@JohnFisher2dot0 "where evil requires retribution"
I seem to recall a religion where one's evil sins could bypass retribution with one weird trick, making retribution not a requirement.
English
Christopher Hazel
636 posts
Christopher Hazel
@Guernicus
I'm the secular leftist that your mother warned you about.
Katılım Ekim 2012
145 Takip Edilen16 Takipçiler
@SpeedWatkins As is often the case, the key point of contention is in a hidden premise.
"If you believe that evil [as *I* understand it] exists, then you can't be an Atheist. "
Without controversy, I'd agree it's likely I'd be a theist. But that's not the real point here, is it?
English
Bro tried to UNO reverse card the problem of evil 😂
Against Atheism@AgainstAtheismX
If you believe that evil exists, then you can't be an Atheist. It's that simple.
English
@SpeedWatkins Wouldn't (2) be in favor of functionalism - that is that functions can manifest in different physical contexts?
English
(1) is the problem of mental causation: How can the technicolor of consciousness move our bodies? How does pain cause me to wince?
(2) is the multiple-realizability problem. Humans and octopi are both conscious but physiologically very different organisms. How is that possible?
English
I think functionalism takes seriously, more than any other theory, two facts about consciousness:
(1) Consciousness must make some causal difference to make any difference at all to our lives or mental sciences.
(2) Many different arrangements of matter are in fact conscious.
Dr. Scott M. Sullivan@DrScotMSullivan
"To analyze consciousness in terms of some functional notion is either to change the subject or to define away the problem. One might as well define “world peace” as “a ham sandwich”. Achieving world peace becomes much easier, but it is a hollow achievement.” - David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind, 105
English
Who is down for a philosophy of mind chat this weekend? Possibly Friday evening.
Monistic Idealism@monism_idealism
@SpeedWatkins @davidchalmers42 I'm not seeing a reason to believe that's true, but perhaps you can go over your reason for this in a discord hangout like you suggested. I think that's a great idea. We can schedule one at your convenience and anyone who wants to join is welcome. Cheers!
English
@SpeedWatkins @smpuryear @adorientem @SimonSchfe45703 Can you unpack (for the laymen) what is meant by 'primitive' and 'reason-implying'? In particular, 'implying' often means there's a contingency relationship and I'm interested if that's happening here, and if so what is contingent on what.
English
@smpuryear @adorientem @SimonSchfe45703 I think there are primitive moral truths, and those primitive moral truths are either reason-implying or they are not.
English
To say that there are no good replies to the euthyphro dilemma is just as ignorant as to say that a theistic metaethics is the only defensible way to secure robust moral realism.
SDL@SocDoneLeft
The idea that "atheists only have subjective preferences, because objective morality only exists with God" is extremely funny. It's been 2400 years, and theocratic theists have yet to give a single good response to the Euthyphro dilemma.
English
@mattyglesias This was literally the prescription of the 2012 autopsy. Trump threw it out and won without it by activating base voters that hadn't previously voted much.
English
@SpeedWatkins @DrScotMSullivan Actually, this is close to my thinking regarding morality within neurology. The "universals" are principals abstracted from experience and hypotheticals, not necessarily "real" features of a "real" moral world. Universality is an emergent feature of common neurology IMO.
English
@DrScotMSullivan But I'm afraid I cannot give much more of the story as to how we have knowledge of universals other than to say we "abstract them away" from particulars, but "abstract them away" here is a label for a mystery.
English
Propositions can be true or false.
Neurons cannot be true or false.
Propositions are not neurons.
English
@SpeedWatkins Sure, I buy that as a dichotomy. But his argument goes further - he argues not the direction but that the destination is somehow inevitable, as if the movement overall is unidirectional. That this "point in history" is a thing that happens inevitably.
English
@Guernicus Nietzsche is a quasi-virtue ethicist who takes self-affirmation to be the highest end. The Übermensch is someone whose values are entirely self-affirming. The dichotomy, which I take to a true one, is that our values either move us closer to the Übermensch or further away.
English
You can either embrace self-denying Christian moral values (like loving thy enemy, humility, and impartial benevolence), or you can reject them as a self-denying, slave morality—like Nietzsche does. You have to pick a lane, though. Nietzsche leaves no room for a middle ground.
