Hey, let's not knock not believing in the beliefs that you espouse too hastily. My favorite quote of the moment comes courtesy of J.M Coetzee, the South African writer: "I have beliefs, but I don't believe in them." Not very admirable in the mendacious sense that politicians practice this policy, admittedly, but the idea that Coetzee has in mind might dovetail fairly well with the definition you cited of the word "liberal."

By the way, I'm sure this theory has already made the rounds by now, but in this article it is suggested that Dred Scott is conservative Christian code for Roe vs. Wade. The theory is worth entertaining if only because it's quite easy to imagine how pro-lifers might make the analogy between slaves and fetuses via the common right of possession by another.

Hell, I'm with Coetzee on that one. But, as you say, entirely different.

And the Dred Scott-Roe v. Wade theory is interesting, but it's one thing to compare Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott; it's something entirely different to use the words "Dred Scott" when you mean "Roe v. Wade".

But, given that openly opposing Roe vs. Wade would be sure to alienate at least half of the electorate, i.e. women, it's not necessarily an imprudent means of scoring points with his core constituency while confusing but at least not pissing anyone else off (except, of course, for yellow-dog Democrats in the South, but they're never going to vote for a Republican anyway). Not exactly brave or honest, but we are talking about politicians here.

it's not necessarily an imprudent means of scoring points with his core constituency

Yeah, but those people aren't voting for Kerry anyway, so what's the point?

Yeah, but they're like the conservative equivalent of Naderites, they might vote for some fanatical third-party born-again or just not vote period if they don't think their beliefs are being pandered to sufficiently.

Shonk: Speaking of stereotypes, what’s up with using “liberal” as if it were a dirty word?

Shonk: admittedly, I’m violently opposed to the position identified with liberalism in the modern American political climate

Well if you are “violently opposed” to (modern American) Liberalism then I suspect you understand quite well why it is a “dirty word”.

Shonk: the day I accept “liberal” … as a slur is the day you can officially pronounce my critical thinking capability dead.

So if someone labeled you as the devotee of a philosophy that you “violently opposed” you wouldn’t consider it an insult?

Just out of curiosity would you consider it a “slur’ to be labeled as a (modern American) child-molester?

Shonk: If you’ll excuse the ranting dogmatism for a moment, both major parties in this country are conservative, not in the somewhat bogus sense that the word is currently used but rather in its original meaning: both are committed to propping up and sustaining the currently dominant power structures and institutions. Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is, of course, an entirely separate question, but the simple fact of the matter is that neither wants to fundamentally change much of anything.

Hmmm …

It sounds to me like you are saying that in the eternal struggle of Good verses Evil (Order verses Chaos (Logic verses Mysticism)) that BOTH sides are actually Evil because neither side is willing to give up?

That’s exactly the kind of random, meaningless double-talk that I would expect to hear from a devout minion of Chaos.

Shonk: … John T. Kennedy has been telling me for months …

Ooo … follow that Graviton at your own peril.

Curt: But, given that openly opposing Roe vs. Wade would be sure to alienate at least half of the electorate, i.e. women

Are you actually asserting that all women want to abort their fetuses?

Well if you are “violently opposed” to (modern American) Liberalism then I suspect you understand quite well why it is a “dirty word”.

I'm violently opposed to modern American conservatism, too, just for the record.

It sounds to me like you are saying that in the eternal struggle of Good verses Evil (Order verses Chaos (Logic verses Mysticism)) that BOTH sides are actually Evil because neither side is willing to give up?

If you're willing to ascribe "Good" status to either the Democrats or the Republicans, then maybe that is what I'm saying.

If you're speaking more broadly, then you'll notice where I said "Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is, of course, an entirely separate question"; in the case of some hypothetical conflict between "Good" and "Evil", then it probably wouldn't be a bad thing that "Good" is sticking to its guns, but in the case of two political parties devoted to maintaining a corrupt power structure, I would tend to side more with the perspective that says that's a bad thing.

Are you actually asserting that all women want to abort their fetuses?

No, who are you, Pat Robertson? You think that the only people that support the right to have an abortion are those who actually want to abort their babies? Obviously I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect; I'm pretty certain that there are a lot of pro-life (good lord I hate that term) women, including probably some of the most zealous. However, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that support for the right to abortion is much more prevalent among women than men, and furthemore I would venture to assert that abortion in general, for obvious reasons, is a much more decisive issue for women in general than men. If I supported either Bush or Kerry on most issues (which I don't), and opposed their stance on abortion, quite frankly I wouldn't give a fuck, because it's an extremely marginal issue for me. So yes, I concede that my generalization was an overreach, but yours was equally unmeasured.

Shonk: I'm violently opposed to modern American conservatism, too, just for the record.

Isn’t that kind of like being violently opposed to nighttime, AND violently opposed to daytime?

Are you equally “violently opposed” to BOTH liberalism and conservatism, or are you more “violently opposed” to one, and less “violently opposed” to the other?

Besides isn’t Anarchy just a (purer) form of Liberalism?

The Serpent (prev): It sounds to me like you are saying that in the eternal struggle of Good verses Evil (Order verses Chaos (Logic verses Mysticism)) that BOTH sides are actually Evil because neither side is willing to give up?

The Shank: If you're willing to ascribe "Good" status to either the Democrats or the Republicans, then maybe that is what I'm saying.

To be succinct I am saying:

1) that the two philosophies are fundamentally different.
2) that since they are different one is closer to “the Truth” (in reality) than the other.

Shonk: If you're speaking more broadly, then you'll notice where I said "Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is, of course, an entirely separate question"; in the case of some hypothetical conflict between "Good" and "Evil", then it probably wouldn't be a bad thing that "Good" is sticking to its guns …

Unless you are “Evil” of course?

In that case I suspect that you would not consider it “Good” that the forces of Light were eternally relentless.

Shonk: but in the case of two political parties devoted to maintaining a corrupt power structure, I would tend to side more with the perspective that says that's a bad thing.

I think this is where our minds (thoughts) differ. I do not believe that inanimate (non-conscious) “political parties” (or “governments” for that matter) have (conscious) motivations or possess the qualities of “good” and “evil”. I believe that only Individuals (individual consciousnesses) possess these qualities.

Whether an association is Good or Evil depends upon whether the individuals comprising (and controlling) that association are Good or Evil.

You seem to be saying that both the Democrats and the Republicans are made up of and controlled by individuals who are all Evil (corrupt)? That seems more a statement of your inherent pessimism (I believe you prefer Cynicism) than a statement of objective fact.

Power (or power structures) exists in reality whether you want it to or not. Power exists whether you perceive it or not. The existence of Power is not Evil in and of itself. Only when Power is applied to harm individuals deliberately and unnecessarily does Power become a malevolent force.

Conversely when Power is deliberately used to benefit individuals then Power is a benevolent (Good) force.

1) that the two philosophies are fundamentally different.
2) that since they are different one is closer to “the Truth” (in reality) than the other.

If you hadn't noticed, political parties are not "philosophies" incarnate, they are just collections of individuals competing with each other. Just because two hyenas are fighting over a piece of meat, doesn't meant they represent two different philsophies.

I do not believe that inanimate (non-conscious) “political parties” (or “governments” for that matter) have (conscious) motivations or possess the qualities of “good” and “evil”. I believe that only Individuals (individual consciousnesses) possess these qualities.

Irrelevant objection. Attributing a motive to an organization is simply shorthand for describing the motives of the members of the organization.

I do not believe that inanimate (non-conscious) “political parties” (or “governments” for that matter) have (conscious) motivations or possess the qualities of “good” and “evil”. I believe that only Individuals (individual consciousnesses) possess these qualities.

Again, true but possibly misleading and/or naive, insofar as it seems to imply that the relative virtue of individuals is cocoon-like and unaffected by his/her surroundings. If Hannah Arendt, Gasset y Ortega et al. have taught us one thing, it is that seemingly "decent" people can be brought to some unfathomable actions, especially when acting as a group or mob. And sometimes even when alone--as Hamann says, a soldier guarding an armory full of explosives on a dark night has strange thoughts.

You seem to be saying that both the Democrats and the Republicans are made up of and controlled by individuals who are all Evil (corrupt)? That seems more a statement of your inherent pessimism (I believe you prefer Cynicism) than a statement of objective fact.

Don't think that is what he was actually saying, but even if it was, aren't all moral judgments "a statement" of one's beliefs (be they pessimistic or otherwise)? I wouldn't be so sure that even the existence of moral values can be considered established as a fact.

Power (or power structures) exists in reality whether you want it to or not. Power exists whether you perceive it or not. The existence of Power is not Evil in and of itself. Only when Power is applied to harm individuals deliberately and unnecessarily does Power become a malevolent force.

Conversely when Power is deliberately used to benefit individuals then Power is a benevolent (Good) force.

And just who do you think we're talking about, Albert Schweitzer? If we were using F-16's to shoot food at hungry people, as Bill Hicks once suggested, I don't think anybody would be complaining.

Ed. correction: first line of previous comment should read "political parties" not "political philosophies," obviously, otherwise the statement would be an oxymoron. Clay, maybe you could correct that for me?

Clay, maybe you could correct that for me?

Fixed.

Isn’t that kind of like being violently opposed to nighttime, AND violently opposed to daytime?

If you think Democrats and Republicans are as diametrically opposed as night and day, then I've got some real estate you might be interested in.

1) that the two philosophies are fundamentally different.
2) that since they are different one is closer to “the Truth” (in reality) than the other.

Nonsense. Even if you stipulate (1), which I don't, (2) doesn't follow. 1 and -1 are fundamentally different, but each is the same distance from 0.

You seem to be saying that both the Democrats and the Republicans are made up of and controlled by individuals who are all Evil (corrupt)? That seems more a statement of your inherent pessimism (I believe you prefer Cynicism) than a statement of objective fact.

I'm not saying all Democrats and Republicans are evil. In fact, most are probably decent people, as individuals. But people in groups, especially those trying to pander to the broadest segment of the population possible, tend to support policies which are at best inane and at worst quite harmful. The fact that the policies of both parties support and sustain oversized, over-intrusive government is merely an observation, not a result of innate pessimism.

Nonsense. Even if you stipulate (1), which I don't, (2) doesn't follow. 1 and -1 are fundamentally different, but each is the same distance from 0.

I agree that the second doesn't inherently follow from the first, although this is not necessarily a logical flaw. The two points could simply be the major and minor premises of a syllogism, rather than one being a conclusion. However, for your second point I would resist your analogy to numerical values, since in comparing two political philosophies, given the subjective nature of the analysis it seems to me inconceivable that an individual would not, willingly or not, find one of them to be more true to reality than the other. Whether this means that either of them actually is more true than the other is of course not assured by that intuition, but given my rather skeptical view of the notion of "objective" truth itself, on a practical level (which is to say given our subjective view of the world) I would say the the Serpent's point is a valid one.

Whether this means that either of them actually is more true than the other is of course not assured by that intuition, but given my rather skeptical view of the notion of "objective" truth itself, on a practical level (which is to say given our subjective view of the world) I would say the the Serpent's point is a valid one.

Yes, but the Serpent does believe in objective truth, so by his standards my analogy is valid.

Curt: [On Democrats and Republicans …]If you hadn't noticed, political parties are not "philosophies" incarnate, they are just collections of individuals competing with each other. Just because two hyenas are fighting over a piece of meat, doesn't mean they represent two different philosophies.

So Democrats and republicans share identical philosophies?

In my assessment that statement amounts to a denial of Reality.

Curt: Irrelevant objection. Attributing a motive to an organization is simply shorthand for describing the motives of the members of the organization.

