-
It's like answering a loaded question. If it's a moral act, you can argue it doesn't qualify as stealing, it is only taking. Saying "stealing isn't immoral" already sounds crazy, because it loads the act being done with a moral judgement ("stealing") before it is evaluated logically.
-
It is only a small and subtle error, not worth spending a lot of time. Nobody who is rational argues with a rock, and the reason we seem to give is that a rock is determined to do what it does, and discussion will not affect it. My slightly different view is that the rock is mostly insensitive to sound, we do not expect a rock to be conditioned to have
-
[quote user="Spastic Ink"] Nobody really cares what you agree with. Definitions stand on their own and aren’t subject to agreement, for if they were, all one has to do is recruit more people to agree with a definition than you can recruit to disagree with it. We can certainly payout people and buy definitions if what you say is the case
-
[quote user="batou"]Also, there are several existing interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are deterministic.[/quote] Yes but they all require non-local simultaneity, which requires abandoning relativity or allowing backwards time travel or at least backwards-time communication. In which case causality partially goes away.
-
[quote user="darkskyabove"]Determinism should probably be re-stated as causal relationship: If A (a certain set of conditions exist), then B (a specific outcome will ensue). This definition seems more in keeping with the scientific method: test-ability, falsify-ability, etc. Use of the term determinism contains an anthropomorphic bias, as
-
[quote user="Existing Alternatives"] By that logic, there will be no transfer to the descendants as well. If all contracts cease upon death, all property should go to some sort of free-for-all pile. Fortunately, current precedent based common-law legal system (which is considered to be very much DRO-like or at least DRO-compatible) provides
-
[quote user="Spastic Ink"] “ And to know what is artificial we must know whether it is a byproduct of a living thing ” I don’t see the terms artificial & living as part of the definition of living. Are you reading the same definition on page 1? “ We have a circular reference. ” No, a circular ref is of the
-
[quote user="bbeljefe"] [quote user="RestoringGuy"]What we gain is freedom from privilege.[/quote] In other words, freedom from responsibility. [/quote] Would you elaborate? How are there morals without responsibility?
-
[quote user="bbeljefe"]Thanks for that. But that still leaves the most important (to me, at least) question unanswered.[/quote] What we gain is freedom from privilege. There is no privileged frame of reference, no privileged matter inside our brains, and no privileged deterministic timeline in which we are imprisoned. If we can find a theory
-
I like the analogy of sudoku puzzle. Often interactions are presented as: this my view and if you cannot find flaw with it, then your view is wrong and yours should be replaced with mine. With the sudoku idea, it is a given that a person has drawn conclusions with varying degrees of certainty, and we are all set in our strategic ways. But myself, I