Seth Dillon@SethDillon
Nietzsche on toxic empathy.
English
@SpeedWatkins Well, sure, if so - but it's N's reasoning I'm pointing out here. He has values he rejects, fine. But what he's presenting is a slippery slop reductio to frame a dichotomy, which is very sus reasoning.
English
@Guernicus I take Seth to be appealing to Nietzsche’s reasoning and not just his conclusion. In the passage he cites, Nietzsche is rejecting self-denying values, like empathy, as a herd morality—self-denying values contain within them the seeds of their own, and he is illustrating that.
English
@TheoreticalBS Near as I can tell, rights are grants in the social contract. In practice, we grant them to each other as a group. In theory, they come from power ('we' is more powerful). So omnipotent God can grant himself whatever he wants I guess.
English
@SpeedWatkins I've often said to others that I didn't go further into my originally intended path of music academia because of my addiction... to paying rent on time.
English
Why did I go into engineering instead of academia?
To afford my eating habit
English
@SpeedWatkins @DrScotMSullivan One thing I often wonder about wrt a square circle. We can't conceive of it yet we can communicate what we mean by it such that it's understood what we mean. So in a sense, there is a conception that isn't exactly a unity with SS, but it's good enough to "use" in communication.
English
@DrScotMSullivan God is a necessary being is logically equivalent with the claim it’s possible a necessary being exists.
English
God is a necessary being, therefore God exists.
This begs the question!
A square circle is an impossible being, therefore a square circle does not exist.
This begs the question!
English
@kpuls I remember when Celia Alves covered this a few years ago.
youtube.com/watch?v=lHIS7U…
YouTube
English
A while ago, I asked a co-worker how many ways he knew of to round a number. His answer was 1: if it ends in .4, round⬇️; if it ends in .5, round⬆️. Most people have a similar answer but that's NOT how #PowerQuery's ROUND actually works. Learn more here: excelguru.ca/power-query-th…
English
Me opening a complex Power BI semantic model I last touched 8 months ago to add a new metric.
English
Let me just clean up this Excel file a bit. I don’t think this sheet in the back is necessary anymore.
English
@SpeedWatkins Interestingly, I guess the thing to deny for a dualist would be 3. But in searching for examples that would disprove it, they'd point to the mind and in so doing beg the question.
What other example would dualists choose to disprove 3 other than mind?
English
Dr. Sullivan’s mistaken here:
(1) Bodies are physical things.
(2) Minds and bodies causally interact.
(3) Non-physical and physical things do not causally interact.
Hence,
(4) Minds are physical things.
Neither (1), (2), nor (3) assume minds are physical or non-physical things.
Dr. Scott M. Sullivan@DrScotMSullivan
Five Common Arguments For Materialism That Beg The Question: The following five arguments are relatively common in the philosophy of mind and yet all commit the fallacy of begging the question against dualism. Below I list these five arguments and indicate the problematic premise: (1) The argument from causation Only physical events have causal powers. (begs the question) All mental events have causal powers. Hence: all mental events are physical events. (2) The argument from causal closure (version 1) Every mental event causes some physical event. What causes a physical event must itself be physical. (begs the question) Hence: every mental event is a physical event. (3) The argument from causal closure (version 2) Every mental event is a sufficient cause of some physical event. Every physical event that has a sufficient cause also has a sufficient physical cause. (begs the question) Every physical event has no more than one sufficient cause. Hence: every mental event is a physical event. (4) The argument from the identity of causal role Every mental event has the same causes and the same effects as some physical event. (begs the question) Events that have the same causes and the same effects (i.e. the same causal role) are identical. Hence: every mental event is identical with some physical event (5) The argument from complete explainability Every mental event is entirely explainable by physical conditions. (begs the question) What is entirely explainable by physical conditions is itself physical. Hence: every mental event is physical.
English
One word when you think of last night's RNC?
English
@SpeedWatkins In his defense, seeing your spouse and family, it's plausible that nobody is actually winning that much IRL. ;)
English
@LeahLitman I seem to remember some other (district?) cases citing to SCOTUS dissents (recently?). Is this a recent trend? Does citing dissents actually have weight? Has writing dissents in such a way as to be cited by lower courts become a strategy for getting a foot in the door?
English