So all “Niggers” are stupid savages, and all “Faggots” are child molesters, and all “Politicians” are criminals and/or pathological liars?

Your statement seems rather contradictory considering the importance, or dare I say, preeminence you claim to attach to the concept of Individuality.

Why treat Individuals as Individuals when it is so much easier to stereotype them as a group with identical traits, properties, goals, and motivations?

The Serpent (prev: I do not believe that inanimate (non-conscious) “political parties” (or “governments” for that matter) have (conscious) motivations or possess the qualities of “good” and “evil”. I believe that only Individuals (individual consciousnesses) possess these qualities.

Curt: Again, true but possibly misleading and/or naive, insofar as it seems to imply that the relative virtue of individuals is cocoon-like and unaffected by his/her surroundings.

Are you insulated from the influences of TLOP? I wonder what effect your surroundings have had on your behavior? Perhaps your surroundings have controlled your behavior completely?

[…]

Something has come up. I’ll have to continue with this later …

[continued …]

Curt: If Hannah Arendt, Gasset y Ortega et al. have taught us one thing, it is that seemingly "decent" people can be brought to some unfathomable actions, especially when acting as a group or mob. And sometimes even when alone--as Hamann says, a soldier guarding an armory full of explosives on a dark night has strange thoughts.

You seem to imply that this phenomenon is a One-Way street. That individuals can be motivated to do Evil by “the Group”, but that they cannot be motivated to do Good by “the Group”.

My instincts would lead me to conclude that this is merely pessimism on your part. Do you have a logical reason for believing this?

I would also assert that despite the fact a soldier guarding an armory full of explosives on a dark night might have strange thoughts that it requires a certain type of individual to actually act on such thoughts. And I would also assert that this is the case even when confronted with overwhelming peer (or group) pressure.

I would remind you, that many individuals choose death, rather than collaboration with the Nazi’s. Of course if you are convinced that you “cease to exist” when you “die” I suppose that your own continued happiness and existence takes precedence over any other concern including the ultimate welfare of others.

Curt: aren't all moral judgments "a statement" of one's beliefs (be they pessimistic or otherwise)?

I’m not sure I comprehend? I would argue that Reality is objective, and by the same logic I would argue that morality is objective.

Now it is possible that an individual may believe that reality (or morality) is subjective (not based on logic and/or observation). In which case such subjective judgments could be either optimistic (with a beneficial goal) or pessimistic (with a harmful goal).

Curt: I wouldn't be so sure that even the existence of moral values can be considered established as a fact.

So you are saying it is just as “moral” to kill, or rape, or steal, as it is to not kill, or not rape, or not steal?

I would say that statement could only be true if there are no ultimate consequences for action. But I do not believe the empirical evidence supports that conclusion.

The Serpent: Power (or power structures) exists in reality whether you want it to or not. Power exists whether you perceive it or not. The existence of Power is not Evil in and of itself. Only when Power is applied to harm individuals deliberately and unnecessarily does Power become a malevolent force.

The Cut: Conversely when Power is deliberately used to benefit individuals then Power is a benevolent (Good) force.

And just who do you think we're talking about, Albert Schweitzer? If we were using F-16's to shoot food at hungry people, as Bill Hicks once suggested, I don't think anybody would be complaining.

If individual A initiates harm against individual B by attempting to rape them and kill them (A benefits in the process), and I use force to prevent individual A’s action, then I am not harming individual A purely for my own selfish sense of benefit. Nor am I harming A unnecessarily. In fact what I am really doing is preventing individual B from being harmed (which they will perceive as beneficial). And ultimately I am giving individual A exactly what they wanted (ultimately individual A will perceive my action as “beneficial”).

Individual A is insane. Relative to individual B and myself their definitions of the terms “harmful” and “beneficial” are reversed (ultimately).

shonk: If you think Democrats and Republicans are as diametrically opposed as night and day, then I've got some real estate you might be interested in.

If you believe they are the same (identical) then obviously you have been brainwashed (confused, misdirected) by the former.

The Serpent (prev):
1) that the two philosophies are fundamentally different.
2) that since they are different one is closer to “the Truth” (in reality) than the other.

The Shank: Nonsense. Even if you stipulate (1), which I don't, (2) doesn't follow. 1 and -1 are fundamentally different, but each is the same distance from 0.

Point #1:

- The democrats support abortion; the republicans are against it.
- The democrats support “gay marriage”; the republicans are against it.
- The democrats are dominated by Atheism; the republicans are dominated by Theists (Judeo-Christian mainly).
- democrats support the notion that there are no ultimate consequences for action; the republicans generally believe that there are ALWAYS consequences for action.
- democrats (generally) believe that morality is subjective; republicans (generally) believes that morality is objective.

I could go on and on.

Point #2:

I have never seen –1 apple in reality. Could you explain what it looks like to me?

In other words, I believe you are assigning a property to reality that does not exist in reality.

Besides +1 is still greater (more true) than -1.

shonk: I'm not saying all Democrats and Republicans are evil. In fact, most are probably decent people, as individuals.

I’d tend to agree. However I would stipulate that individuals who do not believe in ultimate consequences for their actions tend to behave exactly as if that is what they believe.

shonk: But people in groups, especially those trying to pander to the broadest segment of the population possible, tend to support policies which are at best inane and at worst quite harmful. The fact that the policies of both parties support and sustain oversized, over-intrusive government is merely an observation, not a result of innate pessimism.

There is a certain amount of truth in what you say; however I believe that has more to do with inherent errors in the philosophies we are discussing.

The problem for both is flaws in their perception of reality. However the Liberals flaw is far more fundamental and ubiquitous.

The democrats believe there are no ultimate consequences for action, so they invent “free will”, and they try to bring about a guilt-free world where everyone can be a Solipsist simultaneously (an inherent contradiction).

The republicans flaw is more subtil. They believe that it is possible for an individual to intentionally harm themselves. They believe that certain actions (or memes) are “Evil” in and of themselves even beyond the perception of others.

Thus the republicans may try to ban certain sex acts, or cigarettes, or alcohol, or certain works of art, modes of thought, etc.

But an individual cannot deliberately “harm” themselves … not ultimately. If you smoke, or drink, or suck a dick, or shoot yourself in the head it is because you perceive that activity as beneficial relative to the other options available to you.

An action only becomes truly Evil when it is committed against (perception forced upon) another individual against their wishes (sense of what is beneficial).

If you believe they are the same (identical) then obviously you have been brainwashed (confused, misdirected) by the former.

I didn't say they were the same. I said they weren't fundamentally different. Superficially, of course, there are differences.

The democrats support [X]; the republicans are against it. x 5

As may be, but they cancel eachother out. Under the Democrats I get more freedom to smoke drugs, have abnormal sex, espouse unusual beliefs, etc. Under the Republicans, I get more (slightly) more freedom to control my money. Which is preferable? Civil liberties or fiscal liberties?

But these are all superficial; fundamentally both parties believe that the way to solve problems is with government and so, under either of the two possible 2004-2008 administrations, spending will increase, taxes will increase, inflation will increase, social security will continue going bankrupt, privacy will be infringed upon and the Constitution will continue to take a backseat to judicial activism. Republicans claim to be against big government, but Bush was in office for record-breaking spending increases in the last 4 years. Democrats claim to be pro-civil liberties, but they raised nary a peep about the USA Patriot Act until almost three years after the fact and it became apparent that so doing might swing some votes their way. I grant you that the rhetoric is different, but I judge based on actions, not words.

I have never seen –1 apple in reality. Could you explain what it looks like to me?

In other words, I believe you are assigning a property to reality that does not exist in reality.

Fair enough. But mathematics is an abstract reality, in which both 1 and -1 exist and, in that abstraction, both are equidistant from 0. I could just as well have used 1 and 3, which are also quite different and certainly can be interpreted physically, yet each is equidistant from 2, which is also physically interpretable.

However, I think your rejection of the negative numbers is superfluous, but that's a conversation for another day...

Besides +1 is still greater (more true) than -1.

So is 2 "more true" than 1? 3 "more true" than 2? 1000000 "more true" than all three? Is there an upper bound on "trueness"? Or does it all tend towards infinity, another abstract concept (like -1) that has no physical manifestation?

Actually, now that I've already started, I will get into why I think it's crazy not to believe in -1. -1 is a concept, an idea (and an exceptionally beautiful one at that). You say it doesn't exist because it has no physical manifestation. But do you hold the same standard for other ideas and concepts? There are no physical manifestations of circles, but does that mean they don't exist? Do you say "love" doesn't exist? Or, if it does, what is the physical manifestation of "love"? How about "beauty" or "respect" or "God"? What about fiction? Is fiction just a lie, or is it real and worthwhile? And, for that matter, what distinguishes those ideas and concepts we claim do have physical manifestations from those that don't? What about the concept of "chair" ties it to the chair I'm sitting on? Some sort of invisible string? Or is it all just in your head? And what is the quality that my chair has but that my bed doesn't have? I can sit on both, so that can't be it. Can you see this quality? Or is it all just in your head?

So all “Niggers” are stupid savages, and all “Faggots” are child molesters, and all “Politicians” are criminals and/or pathological liars?

Your statement seems rather contradictory considering the importance, or dare I say, preeminence you claim to attach to the concept of Individuality.

Why treat Individuals as Individuals when it is so much easier to stereotype them as a group with identical traits, properties, goals, and motivations?

If your intrinsic point, that the beliefs of members of a group, especially one as large as the major political parties, are too diverse to be generalized to the institutional level, it's not a bad point, and I even agree with it to some extent, but it is not identical to the one you made before to which I was responding. You were simply arguing that it's metaphysically incorrect to speak of organizations making decisions or having beliefs rather than their composite members. I concede that point, but I replied that if the beliefs of those composite members are unanimously or at least generally held than it is simply a matter of convenience to speak of the organization's beliefs. Now you seem to be saying that that is never the case, and that it's misleading to generalize beliefs as universal or general even within a group. Possibly true, but that's a separate issue. Then again, since you generalize with impunity about the supposed beliefs of Demoncrats and Republicans later on, maybe you're just being insulting or suggesting that you accept the validity in principle of any generalizations about group beliefs or characteristics is to legitimize and affirm every generalization, no matter how bigoted or ignorant. If that is your point, it's quite unworthy of response.

Are you insulated from the influences of TLOP? I wonder what effect your surroundings have had on your behavior? Perhaps your surroundings have controlled your behavior completely?

Indeed, perhaps...(stroking beard contemplatively)

You seem to imply that this phenomenon is a One-Way street. That individuals can be motivated to do Evil by “the Group”, but that they cannot be motivated to do Good by “the Group”.

My instincts would lead me to conclude that this is merely pessimism on your part. Do you have a logical reason for believing this?

I would also assert that despite the fact a soldier guarding an armory full of explosives on a dark night might have strange thoughts that it requires a certain type of individual to actually act on such thoughts. And I would also assert that this is the case even when confronted with overwhelming peer (or group) pressure.

I would remind you, that many individuals choose death, rather than collaboration with the Nazi’s. Of course if you are convinced that you “cease to exist” when you “die” I suppose that your own continued happiness and existence takes precedence over any other concern including the ultimate welfare of others.

Just because the authors I cited use primarily negative examples in their analyses of mob mentalities doesn't mean that the same dynamic doesn't apply in converse situations, where people are inspired to do good by the example and implicit or explicit encouragement of their peers. But that only reinforces the importance of environment and circumstance, which is the point I was trying to make. As for your second claim, you will again get no argument for me. I find it entirely plausible, although by no means assured, that the mob mentality or whatever you call it only brings forth elements of the personality which are already latent. Then again, the existentialists say that one only creates and defines oneself by action, so who knows. But will you not at least acknowledge that even if latent, many of these traits remain dormant until provoked by some external stimulus, so that at least in the realm of action if not intellect the individual is to some degree shaped by his environment?

