vague in this context. The bomb doesn't depend on politics, which is my point.

Actually, it isn't. This was your point:

One way is for the world to cause people's positions on the issue to change from uncertainty or rejection to acceptance.

While you might have tried to wave this away as an abstract truth, the fact is that in practice this is not the case. There are people out there that believe things that are factually wrong.

No. The universe doesn't make value judgments.

It constrains the value judgments which are actually made. Which is the point: the universe is not neutral about moral positions.

You keep coming back down to this, so let me break it down:

1) The universe is not sapient.

2) Only sapient entities make judgments.

3) The universe does not make judgments.

You've been trying to argue that the universe has some sort of built-in moral imperative; this is demonstrably not the case. If someone commits murder, the universe is not going to send a lightning bolt down to fry them. Likewise, if someone lives a good and saintly life, the universe is not going to reward them in any discernible material fashion. The whole point of human justice is that people are unable or unwilling to rely on divine justice, and the whole issue of inequality is that that some individuals receive unequal resources for the work that they do.

Feel free to give an example then.

I've been doing little else in this thread.

You haven't done much then.

From the perspective of the deciding entity, some choices have better outcomes than others. The universe itself is not intelligent and renders no judgment. The universe isn't even just a passive actor like the Gamemaster for all living things; it just is.

The principles that make some moral positions viable and others inviable just 'are', yes.

Well, since you won't give an example, I will: Cannibalism. Most humans consider this an unacceptable activity. From the standpoint of nature, however, it's just one feeding strategy among many. Certainly many animals do it, and many humans have done it. Now, you can argue that cannibalism is bad for the species - predation thins out the numbers, maybe lowers genetic diversity - but that's never stopped it from happening. You can even argue about prion disease as a "punishment" for cannibalism, except of course that while cannibalism heightens the chance of prion disease, it isn't guaranteed. Certainly, this guy seems cool with it.

Two things here:
1) Your bit on "distribution" assumes the conclusion; it is begging the question.

No, it doesn't. I make no claims about whether the universe imposing restrictions on moral positions is 'good'. It does, however, affect the definitions of 'good' which are possible across time. Meta-conclusions about the goodness of forces which constraint definitions of goodness are not relevant here.

Again, you're getting away from your own original argument.

I'm very fond of Pratchett. But every so often, he makes a really stupid argument. You can't grind up the universe and find an atom of water, either.

I can find a molecule of water, and that'll do for me.

Whether the design of dolphins is 'good' isn't really a meaningful question. Whether the design of dolphins is 'good for living in Death Valley' is meaningful and objective, and the answer is 'no'.

But again, this just comes down to humans applying their own subjective context. If you don't like dolphins, you might think them ideally suited for Death Valley. If you like dolphins and have plans for turning Death Valley into a saltwater lake, you might argue they're ideally suited for Death Valley.

And those groups are notoriously unsuccessful. Religious systems that render their followers bad at succeeding in reality tend not to last long, and people find excuses to change religions to make them 'work' in the context of everyday life. When religions don't change that way, they tend to go extinct.

Religions die hard, and there are more of them all the time.

Evolutionary morality doesn't exist.

Ha ha ha! That's very funny. You might as well argue that *I* don't 'exist' because there's only a cloud of protons, electrons, and neutrons (and assorted force carrier particles, whatever).

I could argue you don't exist; that's a basic shadow-on-the-cave argument. But seriously, morality is a human concept, not an evolutionary one. If morality was evolution, we'd all be selfish bastards.

Okay, here's the thing: destiny. Does not exist. It also is the defining element of teleology, in that you're assuming a final cause in Nature.

Much of the point of evolutionary theory is the recognition that we don't need teleological explanations to account for the order in the world. Your argument is factually incorrect.

My argument is that you're assuming a final cause; that's factually incorrect. Bees were not destined to make hexagonal honeycombs.

'Destiny' in an evolutionary sense does exist on certain issues.

No. You can argue that given a particular environment individuals of a given species with a particular mutation may have an evolutionary advantage; that doesn't presuppose that they're going to survive, or become the dominant species, or be able to adapt when the environment changes.

The fact is that there's no guarantee that hexagonal cells are the best form, just the best form they've come up with yet

Actually, the geometrical proof that they possess the properties that render them the 'best' choice goes back to the ancient Greeks. Don't tell me that you're rejecting geometry, now.

I reject that bees are expected to conform to your notions of what the perfect bee cell is supposed to look like.

People have actually worked out the 'best' shapes for bees that lived in more than four dimensions. The bees we actually know move about in three spatial and one temporal diimension, though, and for them, hexagonal cells are objectively and truly the best shape.

Heaxagonal cells have many advantages. They may be, in some contexts, the best shape for bees. But that doesn't mean that bees were destined to make hexagonal cells, nor that there isn't a better one out there somewhere.