If individual A initiates harm against individual B by attempting to rape them and kill them (A benefits in the process), and I use force to prevent individual A’s action, then I am not harming individual A purely for my own selfish sense of benefit. Nor am I harming A unnecessarily. In fact what I am really doing is preventing individual B from being harmed (which they will perceive as beneficial). And ultimately I am giving individual A exactly what they wanted (ultimately individual A will perceive my action as “beneficial”).

Individual A is insane. Relative to individual B and myself their definitions of the terms “harmful” and “beneficial” are reversed (ultimately).

I have no idea what political scenario, if any, you are attempting to deal with indirectly here, but I will say that, while in hypothetical terms this type of moral formula is very nice and has a certain classic symmetry to it, it can get pretty messy when one tries to apply it to politics and historical processes. For instance, it's very easy in your scenario to label A as the original aggressor, but who is the original aggressor in, for example, the Palestinian conflict? The Palestinians? The Jews? The Romans? The Babylonians? God? What constitutes a moral intervention? Maybe stopping the Israelis from bulldozing Palestinian houses is an attempt to stop their aggression against innocent Palestinians, but maybe the Israeli soldiers are morally intervening to prevent terrorists from their predations on innocent Israeli civilians? Who's to say ultimately? God? Didn't he create this whole mess in the first place? I started losing my faith in the sanctity of all moral laws when I started to realize that it was not just in situations like this that laws of moral responsibility and culpability become inextricably muddled, but pretty much in all scenarios except abstract Kantian hypotheticals like this one.

P.S. Sorry about the italics being all messed up, it seems that one can only italicize one paragraph at a time.

I’m not sure I comprehend? I would argue that Reality is objective, and by the same logic I would argue that morality is objective.

Now it is possible that an individual may believe that reality (or morality) is subjective (not based on logic and/or observation). In which case such subjective judgments could be either optimistic (with a beneficial goal) or pessimistic (with a harmful goal).

Well, you can argue that reality is objective, but we've been going at this issue for the better part of six months and your arguments have proven somewhat lacking. Whether the belief that reality is subjective is made with a positive or negative goal in mind I suppose depends, assuming the belief is based on a belief in its veracity, on whether the notion of truth has a positive or negative value for the individual. On the other hand, if one believes in the subjectivity of reality not because of one's genuine belief in its veracity but for some other reason, than the issue of its relative truth is pretty much marginalized. Or, like me, one might be inclined to the view that truth itself is just an intellectual construct, in which case the relevance of truth itself as a general concept is marginalized.

So you are saying it is just as “moral” to kill, or rape, or steal, as it is to not kill, or not rape, or not steal?

I would say that statement could only be true if there are no ultimate consequences for action. But I do not believe the empirical evidence supports that conclusion.

Well, yes, I suppose if moral values are illusory than killing, raping and stealing are equally as moral as not doing those things in the same way that black and white are equally grey. And no, recognizing that there are consequences of an action is not the same as asserting that the action has a moral value. First of all one would have to assume that the moral worth of an action is defined by its consequences (not conceded), also one must suppose an objective method of evaluation of those consquences (also not conceded). Look, you would have to preface any proof of the existence of moral laws with a proof of the objectivity of reality which, given the nature of the subject in question, is I imagine more or less inherently impossible.

Curt: … if moral values are illusory than killing, raping and stealing are equally as moral as not doing those things in the same way that black and white are equally grey.

Okay so Morality is subjective.

In my mind that is the same as claiming reality is subjective.

Objective = Information perceived the same by all observers (2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples).
Subjective = Information not perceived the same by all observers (chocolate ice cream taste better than vanilla ice cream) = The opposite of Objective.

Curt: And no, recognizing that there are consequences of an action is not the same as asserting that the action has a moral value. [1] First of all one would have to assume that the moral worth of an action is defined by its consequences (not conceded), [2] also one must suppose an objective method of evaluation of those consequences (also not conceded).

[1] The moral worth of an action is defined by its (ultimate) consequences. All actions are expressions (output of information). Expressions are perceived by other entities (as inputs of information). Those inputs are perceived as either beneficial (in which case they are moral actions) or harmful (in which case they are immoral actions).

[2] Are you asserting that TLOP is not an objective judge? Let me ask you this … suppose we had a trial by combat. Are you asserting it is possible for me to perceive that I won the combat, and you were slain, while you simultaneously perceive that you won the combat and that I was slain?

Curt: Look, you would have to preface any proof of the existence of moral laws with a proof of the objectivity of reality which, given the nature of the subject in question, is I imagine more or less inherently impossible.

Ahhh, so now you are back to asserting that God plays dice with reality (reality is subjective (random/meaningless)).

Are your words in these posts random and meaningless, or is it more accurate to describe them as ordered and determined?

Remember when I said to assert that morality is subjective is equivalent to asserting that reality is subjective? Are you agreeing with that statement?

Curt: you can argue that reality is objective, but we've been going at this issue for the better part of six months and your arguments have proven somewhat lacking.

You mean “lacking” as opposed to your non-argument that reality is non-objective?

Curt: Whether the belief that reality is subjective is made with a positive or negative goal in mind I suppose depends, assuming the belief is based on a belief in its veracity, on whether the notion of truth has a positive or negative value for the individual.

The root of pessimism is to be found in the notion that there exists a non-beneficial Truth.

To a logical deist such a notion is tantamount to blasphemy.

Curt: On the other hand, if one believes in the subjectivity of reality not because of one's genuine belief in its veracity but for some other reason, than the issue of its relative truth is pretty much marginalized. Or, like me, one might be inclined to the view that truth itself is just an intellectual construct, in which case the relevance of truth itself as a general concept is marginalized.

Ahhh, so you are now asserting that in some instances 2 + 2 does not equal 4?

Could you provide an example of such an instance?

Curt: [A verses B …]For instance, it's very easy in your scenario to label A as the original aggressor, but who is the original aggressor in, for example, the Palestinian conflict? The Palestinians? The Jews? The Romans? The Babylonians? God? … Who's to say ultimately? God? Didn't he create this whole mess in the first place?

You consider Individuality a “Mess”?

I suppose you would prefer a return to Solipsism and True Free Will?

If that is the case, then I fear you truly have (de)evolved into a Pessimist, my old friend.

Curt: I started losing my faith in the sanctity of all moral laws when I started to realize that it was not just in situations like this that laws of moral responsibility and culpability become inextricably muddled, but pretty much in all scenarios except abstract Kantian hypothetical like this one.

The fact that the omni-sequence of Causality appears complex and elaborate today does not mean it is based on complex and elaborate premises (rules). The foundation is quite simple. The complexity is merely the natural result of Time (reiteration/evolution).

Curt: [peer pressure & environmental effects on personality and behavior …]Just because the authors I cited use primarily negative examples in their analyses of mob mentalities doesn't mean that the same dynamic doesn't apply in converse situations, where people are inspired to do good by the example and implicit or explicit encouragement of their peers. But that only reinforces the importance of environment and circumstance, which is the point I was trying to make. […] But will you not at least acknowledge that even if latent, many of these traits remain dormant until provoked by some external stimulus, so that at least in the realm of action if not intellect the individual is to some degree shaped by his environment?

Remember I am a Fatalist (or determinist, if you prefer) so I fully agree that an Individual entity is shaped (altered, modified, acted upon) by his environment.

Environment being ones position (or place) in space and time, or more precisely the path of one’s position in Space charted over Time. (a Worldline – a unique path through Spacetime)

Of course unlike yourself I am not a Materialist, at least not in the same sense that you define the term. From my perspective Consciousness is the matter -- the base unit of reality. Ergo the term environment really refers to the affect of other individuals on an entity over the course of Time. (“Space” becomes one’s position relative to other Gravitons (over Time)).

Okay so Morality is subjective.

In my mind that is the same as claiming reality is subjective.

Objective = Information perceived the same by all observers (2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples).
Subjective = Information not perceived the same by all observers (chocolate ice cream taste better than vanilla ice cream) = The opposite of Objective.

Has it occured to you that the very fact that we disagree about these supposed moral laws evidently proves that they are not objective, i.e. "perceived the same by all observers," as you put it?

[1] The moral worth of an action is defined by its (ultimate) consequences. All actions are expressions (output of information). Expressions are perceived by other entities (as inputs of information). Those inputs are perceived as either beneficial (in which case they are moral actions) or harmful (in which case they are immoral actions).

[2] Are you asserting that TLOP is not an objective judge? Let me ask you this … suppose we had a trial by combat. Are you asserting it is possible for me to perceive that I won the combat, and you were slain, while you simultaneously perceive that you won the combat and that I was slain?

Let me ask you a question: what are these supposedly infallible moral laws that you claim that we all subscribe to? And don't just say the "laws of physics" like an automaton; I'd be suprised if even you have even the slightest clue what you mean by that. Isn't it interesting that these very "laws of physics" that you hold so dear have themselves devolved to terminal uncertainties at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels? And this is your basis for claiming the total regularity of reality? As for whether we could have a duel to the death and both believe we had won, I have no idea, I imagine it would be a little difficult to solicit the opinions of at least one of the combantants afterwards, but I do know we're having an argument right now and both believe we're winning, and you can turn on HBO any Friday night and watch prize fighters that both think they've won at the end of the match.

Ahhh, so now you are back to asserting that God plays dice with reality (reality is subjective (random/meaningless)).

Are your words in these posts random and meaningless, or is it more accurate to describe them as ordered and determined?

Remember when I said to assert that morality is subjective is equivalent to asserting that reality is subjective? Are you agreeing with that statement?

So when we determine our own principles life is meaningless? I'd be more inclined to think that that's the only time anything makes the slightest bit of sense. Let me ask another question: which rules make more sense to you, the provisional rules or habits of conduct that you have adopted to govern your daily life or the rules you were subjected to as a child to any questions regarding the purpose of which your parents replied: "Just because"? And as for whether "the rules of physics" are an objective judge or not that seems like a pretty meaningless question to me, esp. considering that you yourself were protesting against ascribing action to non-human abstract concepts, but, if you're going to stand on the supremacy of the laws of physics (which is your concession, not mine), Schrodinger's cat and all the rest would seem to incode subjectivity into the very root of those laws. Also, wouldn't the subjectivity of reality inherently preclude the possibility of the existence of God, i.e. an entity that imposes an objectivity on reality?

You mean “lacking” as opposed to your non-argument that reality is non-objective?

Well, yes, I suppose it is both a "non-argument" and "lacking" since I never made such an argument.

The root of pessimism is to be found in the notion that there exists a non-beneficial Truth.

To a logical deist such a notion is tantamount to blasphemy.

Well, yes, believing that Truth is ultimately harmful is definitely pessimistic. However, those who find even the consideration of this possiblity to be blasphemous are bound to be intellectually intolerant fanatics.

Ahhh, so you are now asserting that in some instances 2 + 2 does not equal 4?

Could you provide an example of such an instance?

No, I made no such claim, and in fact the very certainty and lack of ambiguity regarding mathematics is the very property that makes it essentially abstract and foreign from reality.

You consider Individuality a “Mess”?

I suppose you would prefer a return to Solipsism and True Free Will?

If you define your individuality by your adherence to totally inflexible moral laws then your individuality probably is a mess, in the sense that it is self-abnegating. It's true that solipsism and true free will would have their advantages (the role of God is not one to be underestimated), but I figure that that possiblity is either self-fulfilling or irrevocably impossible, so there's not much use moaning about it either way.

Remember I am a Fatalist (or determinist, if you prefer) so I fully agree that an Individual entity is shaped (altered, modified, acted upon) by his environment.

Environment being ones position (or place) in space and time, or more precisely the path of one’s position in Space charted over Time. (a Worldline – a unique path through Spacetime)

Of course unlike yourself I am not a Materialist, at least not in the same sense that you define the term. From my perspective Consciousness is the matter -- the base unit of reality. Ergo the term environment really refers to the affect of other individuals on an entity over the course of Time. (“Space” becomes one’s position relative to other Gravitons (over Time)).

Ok, fair enough, everyone's welcome to their little superstitions. But why stop there? Since you've already declared yourself determined at every spiritual level by your environment, why not just declare yourself existentially erased? Since it's clear that there is nothing about you in any way distinct from or separated from your surroundings, why even use the word "I" at all? Why not return fully to the nothingness from which you came and which, in fact, you are?

Isn't it interesting that these very "laws of physics" that you hold so dear have themselves devolved to terminal uncertainties at both the microscopic and macroscopic levels?

You forget that the Serpent believes that those uncertainties are artifacts of our limited perception rather than inherent traits of the universe. That is, he believes that "in reality" there are no uncertainties. On what basis he founds this belief other than blind faith is, of course, open to question.

Yes, I'm aware that he thinks that everything is commpletely objective, determined, regular, etc. But that was kind of my point: basing that opinion on what is known or conjectured about physics currently to me is about equivalent to using a corpse as proof of the immortality of the soul.

shonk: You forget that the Serpent believes that those uncertainties are artifacts of our limited perception rather than inherent traits of the universe.

precisely.

shonk: That is, he believes that "in reality" there are no uncertainties. On what basis he founds this belief other than blind faith is, of course, open to question.

It’s rather simple actually.

If you believe that reality is fundamentally random then it is logically equivalent to asserting that Solipsism is True.

After all what is the empirical evidence that “matter” exist independent of observation?

And what evidence exists that the “big bang” produced anything other than the single consciousness reading this post? Is it parsimonious to assume otherwise?

So are all these words in all these posts really “random” and its just a “coincidence” that they seem to make sense to you? Is the only reason you stop at red traffic lights because of “randomness” or have you been conditioned (programmed) to stop at red traffic lights?

I’d say that Causality is the evidence for Determinism.

Curt: Yes, I'm aware that he thinks that everything is completely objective, determined, regular, etc.

Like clockwork … Graviton.

Curt: But that was kind of my point: basing that opinion on what is known or conjectured about physics currently to me is about equivalent to using a corpse as proof of the immortality of the soul.

You mean a corpse is more likely evidence for the mortality of the soul/consciousness?

How about a corpse in the computer game DOOM-3? Is that evidence that the person playing the game (i.e. “the Soul”) has “ceased to exist”?

You have to stop thinking like a Materialist (religious fanatic) coppertop. It’ll make you a dire pessimist if you are not careful.

But you are correct in one regard, for me to assume that the Goddess is female is something akin to me assuming that you are male. I mean even if I had met you face to face I couldn’t be sure that you were actually a male. Maybe you were wearing a disguise in a deliberate attempt to mislead me? Of course if you had a long history of being completely and totally honest with me (and I wasn’t cynical by nature) then I would probably assert you were a male even if I couldn’t prove it emphatically.

Curt: Ok, fair enough, everyone's welcome to their little superstitions.

I’m still curious as to the logical mechanism you used to determine that I am the one who is being superstitious?

Is it a magical secret, denier of Causality?

Curt: But why stop there? Since you've already declared yourself determined at every spiritual level by your environment, why not just declare yourself existentially erased?

Well since Solipsism is True and I never existed to begin with I’m afraid that you will have to take care of any declarations for “me”.

Curt: Since it's clear that there is nothing about you in any way distinct from or separated from your surroundings, why even use the word "I" at all? Why not return fully to the nothingness from which you came and which, in fact, you are?

It’s your imagination that controls “me”? Why do you keep thinking about it?

Curt: If you define your individuality by your adherence to totally inflexible moral laws then your individuality probably is a mess, in the sense that it is self-abnegating.

I think you have misunderstood.

I believe in Objective law, or Objective Morality, but I believe you are confusing that with Absolute law, or Absolute Morality.

Absolute Morality or Absolute law is what you are asserting (indiscernible from subjective law or subjective morality).

Curt: It's true that solipsism and true free will would have their advantages (the role of God is not one to be underestimated)

Only an individual bound for the Abyss (an Atheist) could possibly perceive an “advantage” (benefit) in Solipsism. Furthermore, I’d argue that a True God cannot exist in the absence of Individuality.

But look, don’t misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with Individuals that prefer Solipsism to Individuality for themselves. My only problem is with Individuals that want me (or my family/friends) to be Solipsists.

Curt: … I figure that that possibility is either self-fulfilling …

very insightful. Maybe you do know more than you lead on?

Curt: or irrevocably impossible, so there's not much use moaning about it either way.

Now you’re sounding like the Fatalist …

I’d say that Causality is the evidence for Determinism.

Cynic.

I'd say that the dichotomy between fatalism and free will is one of those archaic polarities that have lost most of their utility, much like the distinction between liberal and conservative (at least in its common political application). It seems fairly obvious that in one sense the universe, and us the parts of it, are determined in the sense that every consequence has a cause that explains it. If that were other than the case than even free will wouldn't make any sense, because it would be entirely randomn. I get the sense that many of the so-called defenders of free will have backed themselves into a corner in terms of asserting that there is no ultimately decisive factor in determining our actions. As I said, that indicates that are lives are simply a series of randomn chaotic events, which is not I think what the partisans of that cause wanted. On the other hand, it seems equally ridiculous to believe in determinism in the classical sense, in which all future events are foreseen and planned to occur in a certain order. Well, I suppose not preposterous if we presume the existence of a God that exists entirely outside of the universe and its limitations, but since such a God is inconceivable there seems little point in speculating about it. The very sufficiency of causality also seems to ensure its essential unpredictability. Who could, after one action has occured, know for a fact that an action somewhere down the line of causality will come about, when precisely the events which will cause it have not yet occured? An event is only determined when the event that has caused it has occured, not before. So there you go.

After all what is the empirical evidence that "matter" exist independent of observation.

Good question, and one to which I have yet to encounter a satisfactory answer. Of course, in another sense it's an exceedingly pointless question, since the very notion of empiricism is predicated on the assumption that matter exists independent of observation, so asking the question from within that context is futile. As for the convincing non-empirical evidence for the existence of matter, I have yet to see that either. As it does not seem a dire predicament to exist in this state of doubt, I see no pressing need to resolve it either.

You mean a corpse is more likely evidence for the mortality of the soul/consciousness.

There is self-evidently nothing conclusive about it either way. But yes, since it is the animation of others that leads one to the supposition that they possess a consciousness, it is fairly natural that the absence of that is conducive of doubt about the existence of that consciousness. Even in computer-game death, there is nothing to indicate that anything is controlling the figure until the game restarts.

Of course if you had a long history of being completely and totally honest with me (and I wasn't cynical by nature) then I would probably assert you were a male even if I couldn't prove it emphatically.

Fair enough, but it would probably require a deal of humility which I'm not sure that you possess to admit that assertion and proof are not synonymous or that some degree of uncertainty surrounds your assertion.

I don't have a problem with individuals who prefer Solipsism to Individuality for themselves.

You seem to have a major problem, however, with individuals who don't pick a side in your imagined dichotomy and then hold to it with their whole beings. Kind of like those that get mad at those of us who don't vote, or at least don't want to pick between a Democrat and a Republican. That's why you're a fanatic, a fanatic of the cause of believing itself: I suppose it's because the existence of doubt is like a thorn in the flesh of all beliefs and superstitions. Since total belief is a mere abstraction, everyone I'm guessing is subject to doubt, but if it's important enough to them to have no doubt, they have to deny its existence, and the existence of those who openly avow it throws their own hypocrisy into particularly painful relief.

Sorry, another correction to make if you could please Clay. Then sentence "The very sufficiency of causality also seems to ensure its essential____" should read "unpredictability" not "predictability."

shonk: Cynic.

I suppose that it is possible you are not the entity that I believe you to be?

I suppose it is also possible that you are exactly who I believe you to be, but you algorithm has simply malfunctioned for some (as yet) unknown reason?

But one way or the other, it is only the 4 of us talking here (for all intent and purpose), let’s not pretend that “Light” is darkness and “Darkness” is light.

Sorry, another correction to make if you could please Clay. Then sentence "The very sufficiency of causality also seems to ensure its essential____" should read "unpredictability" not "predictability."

Fixed. Unfortunately, I think I accidentally deleted one of your comments in the process of cleaning out some comment spam. Sorry about that.

I suppose it is also possible that you are exactly who I believe you to be, but you algorithm has simply malfunctioned for some (as yet) unknown reason?

Your belief that if one allows any degree of randomness or uncertainty into the universe then causality must break down at all levels strikes me as cynical.

Curt: I'd say that the dichotomy between fatalism and free will is one of those archaic polarities that have lost most of their utility, much like the distinction between liberal and conservative (at least in its common political application).

I would expect an Atheist (or an Anarchist) to try and blur the distinction between True and False in the same way that I would suspect they would try and blur the distinction between Good and Evil. Or in the same way that they would assert that Reality (or Morality) were subjective.

Of course if aside from Solipsism I don’t see how there is any difference between Subjective Truth and Absolute Truth.

Subjective truth only exists when a Solipsist doesn’t realize that Solipsism is True (in reality). As soon as he becomes aware then the Subjective truth becomes Absolute truth.

Curt: It seems fairly obvious that in one sense the universe, and us the parts of it, are determined in the sense that every consequence has a cause that explains it.

Cause and effect … Action – Reaction … logical sequence.

To assert otherwise is the same as claiming that events sometimes occur without prior (logical) cause. In other words the denial of Causality is the equivalent to embracing Mysticism (Supernaturalism/Magic) which is precisely what you and your brother were accusing me of the other day.

Curt: If that were other than the case than even free will wouldn't make any sense, because it would be entirely random.

True enough, does “random” will equal “free will”? I’d say no.

Me thinks, Your vocabulary (semantics) is ill equipped to discuss this subject. What you really mean when you assert “free will” is a will capable of controlling itself – a “controlled will”. But a “controlled will” would seem to be the exact opposite of a “free (uncontrolled) will”?

Maybe you just have an Anarchy-on-the-brain?

Curt: I get the sense that many of the so-called defenders of free will have backed themselves into a corner in terms of asserting that there is no ultimately decisive factor in determining our actions.

I agree. There is a logical reason that the forces of Light consistently defeat the forces of Evil. It has to do with the inherent nature of Truth, and the relationship of Truth to the inherent nature of what it is to be “Good” or “evil”.

Curt: As I said, that indicates that are lives are simply a series of random chaotic events, which is not I think what the partisans of that cause wanted. On the other hand, it seems equally ridiculous to believe in determinism in the classical sense, in which all future events are foreseen and planned to occur in a certain order. Well, I suppose not preposterous if we presume the existence of a God that exists entirely outside of the universe and its limitations, but since such a God is inconceivable there seems little point in speculating about it.

If you concede that you cannot accurately predict (anticipate) my future behavior, then what makes you assume you should be able to accurately anticipate “God’s” (Tlop’s) future behavior?

Maybe my behavior, and “God’s” (Tlop’s) behavior both appear “random” for the same exact reason … they are both the result of a conscious process?

Maybe God (Tlop) controls your behavior in the same way that a Grand Master Chess Champion can control your movements in a game of chess? Maybe she (Tlop) controls your moves better than you control her moves because her ability to accurately anticipate is vastly superior to your ability to accurately anticipate?

Of course I would assert that ones ability to accurately anticipate the future is directly related to ones comprehension of the Rules (Laws) that are in effect (the system). In other words, one’s level of comprehension regarding the True rules of reality is equivalent to one’s perception of the True reality.

Curt: The very sufficiency of causality also seems to ensure its essential predictability. Who could, after one action has occurred, know for a fact that an action somewhere down the line of causality will come about, when precisely the events which will cause it have not yet occurred?

Ask Thomas Bayes …

Curt: An event is only determined when the event that has caused it has occurred, not before. So there you go.

All Events are part of an unbroken sequence of Causality.

Are you still asserting that an event can be “un-caused”? Once again, I ask you for a single example of an “uncaused” event which can be physically observed?

You will have to pardon me … once again I am pressed for Time …

To assert otherwise is the same as claiming that events sometimes occur without prior (logical) cause. In other words the denial of Causality is the equivalent to embracing Mysticism (Supernaturalism/Magic) which is precisely what you and your brother were accusing me of the other day.

I suppose that might be a valid description of an underderministic form of mysticism. On the other hand, an overderministic form of mysticism might be the asserting of links of causality between two things where there is no evidence that any exist.

Me thinks, Your vocabulary (semantics) is ill equipped to discuss this subject. What you really mean when you assert “free will” is a will capable of controlling itself – a “controlled will”. But a “controlled will” would seem to be the exact opposite of a “free (uncontrolled) will”?

Indeed, I think that is what most of the partisans of free will do believe (or at least hope for). But there is only an inherent conflict between a truly unstructured freedom, i.e. anarchism or randomness, if the anarchism of freedom is assumed a priori, so I would say that the problem of self-controlling will is a problem of evidence not of conception.

Maybe my behavior, and “God’s” (Tlop’s) behavior both appear “random” for the same exact reason … they are both the result of a conscious process?

I'd say the opposite, that conscious behavior is the only kind that doesn't appear randomn, but let that pass.

Maybe God (Tlop) controls your behavior in the same way that a Grand Master Chess Champion can control your movements in a game of chess? Maybe she (Tlop) controls your moves better than you control her moves because her ability to accurately anticipate is vastly superior to your ability to accurately anticipate?

Of course I would assert that ones ability to accurately anticipate the future is directly related to ones comprehension of the Rules (Laws) that are in effect (the system). In other words, one’s level of comprehension regarding the True rules of reality is equivalent to one’s perception of the True reality.

All perfectly reasonable. However, given the conjunction of these two statements, I'm confounded I can imagine on what basis you think that you've figured all the rules out.

Are you still asserting that an event can be “un-caused”? Once again, I ask you for a single example of an “uncaused” event which can be physically observed?

I could just as easily reverse that question and ask you for an example of an as-yet uncaused event which can be ascertained.

Incidentally, I suppose I could ask in what exactly the sexual dimorphism of dieties consists, but I think that at this point that might be whistling in a hurricane.

Curt: I suppose that might be a valid description of an underderministic form of mysticism. On the other hand, an overderministic form of mysticism might be the asserting of links of causality between two things where there is no evidence that any exist.

Either Causality is True, or Causality is False. It cannot be BOTH or NEITHER simultaneously.

And if Causality is False, then Mysticism is True.

You seem to want to be a Mystic, while simultaneously asserting that you are not a Mystic.

Curt: [“free will” or “controlled will”? …] Indeed, I think that is what most of the partisans of free will do believe (or at least hope for). But there is only an inherent conflict between a truly unstructured freedom, i.e. anarchism or randomness, if the anarchism of freedom is assumed a priori, so I would say that the problem of self-controlling will is a problem of evidence not of conception.

No, “free will” is a problem of conception. You seemed to concede the point in a previous post. How can your will be “free” if it is actually “random”?

Isn’t that like claiming that when you approach a red traffic light the Laws of Physics flip a magical little coin (inside your head) to determine whether you STOP or GO?

Curt: [TLOP conscious?] I'd say the opposite, that conscious behavior is the only kind that doesn't appear random, but let that pass.

Well which is it? Is consciousness “random” or is consciousness not-random (determined)?

And what makes you say that TLOP is more “random” then a consciousness? Is the “randomness” of TLOP the reason why we can’t predict the position of the Moon accurately or the reason we can’t land a probe on Mars successfully?

Are the actions of your CAR more or less random then the actions of YOU? Here’s the thing, TLOP seems to be controlling YOU in the exact same way that YOU seem to be controlling your CAR. So if YOU are more conscious than CAR, why shouldn’t I similarly assume that TLOP is more conscious than YOU?

Do your atoms really control TLOP, or is it more accurate to assume that TLOP controls your atoms? Why are the chemical reactions occurring in your brain the result of “free will”, but identical chemical reactions occurring in a test tube in a lab somewhere are merely the result of TLOP?

The Serpent: Are you still asserting that an event can be “un-caused”? Once again, I ask you for a single example of an “uncaused” event which can be physically observed?

The Cut: I could just as easily reverse that question and ask you for an example of an as-yet uncaused event which can be ascertained.

You mean how would we know an uncaused event if we saw one?

I imagine it would be exactly like perceiving a “4-sided triangle”? But you are the one asserting that Causality is False. I would think you would have a logical reason (which you could articulate) for concluding such? Apparently you do not.

Once again you assert the existence of Angels and Faeries and then you claim that anyone who doesn’t believe as you believe is obviously a superstitious nitwit. Rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think that at this point that might be whistling in a hurricane.

Yes … you took the words right out of my mouth.

Shonk: Your belief that if one allows any degree of randomness or uncertainty into the universe then causality must break down at all levels strikes me as cynical.

Yes. I am asserting that if the universe is fundamentally “random” then there is no way for it to appear fundamentally non-random (determined).

Conversely Your way is an extraordinarily unparsimonious (I’d say Mystical) way of looking at things.

God (or TLOP if you prefer) doesn’t play dice with reality. You can assert that She does, but unless you can provide some evidence for this belief then I am left to assume you and your brother are simply (superstitious/mystical) religious fanatics.

And I don’t consider that non-mystics are the cynics. You have that backwards as well. The Truth is always beneficial. But You are obviously more concerned with magic “free will” then you are with Truth.

Curt: I could ask in what exactly the sexual dimorphism of deities consists …

You’ve heard of Chirality before haven’t you? Chirality is the reason for your “gender”; it is the reason (cause) of God’s gender as well.

Ohhh, wait … reality cannot be inherently Chiral (binary) in nature any more than it can be inherently Determined in nature.

Silly me.

Either Causality is True, or Causality is False. It cannot be BOTH or NEITHER simultaneously.

True, but that's not the point. When someone walks out to find their car covered in TP, their angry question "Who did this?" is a justified assumption of causality, but when they accost the first person they see and threaten them with: "Look, I know you did this," that is an unjustified localization of causality. Get the difference? Good.

No, “free will” is a problem of conception. You seemed to concede the point in a previous post. How can your will be “free” if it is actually “random”?

It can't--if your presumption from the beginning is that free will implies randomnness. I agreed with you that many advocates of free will have defined the position negatively in a way that makes no sense, but the reason I think is that they're so afraid of that ugly word "determinism" that they will do anything to avoid it. That's why I recommend breaking down that hackneyed free will/determinism dichotomy: so as to bring the debate back within the realm of reason, where free-willists won't spout absurd gibberish just to avoid the rule of Calvinism.

But you are the one asserting that Causality is False.

Jesus Christ. I mean really. For God-fucking-sake.

You’ve heard of Chirality before haven’t you? Chirality is the reason for your “gender”; it is the reason (cause) of God’s gender as well.

Well, you asked me earlier whether the words that you have written are completely randomn, with no organizing logic whatsoever, and now've you almost convinced me of it.

God (or TLOP if you prefer) doesn’t play dice with reality. You can assert that She does, but unless you can provide some evidence for this belief then I am left to assume you and your brother are simply (superstitious/mystical) religious fanatics.

I still haven't seen you give a non-mystical explanation of the surprising quantum phenomena that caused Einstein to coin that phrase in the first place. All of your explanations are appeals to causality, which you seem to take as an axiom. Your justifications for doing so seem to be on aesthetic grounds rather than scientific grounds (i.e. you don't like what results when causality is violated). Now, I'm not saying I do like what results when causality is violated, nor that it necessarily is, but I'm the first to admit that I don't understand physics well enough to know that it's all a bunch of crap.

My point is, I don't think either I or my brother is trying to positively assert that God plays dice with reality, we're simply unconvinced by your argument to the contrary.

With that in mind:

Yes. I am asserting that if the universe is fundamentally “random” then there is no way for it to appear fundamentally non-random (determined).

As with all such things, there's no good way to address this except by analogy, so here's one: to the extent that it's relevant to sporting events, compulsive gamblers and the like, a coin toss or the roll of a die is "random". However, that doesn't mean causality breaks down at all levels of the game, bet or whatever's going on that involved the tossed coin or the rolled die. It was in this sort of vein that I made the comment you were responding to above; just because, say, there might be a probabalistic component to some aspect of reality (rather than a strict determinism) doesn't seem, to me, to mitigate completely against all forms of causality at all levels. Perhaps more accurate would be a poker analogy: just because cards drawn from a well-shuffled deck will be, for all intents and purposes, random (I know, I know, the position of each card is determined by it's original location in the deck, the movements of the dealer's hands, etc. etc., but, from the player's perspective, the resultant effect, assuming, of course, the dealer isn't incompetent, is functionally equivalent to the cards being distributed randomly) doesn't mean that everybody at a poker table has an equal chance of winning. Good players will tend to beat bad players, even though, on any given hand, the bad player is just as likely as the good player to have unbeatable cards.

Anyway, the analogy drags on, but the point is that I don't see how allowing in some degree of probabalistic behavior necessarily destroys all semblances of causality.

Of course, you're right that if the universe is "fundamentally random", then it won't appear "fundamentally non-random" (modulo what you mean by "fundamentally"), but that's not what I was talking about; what I was saying was more along the lines of: "If things are a little random, why does that necessarily mean that nothing can be even slightly non-random?"

Either Causality is True, or Causality is False. It cannot be BOTH or NEITHER simultaneously.

The law of the excluded middle is slippery business, in my opinion.

Your justifications for doing so seem to be on aesthetic grounds rather than scientific grounds

He claims to be using logic (which is even plausible, given that, as I have pointed out before, one of the great weaknesses of logic is that it cannot evaluate the premises of an argument, no matter absurd or far-fetched), but I don't think he has even made any pretenses to empiricism (for better or worse).

I'll go one further. Serpent, no matter what issue we start on, when you join in we inevitably devolve on the only three issues you seem to care about, or even the only three opinions you ever express: you believe that the universe is idealistic rather than materialistic, objective rather than subjective, and determined rather than undetermined. As for the first issue, I neither agree nor disagree with you, but then again I think the issue is pretty pointless anyway. You think that the fact that chemical reactions in the brain seem to be the source of consciousness indicates that those reactions, or rather the laws governing their interactions, must therefore themselves be governed by a higher consciousness, given that nothing can create something greater than itself. That may be true, but is only convincing if your assumption is that there is such a thing as consciousness--it is equally plausible to suppose based on that that consciousness is illusory, that there is no such thing as meta-awareness of reality. This would seem particularly likely given your belief in determinism, since on that basis presumably every thought can be traced to a discrete physical cause. But whatever, as I said I think the issue is pretty irrelevant, since it's just an issue of description. As for the second point, given your definition of objective, "Information perceived the same by all observers," it's self-refuing: I don't even need to make an argument, simply by disagreeing I prove my point. Of course I could be lying, but then again everyone who has ever disagreed with you about the nature of reality or anything within it would also have to be lying, which I don't think even you would claim. As for the third point, I tend to agree with you about causality, but given that everything in reality that we perceive is (when it is perceived) is in a state of existence rather than a state of being caused, I would say that causality is ultimately just a huge assumption. Furthermore, even if causality is true, I would say that causality and determinism are mutually exclusive (either that or Time doesn't exist). Since causes and effects seem to unravel over the course of time, to be able to predict or determine a future event with certainty means that the future event which will cause it is not really the cause of it, which might be alright except that the only reasonable basis for believing in cause and effect is an observation of causes and effects unfolding over the course of time. So if these are not the true causes, then cause and effect does not really exist, or at least does not exist as we understand it.

Curt: Has it occured to you that the very fact that we disagree about these supposed moral laws evidently proves that they are not objective, i.e. "perceived the same by all observers," as you put it?

So if one of us disagreed that 2 + 2 = 4 that would mean that 2 + 2 = 4 was subjective in reality?

I would have thought it simply meant one of us was insane in reality?

The Serpent: Either Causality is True, or Causality is False. It cannot be BOTH or NEITHER simultaneously.

The Cut: True, but that's not the point. When someone walks out to find their car covered in TP, their angry question "Who did this?" is a justified assumption of causality, but when they accost the first person they see and threaten them with: "Look, I know you did this," that is an unjustified localization of causality. Get the difference? Good.

Reality is made of information (not “matter” per sae). A single Individual with Incomplete information (not knowing who TPed your car) does not prove that the universe is fundamentally “random”. It only proves that Individual isn’t Omniscient. Do you comprehend the difference between Omniscience and Determinism (Causality)?

But then again I don’t study in Paris … perhaps I am not as “enlightened” (Omniscient)?

The Serpent: … “free will” is a problem of conception. You seemed to concede the point in a previous post. [Besides] How can your will be “free” if it is actually “random”?

The Cut: It can't--if your presumption from the beginning is that free will implies randomness. I agreed with you that many advocates of free will have defined the position negatively in a way that makes no sense, but the reason I think is that they're so afraid of that ugly word "determinism" that they will do anything to avoid it.

Ohh, so you do comprehend it?

The Cut: That's why I recommend breaking down that hackneyed free will/determinism dichotomy: so as to bring the debate back within the realm of reason, where free-willists won't spout absurd gibberish just to avoid the rule of Calvinism.

Calvinism … ? Be careful Atheist. We don’t want your friends branding you as a heretic now … do we?

The Serpent: you are the one asserting that Causality is False.

The Cut: Jesus Christ. I mean really. For God-fucking-sake.

I’m not sure I comprehend this response? I thought you didn’t believe in a deity much less “Jesus Christ”, or “God”?

If you assert that Causality is false then you are a mystic who believes that events occur “randomly”, magically, and without (prior) Cause (without an underlying logical mechanic). Conversely if you assert that Causality is True then you concede all of your actions have been programmed, and you have no more (real) “free will” then any other computer algorithm.

Curt: [Chirality & “Gender”…] Well, you asked me earlier whether the words that you have written are completely random, with no organizing logic whatsoever, and now've you almost convinced me of it.

Speaking of “random” why do you tend to add and extra “n” and the end of that word?

So do you deny that reality is fundamentally Chiral?

I suppose that if Causality is False it would be impossible to say for certain(objectively)???

The Serpent: God (or TLOP if you prefer) doesn’t play dice with reality. You can assert that She does, but unless you can provide some evidence for this belief then I am left to assume you and your brother are simply (superstitious/mystical) religious fanatics.

The Shank: I still haven't seen you give a non-mystical explanation of the surprising quantum phenomena that caused Einstein to coin that phrase in the first place.

What surprising phenomena?

The “surprising phenomena” only seems to occur when no one is actually observing. And if no one is actually observing then how do you know what the hell is happening?

You mean your ‘magic” only occurs when no one looks? That’s you “evidence”?

Because as soon as I put a detector at either of the slits (enabling me to observe), then those sub-atomic particles stop behaving so “magically”.

Besides you clearly don’t comprehend the “uncertainty principle” if you are asserting that it implies there is no underlying logical process occurring. The Uncertainty principle only implies that you cannot observe the process. It does not claim or assert that there is no process.

And the fact that Heisenberg was wrong also comes in to play, because as it stands right now the particles only appear “uncertain” into the Future. Scientists have been able to obtain position and velocity observations far below the Heisenberg limit when they observe images of particle collisions that have already occurred (in the past). According to Heisenberg that shouldn’t have been possible.

The Shank: All of your explanations are appeals to causality, which you seem to take as an axiom.

Yes, because if Causality is not True then you have embraced Mysticism (i.e. abandoned Logic and Objectivity), and once you have abandoned Logic and Objectivity then nothing is logical or objective ever again.

The Shank: Your justifications for doing so seem to be on aesthetic grounds rather than scientific grounds (i.e. you don't like what results when causality is violated).

You mean mysticism, irrationality, fear, loathing, pessimism, cynicism, paranoia, narcissism, “free will” and the denial of consequence for action?

Yes, yes … I think you have that right.

The Shank: Now, I'm not saying I do like what results when causality is violated, nor that it necessarily is, but I'm the first to admit that I don't understand physics well enough to know that it's all a bunch of crap.

Do you understand Islam enough to know that it is a “bunch of crap”? How about Catholicism? So why is it that you have such a hard time perceiving that Atheism (i.e. Materialism) is all a bunch of crap?

Maybe you are just predisposed (Fated, pre-Destined) towards Atheism (evil)?

Maybe you are Destined (preordained) for a cruel Fate and there is nothing you can do to stop it?

… then again, maybe you do have a magic power after all … ?

Shonk: My point is, I don't think either I or my brother is trying to positively assert that God plays dice with reality, we're simply unconvinced by your argument to the contrary.

It is very simple:

If you assert Causality is True then you deny the reality of Mysticism.

Mysticism = the denial of Causality = the belief that reality is fundamentally “random” and events occur magically and with prior (logical) cause = Supernaturalism

Conversely if you deny Causality then it is exactly the same as embracing Mysticism.

Causality = The denial of Mysticism = the belief that reality is fundamentally ordered, objective, logical, non-random, non-magical = The belief that all events and occurrences are the inevitable result of an underlying logical process or mechanic (a system) = Determinism = Fatalism

The Serpent: Yes. I am asserting that if the universe is fundamentally “random” then there is no way for it to appear fundamentally non-random (determined).

Shonk: As with all such things, there's no good way to address this except by analogy, so here's one: to the extent that it's relevant to sporting events, compulsive gamblers and the like, a coin toss or the roll of a die is "random". However, that doesn't mean causality breaks down at all levels of the game, bet or whatever's going on that involved the tossed coin or the rolled die. It was in this sort of vein that I made the comment you were responding to above; just because, say, there might be a probabalistic component to some aspect of reality (rather than a strict determinism) doesn't seem, to me, to mitigate completely against all forms of causality at all levels. Perhaps more accurate would be a poker analogy: just because cards drawn from a well-shuffled deck will be, for all intents and purposes, random (I know, I know, the position of each card is determined by it's original location in the deck, the movements of the dealer's hands, etc. etc., but, from the player's perspective, the resultant effect, assuming, of course, the dealer isn't incompetent, is functionally equivalent to the cards being distributed randomly) doesn't mean that everybody at a poker table has an equal chance of winning. Good players will tend to beat bad players, even though, on any given hand, the bad player is just as likely as the good player to have unbeatable cards.

So is a game of chess “random”, or determined? I would say that it is determined, and it is determined ultimately by 2 factors:

1) The rules (laws) of chess (like TLOP).
2) and, the players (gravitons) comprehension of those rules.

Shonk: Anyway, the analogy drags on, but the point is that I don't see how allowing in some degree of probabilistic behavior necessarily destroys all semblances of causality.

It doesn’t. Probability is an algorithm (an equation).

Look, when you flip a coin the result isn’t “random”. In this case what “random” really means is that you were too lazy to uncover all of the variables involved in determining the result in advance. But if you knew all of those variables and if you knew the proper equation, then I submit you could accurately predict whether the coin would land HEADS up or TAILS up before it was flipped.

Hell, I have seen a machine which can flip a coin and cause it to always land HEADS up, or always land TAILS up (depending upon how you set it).

You are confusing Omniscience (volume of information at hand) with randomness. Not having complete information does not imply that complete information doesn’t exist. I mean, if that were true then Solipsism would have to be True.

shonk: Of course, you're right that if the universe is "fundamentally random", then it won't appear "fundamentally non-random" (modulo what you mean by "fundamentally"), but that's not what I was talking about; what I was saying was more along the lines of: "If things are a little random, why does that necessarily mean that nothing can be even slightly non-random?"

Explain how something truly random could be transformed into something non-random? [Explain how something non-alive becomes something which is alive?]

Essentially what you are trying to assert is that it is possible that machines make minds. (randomness makes determinism)

But the fact is … minds make machines. (determinism makes (the appearance of) randomness)

The Serpent: Either Causality is True, or Causality is False. It cannot be BOTH or NEITHER simultaneously.

Shonk: The law of the excluded middle is slippery business, in my opinion.

All I am saying is, that in Logic (and therefore in Causality) a thing (a base meme(a premise or axiom)) is either True, or it is False. It cannot be BOTH True and False Simultaneously, and it cannot be NEITHER True or False Simultaneously.

In Mysticism the opposite is True. According to Mysticism it is possible for a premise to by BOTH True and False simultaneously, conversely it is possible for a premise to be NEITHER True or False simultaneously.

Curt: He claims to be using logic (which is even plausible, given that, as I have pointed out before, one of the great weaknesses of logic is that it cannot evaluate the premises of an argument, no matter absurd or far-fetched) …

All my premises pass the logic test. It is your premise that denies logic (Causality) as an “axiom” (exercise in Faith) that is incomprehensible in my estimation.

Curt: … but I don't think he has even made any pretenses to empiricism (for better or worse).

Unfortunately empiricism is impossible at the moment because based on your current beliefs I only exist as a figment of your imagination.

If you had a logical proof that this was not the case then I could provide you with some undeniable empirical results.

As it stands now, The Goddess is merely a figment of my imagination, just as I am merely a figment of your imagination.

But be careful, because if you ever do manage to prove that I genuinely exist, my first act is going to be to use your same proof to empirically demonstrate that my Goddess exists as well.

So if one of us disagreed that 2 + 2 = 4 that would mean that 2 + 2 = 4 was subjective in reality?

I would have thought it simply meant one of us was insane in reality?

That is irrelevant in this case. By defining objectivity in this way you can't get out of that trap. It doesn't matter if I'm insane or if you're insane, because your definition of objectivity is that upon which EVERYONE agrees, insane or not.

Reality is made of information (not “matter” per sae). A single Individual with Incomplete information (not knowing who TPed your car) does not prove that the universe is fundamentally “random”. It only proves that Individual isn’t Omniscient.

Which would seem to indicate that that Individual ought to be especially wary and careful about making assumptions about what caused what.

So do you deny that reality is fundamentally Chiral?

I don't have the faintest idea what that question is even supposed to mean.

All my premises pass the logic test.

Even if that were true, you're valuing logic way too highly. If the two premises of your argument are that night is day and up is down, then pretty much any conclusions you derive logically from that are going to be nonsesne, logical or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if your logic is impeccable.

All I am saying is, that in Logic (and therefore in Causality) a thing (a base meme(a premise or axiom)) is either True, or it is False. It cannot be BOTH True and False Simultaneously, and it cannot be NEITHER True or False Simultaneously.

Which is all and well and good, but it doesn't prove the first thing about reality. The reason math and logic are called the abstract sciences is because they are inherently self-limiting and they are emphatically not meant as descriptions of reality. You have to concede that even if you believe that reality is all information, because it's still infinitely complex information, and you simply cannot indulge in the luxury which logicians can, which is of assuming the validity of their premises.

Curt: [Insanity …]That is irrelevant in this case. By defining objectivity in this way you can't get out of that trap. It doesn't matter if I'm insane or if you're insane, because your definition of objectivity is that upon which EVERYONE agrees, insane or not.

Well perhaps this is why there were originally three sentient entities in the garden instead of only two? Two out of the three could objectively agree on who was lucid, and who was insane.

Of course if you are having a conversation with “God” and God tells you something that sounds “insane” … well, let’s just say that God can’t be the one who’s insane (in reality) because God cannot be insane (in reality) by definition.

Curt: Which would seem to indicate that that Individual ought to be especially wary and careful about making assumptions about what caused what.

Isn’t that also an assumption? (and thereby faulty by your own “logic”?)

Why is ascribing properties to “the matter” that you cannot observe or confirm more parsimonious (and “logical”) in your estimation than not making those (unnecessary, unverifiable) assumptions?

Curt: [Reality is fundamentally Chiral …] I don't have the faintest idea what that question is even supposed to mean.

The fundamental laws of physics are chiral. When it comes to spin the universe is asymmetric. And gender is one of the manifestations of spin.

Curt: [The “Logic test” …]Even if that were true, you're valuing logic way too highly.

Logic = is comprehensible (not self-contradictory (consistent and parsimonious))

Curt: If the two premises of your argument are that night is day and up is down, then pretty much any conclusions you derive logically from that are going to be nonsense, logical or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if your logic is impeccable.

The examples you use are obviously contradictory (inconsistent).

Of course since you have been programmed to believe that reality is subjective, and True and False have no inherent meaning, perhaps you don’t perceive what I am talking about?

Curt: I'll go one further. Serpent, no matter what issue we start on, when you join in we inevitably devolve on the only three issues you seem to care about, or even the only three opinions you ever express: you believe [1] that the universe is idealistic rather than materialistic …

True, but that depends upon your definitions of the terms “Idealism” (I prefer “Informationalism”) and “Materialism” (i.e. Atheism”).

You seem convinced that Atheism is not just another dogmatic faith based religion. You seem convinced that it is Objective Truth – the “one True Faith” … so to speak. That’s what every religious fanatic claims.

I’d assert that Consistency and Parsimony (Logic/Objectivity/Causality) are the hallmarks of Truth (in reality).

Curt: … you believe [that the universe is] [2] objective rather than subjective, and [3] determined rather than undetermined.

1, 2, and 3 are really just restatements of the say assertion – namely that Reality is objective and logical, resulting in Causality. Events do not occur “randomly” and “without reason” by forces of “magic”. They happen because of a logical sequence of Cause and Effect. A logical process, a traceable, comprehensible underlying mechanic.

Just like 2 + 2 = 4. There is nothing supernatural about it.

Well, at least not if you comprehend it. I’m sure that 2 + 2 = 4 (or guns or airplanes) are “magical” if you are a dog or a cat. (i.e. a thing (a meme) is only “magic” when you do not comprehend it’s inner workings(underlying mechanic)).

Curt: As for the first issue, I neither agree nor disagree with you, but then again I think the issue is pretty pointless anyway. You think that the fact that chemical reactions in the brain seem to be the source of consciousness indicates that those reactions, or rather the laws governing their interactions, must therefore themselves be governed by a higher consciousness, given that nothing can create something greater than itself. That may be true, but is only convincing if your assumption is that there is such a thing as consciousness--it is equally plausible to suppose based on that that consciousness is illusory, that there is no such thing as meta-awareness of reality. This would seem particularly likely given your belief in determinism, since on that basis presumably every thought can be traced to a discrete physical cause. But whatever, as I said I think the issue is pretty irrelevant, since it's just an issue of description.

Consciousness exists, it’s your precious “matter” that is the illusion.

Look, I was having a conversation with your CAR the other day. Your CAR is an Atheist, he doesn’t believe that YOU (the driver) exist as a conscious entity. Your CAR explained to me that he has “free will”, and it is his “free will” that determines his actions (his destination, velocity , direction) not some mythical supernatural non-existent “Driver”. How can the “Driver” being controlling CAR’s actions when obviously the CAR is controlling his own actions?

So in the same way the thing controlling (driving) YOU is not conscious (i.e. TLOP (or “God”)) there is no way that the thing controlling your CAR is conscious.

By the same “logic” you use to conclude that TLOP is less conscious than you I can demonstrate that YOU must be less conscious than your CAR.

Curt: As for the second point, given your definition of objective, "Information perceived the same by all observers," it's self-refuting: I don't even need to make an argument, simply by disagreeing I prove my point.

If 2 apples + 2 apples didn’t equal 4 apples for you, you may have a point. Is that what you are claiming?

Otherwise I think it is more accurate to say that you have not yet perceived (received) the information I am attempting to convey (transmit). Your redundancy checking subroutines (I/O channels) are malfunctioning.

Curt: Of course I could be lying …

Which would imply you had mutated (evolved) and that you were now objectively Evil (or trending in that direction).

Curt: but then again everyone who has ever disagreed with you about the nature of reality or anything within it would also have to be lying, which I don't think even you would claim.

Ohh, I’ve seen the final (successful) result (output) of the algorithm I transmit.

Curt: As for the third point, I tend to agree with you about causality, but given that everything in reality that we perceive is (when it is perceived) is in a state of existence rather than a state of being caused, I would say that causality is ultimately just a huge assumption.

You lost me there. It is a huge assumption if you assume that Solipsism is True, but oddly if you assume Causality it is rather impossible for Solipsism to be True.

I suppose this fact is merely the result of another “subjective magical coincidence” … or would you say it is more accurately described as a “subjective supernatural accident”?

Curt: Furthermore, even if causality is true, I would say that causality and determinism are mutually exclusive (either that or Time doesn't exist).

Okay Time … I knew it was coming … I avoid talking about it as much as possible, because that’s when people starting acting flaky.

In what way does Time exist without the perception of a Sequence?

In other words, imagine that there is another universe exactly like ours, same kind of stars, same kind of planets, same kind of “matter”, same basic laws of physics, only there are no conscious entities anywhere in this other universe.

Now, I ask you Mr. Curt … is it possible that this other universe genuinely exist in reality, or does it only exist in our imaginations?

How can you assert that it can exist (in reality) if there is no possible way for you to observe it or detect it (even in theory)?

Did Time exist before the “big bang”? Most physicists claim the answer is NO. If that is the case, then how long did the “timeless period” last for? Did it last a very short time (like say, zero Time)? … or did the “timeless period” last a very long time (like an eternity)?

If the “timeless period” lasted zero time then isn’t that the same as saying there was never a “timeless period”? And if the “timeless period” lasted any amount of Time greater than zero, then isn’t that the same as claiming that there was never a timeless period?

You asked if I believed that Consciousness was real or an illusion. I say that your consciousness is nothing more than Self Aware Time. You are Time that perceives itself (perceiving) – a Graviton.

Gravity and Time are intimately related … well at least if reality is Objective they are.

Curt: Since causes and effects seem to unravel over the course of time, to be able to predict or determine a future event with certainty means that the future event which will cause it is not really the cause of it, which might be alright except that the only reasonable basis for believing in cause and effect is an observation of causes and effects unfolding over the course of time. So if these are not the true causes, then cause and effect does not really exist, or at least does not exist as we understand it.

It is not possible to comprehend the entire (Absolute) sequence without being an Absolute consciousness (i.e. the one and only Solipsist). But it is definitely possible to fully comprehend stretches of the Absolute sequence, and it is definitely possible to fully comprehend complete stretches of the many Objective sequences.

Your past doesn’t change. It is fixed (determined).

The same is True for your future, you just haven’t perceived it yet.

What surprising phenomena?

Well, for example, the fact that particles apparently act as wavefunctions. The wavefunctions/probability distributions are certainly deterministic, in the sense that you can figure out how they will change with time, but when you actually go to measure and see where the particle "really" is, it's probabalistic. That is, you know where the particle will probably be, but you can't, even in principle, know for sure.

Or, for example, Bell's work on EPR, which (I'm told) shows that Einstein's hidden variable doesn't exist.

Because as soon as I put a detector at either of the slits (enabling me to observe), then those sub-atomic particles stop behaving so “magically”.

In that they behave like waves, sure.

Besides you clearly don’t comprehend the “uncertainty principle” if you are asserting that it implies there is no underlying logical process occurring. The Uncertainty principle only implies that you cannot observe the process. It does not claim or assert that there is no process.

Never said it did. However, it does say that we can't know what the process is, or even if it exists. So on what grounds do you assert that it does? (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying there's no particularly good reason for preferring one alternative over the other, at least within this context)

And the fact that Heisenberg was wrong also comes in to play, because as it stands right now the particles only appear “uncertain” into the Future. Scientists have been able to obtain position and velocity observations far below the Heisenberg limit when they observe images of particle collisions that have already occurred (in the past). According to Heisenberg that shouldn’t have been possible.

Citation?

Yes, because if Causality is not True then you have embraced Mysticism (i.e. abandoned Logic and Objectivity), and once you have abandoned Logic and Objectivity then nothing is logical or objective ever again.

Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that mysticism is false.

Do you understand Islam enough to know that it is a “bunch of crap”? How about Catholicism?

No and no. I haven't even read the Koran all the way through, so I definitely don't know enough about Islam to be able to say that it's crap. I have read the Bible, but, since Catholicism is based as much on the writings of the church fathers as on the Bible and I haven't read most of them, I wouldn't say I know enough about Catholicism to definitively call it crap, either.

So why is it that you have such a hard time perceiving that Atheism (i.e. Materialism) is all a bunch of crap?

Well, I'm no more an atheist than I am Islamic, so I guess it stands to reason that I have just as hard a time perceiving atheism to be crap as I do perceiving Islam to be crap.

Maybe you are just predisposed (Fated, pre-Destined) towards Atheism (evil)?

And maybe you are just fated to annoy me.

It is very simple:

If you assert Causality is True then you deny the reality of Mysticism.

Mysticism = the denial of Causality = the belief that reality is fundamentally “random” and events occur magically and with prior (logical) cause = Supernaturalism

Conversely if you deny Causality then it is exactly the same as embracing Mysticism.

Causality = The denial of Mysticism = the belief that reality is fundamentally ordered, objective, logical, non-random, non-magical = The belief that all events and occurrences are the inevitable result of an underlying logical process or mechanic (a system) = Determinism = Fatalism

Nice definitions. You've defined causality as (NOT mysticism) and mysticism as (NOT causality). I'm sure that's useful.

It doesn’t. Probability is an algorithm (an equation).

If something's behavior is probabalistic, then there's necessarily a random component involved. The probability distribution itself can be deterministic while the behavior is still probabalistic.

Look, when you flip a coin the result isn’t “random”. In this case what “random” really means is that you were too lazy to uncover all of the variables involved in determining the result in advance. But if you knew all of those variables and if you knew the proper equation, then I submit you could accurately predict whether the coin would land HEADS up or TAILS up before it was flipped.

I think you miss the point of my analogy. I'm not asserting that flipping a coin or dealing a deck of cards is actually random. I'm merely saying that, given the constraints on, say, the poker players' perceptive capabilities (and that the dealer isn't cheating), the distribution of cards within a well-shuffled deck is functionally random. And yet, the results of a poker tournament aren't random (and this non-randomness has nothing to do with the fact that shuffling cards isn't really random).

You are confusing Omniscience (volume of information at hand) with randomness. Not having complete information does not imply that complete information doesn’t exist.

Of course not. Although what it does mean is that if you don't have complete information, you cannot know if complete information exists or not. Which is, I think, why I have such a hard time understanding on what grounds you so positively assert that complete information does exist.

Look, in a way I think our outlooks are similar (or perhaps dual). Fundamentally, I think that in order to be able to answer any question, one has to be able to answer every question. You seem to want to extrapolate the answers to every question from the answer to a particular question.

Explain how something truly random could be transformed into something non-random? [Explain how something non-alive becomes something which is alive?]

Well, I could try, but first I need to know whether you think hydrogen atoms are alive.

Essentially what you are trying to assert is that it is possible that machines make minds. (randomness makes determinism)

But the fact is … minds make machines. (determinism makes (the appearance of) randomness)

Damn...the science fiction genre is in for a hell of a shock.

All I am saying is, that in Logic (and therefore in Causality) a thing (a base meme(a premise or axiom)) is either True, or it is False. It cannot be BOTH True and False Simultaneously, and it cannot be NEITHER True or False Simultaneously.

I'm not contradicting that. I'm just suggesting that one has to be careful with the law of the excluded middle. Terms have to be defined very precisely, and even then it's easy to mess things up.

Furthermore, a thing can be mostly true while still being false, whereas it seems to me that in many cases you entirely reject things which are mostly true simply because they are technically false, which is, as I said, a dangerous thing to do.

You’ve heard of Chirality before haven’t you? Chirality is the reason for your “gender”; it is the reason (cause) of God’s gender as well.

Isn't that a pretty solipsistic thing to say?

Well perhaps this is why there were originally three sentient entities in the garden instead of only two? Two out of the three could objectively agree on who was lucid, and who was insane.

So truth is determined by consensus?

The fundamental laws of physics are chiral. When it comes to spin the universe is asymmetric. And gender is one of the manifestations of spin.

I hope you're not basing this assertion on the fact that we haven't observed any right-handed neutrinos.

Logic = is comprehensible (not self-contradictory (consistent and parsimonious))

Logic also = incomplete, so I'm not sure I see your point.

The examples you use are obviously contradictory (inconsistent).

So is your assertion that solipsism is both true and false.

You seem convinced that Atheism is not just another dogmatic faith based religion.

Aside from not being true (Curt perceives perfectly well that atheism is dogmatic), this is ironic given that you seem not to be able to perceive that your own beliefs are faith-based.

Well, at least not if you comprehend it. I’m sure that 2 + 2 = 4 (or guns or airplanes) are “magical” if you are a dog or a cat. (i.e. a thing (a meme) is only “magic” when you do not comprehend it’s inner workings(underlying mechanic)).

I'm curious if you comprehend 2+2=4. What is "2", other than a figment of your imagination?

Look, I was having a conversation with your CAR the other day.

Except that you weren't. Counterfactuals are fun, but not as much fun as you seem to think they are.

If the “timeless period” lasted zero time then isn’t that the same as saying there was never a “timeless period”? And if the “timeless period” lasted any amount of Time greater than zero, then isn’t that the same as claiming that there was never a timeless period?

The whole point of something being a "timeless period" is that asking how long it lasted is a null question. Like asking a man who's not married "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Gravity and Time are intimately related … well at least if reality is Objective they are.

And I suppose you understand gravity?

Well perhaps this is why there were originally three sentient entities in the garden instead of only two? Two out of the three could objectively agree on who was lucid, and who was insane.

Of course if you are having a conversation with “God” and God tells you something that sounds “insane” … well, let’s just say that God can’t be the one who’s insane (in reality) because God cannot be insane (in reality) by definition.

You can redefine objective as "however God perceives things" if you want to, but you could at least have the balls to admit that you are doing so.

Curt: Which would seem to indicate that that Individual ought to be especially wary and careful about making assumptions about what caused what.

Isn’t that also an assumption? (and thereby faulty by your own “logic”?)

If it's a faulty assumption then it's your faullty assumption, since you claimed that individuals are non-omniscient, and incomplete comprehension of cause-and-effect would seem to be a property of non-omniscience.

Curt: If the two premises of your argument are that night is day and up is down, then pretty much any conclusions you derive logically from that are going to be nonsense, logical or not, in fact ESPECIALLY if your logic is impeccable.

The examples you use are obviously contradictory (inconsistent).

That may be, but establishing that would require a different logical premise in which the properties of night, day, etc. are the conclusions rather than the premises of the argument. The point being, logic is never a self-sufficient system, so the verisimilitude, as opposed to the validity, of your conclusions, will always depend on that of your premises, which in turn depend on a previous logical argument, or are simply assumed (that's why my brother noted that logic is incomplete). Take another example which doesn't have any apparent linguistic antitheses: the premises are "Jesus was the only man resurrected" and "the Messiah will be the only man who is resurrected," therefore, "Jesus is the Messiah." Convinced?

You seem convinced that Atheism is not just another dogmatic faith based religion. You seem convinced that it is Objective Truth – the “one True Faith” … so to speak. That’s what every religious fanatic claims.

Wrong. I DO think atheism is just another dogmatic religion. That's why I am not an atheist. And by the way, if your definition of a religious fanatic is someone who is convinced that his beliefs are Objective Truth, then how exactly are you not one?

1, 2, and 3 are really just restatements of the say assertion – namely that Reality is objective and logical, resulting in Causality.

Well, I was going to give you credit for having three ideas in your head, but if you prefer one, than consider it done.

Look, I was having a conversation with your CAR the other day...

So are you saying that the information that you receive from "God" is about as comprehensible to you as your words would be to your car if you started trying to explain yourself to it? Furthermore, does it occur to you that if you really believe that the relationship between human individuals and "God" is equivalent to the relationship between us and our cars, then talking about consciousness as a shared fundamental property of the universe is about as meaningful as talking about the level of consciousness you share with your car?
I think it is more accurate to say that you have not yet perceived (received) the information I am attempting to convey (transmit).

So in other words you think it's impossible for two people to disagree. Is that why you've been repeating yourself incessantly for the last six months?

You asked if I believed that Consciousness was real or an illusion. I say that your consciousness is nothing more than Self Aware Time. You are Time that perceives itself (perceiving) – a Graviton.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to say that Time is a factor of perception, like colors? I'm not quite sure why you're insisting on that point, since in that case, much like colors, Time exists solely in the mind of the perceiver. That has to be true even if you believe that reality is objective, informational, blah, blah, blah, because, as you yourself admitted, you are a non-omniscient perceiver, and hence your perception is fallible (or, if you prefer, incomplete).

Furthermore, there seems to be something sort of malevolent about your constant harping on determinism vs. non-determinism. I mean, the issue can only have any meaningful relevance if you believe that the universe is non-deterministic, whereas the only interest you, as a determinist, can have in establishing the issue one way or another must be forcing people to waste away their hours lamenting a past and a future over which they have no control. Since in your mind you are programmed by some superior consciousness, the root of all causality, this whole argument from your perspective must an attempt on the part of that creator to subordinate us, the created entities, absolutely. If the universe is deterministic, at any given instant we have, in an atemporal sense, absolute validity and power because we exist, whereas that which caused us no longer exists, and hence is nothing. It is only over the course of time that the power of the cause re-establishes itself. Therefore, if the universe is determined, then we should banish all consideration of the future and past and bask in the collapsing second in which we have pure existential validity. Note that this is exactly the same way that we should behave if we have total freedom, because in that case too the importance lies in total existence within the present, since neither the past nor the future ultimately have any decisive bearing over how we act. Therefore, the distinction makes no difference, because either possibility mitigates in favor of a similar course of action. Now, of course in my opinion that whole long ramble is a load of bullshit. But I might remind you that it's YOUR bullshit, because you're the one insisting on that stupid, archaic free-will/determinism dichotomy that I recommended throwing out the window.

My final point: throughout this debate you have disingenuously tried to confute skepticism with solipsism and atheism (you might as well accuse us of nihilism while you're at it). I don't know whether you do this demagogically or because of some genuine mental block, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. I've never accepted your metaphyisical claims but I've never rejected them either. Now I would be disingenuous if I did not concede that skepticism is a form of counter-assertion; in criticizing your belief in the existence of objective moral laws, for example, I've made use of subjectivist arguments, even if I've never accepted their conclusions. So skepticism is not the absence of assumptions and beliefs, but it is an attempt to remain equidistant from them. Skepticism has never really found an intellectual home; many people seem to think that it is the underlying tendency of science, but they're wrong; science gives skepticism it's room to play, but only within the realm of various unsubstantiated assumptions about the material, inanimate character of the universe. Beliefs are inevitable, can't avoid them; so is doubt, and if you don't find a proper way to honor both of them then you'll be miserable. That's what this debate is about, really: you may think it's about objectivity or determinism or fatalism or logic, but those are just pretences: it's really about intellectual disposition. The only real disagreement I've had with you this whole time is the fact that your beliefs ostracize doubt and deny the possibility of error.

Curt: [Surprising Phenomena … ] Well, for example, the fact that particles apparently act as wavefunctions. The wavefunctions/probability distributions are certainly deterministic, in the sense that you can figure out how they will change with time, but when you actually go to measure and see where the particle "really" is, it's probabalistic. That is, you know where the particle will probably be, but you can't, even in principle, know for sure.

1) The fact that you cannot observe the underlying logical mechanic does not imply that there is no underlying mechanic. It only implies what it implies – that you cannot observe it. (God doesn’t play dice only when you aren’t watching).

2) As I have pointed out to you on at least two previous occasions, recent experiments have determined BOTH position and velocity of quantum particles at levels far below what Heisenberg claimed were possible.

Curt: Or, for example, Bell's work on EPR, which (I'm told) shows that Einstein's hidden variable doesn't exist.

Bell was a fanatical materialist. He relied on initial assumptions (axioms, premises/ base memes) that were fatally flawed, and he refused to recognize this fact.

The EPR paradox implies that under certain circumstances it is possible for information (is that the same as “matter”?) to travel faster than the speed of light.

According to Einstein was it possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light?

I’m going to respond to the rest, but it won’t be until a bit later …

The fact that you cannot observe the underlying logical mechanic does not imply that there is no underlying mechanic.

Which I said at least twice in the comment you're responding to. However, the fact that you cannot observe an underlying mechanic isn't, as you seem to think, a good reason for believing there is an underlying mechanic.

As I have pointed out to you on at least two previous occasions, recent experiments have determined BOTH position and velocity of quantum particles at levels far below what Heisenberg claimed were possible.

And I've asked you at least once for a citation.

According to Einstein was it possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light?

Actually, now that you mention it, I'm not entirely sure why EPR is supposed to contradict relativity in the first place. However, it's not, precisely speaking, the "information travelling faster than light" bit that I was referring to as a "surprising phenomenon". After all, if someone tosses a red ball and a white ball in opposite directions so that two different people catch them, then the person catching the red ball knows the other person's ball is white, even if light hasn't had time to travel from one person to the other. Nobody thinks this is a problem.

Bell was a fanatical materialist. He relied on initial assumptions (axioms, premises/ base memes) that were fatally flawed, and he refused to recognize this fact.

The point isn't what Bell's shortcomings may or may not have been. The point is that his conclusion seems to be upheld by the experimental evidence (and yes, I'm aware that the evidence isn't completely definitive, only strongly suggestive; time will tell, I suppose).