If Americans should be allowed to be homosexuals then why can't they own guns?
If Americans should be allowed to read Bibles then why can't they smoke marijuana?
Live and let live.
Freedom is the American way.
Once we (1) remigrate all ethnic Other and (2) exile the neurotics, this will be possible.
Culture is upstream of politics, but genetics is upstream of culture.
@monarchist @freepatriot I agree that culture (values) are upstream from politics, which is the practical manifestation of our innate values. But genetics I don't agree with. I do not think there is a one to one. I _do_ think that genentics influences values, but to which % I do not know.
So it will be interesting to see the advances in "value engineering" or culture engineering. Once that art has been perfected and fallen into the hands of our current politicians, the world is lost.
"One to one" is a false goal
Try abduction: culture does not exist without the genetic group.
@monarchist @freepatriot Could you elaborate? I think that it is definitely not implausible to argue that, say genetics makes you more empathetic, that in turn, makes you more susceptible to caring for other people and do judge that caring is important, and that in turn, makes it more likely that you will be caught by the shallow and emotional arguments of the socialist.
So from that point of view, I think it makes sense to argue that there is a degree of influence of genetics on values, or
@monarchist @freepatriot how predispoed you are to adopt certain values.
My take is bleak: socialism appeals to abused people and lower-IQ DKE types.
It will always be with us, like overeating, alcoholism, homelessness (insanity), gambling, wife beating, etc.
For there to be good choices, there must be bad choices... and we distinguish ourselves by rising above those.
@monarchist @freepatriot I'm not so sure. I'm certain given our evolutionary pressures that intelligence is increasing. The question is if the welfare state has become too powerful to cancel out that. If it has, then you are right. If it does not enturely cancel out evolution, then there is long term hope.
As for choices, I think that's a false dichotomy. I believe someone can be good to his wife, without even ever thinking about not being so. Upon some thought I think it comes down to how
@monarchist @freepatriot we define good and bad.
If he does not think about it, that's genetic hardwiring, and a form of choice in itself.
He did not oppose the impulse after all.
@monarchist @freepatriot Are you a determinist when it comes to the question of free will?
This is a technical question in philosophy and the answer is that I think free will is gibberish but we have limited choice.
Limited by: genetics/intellect, character, experience, and physical limits (sickness).
INTPs rule the world.
@monarchist @freepatriot Maybe you are a compatibilist? And yes, this is a "technical" philosophical question, since if I know where you stand on this, it is easier for me to understand your reasoning around free will, traits, genetics etc.
More on the side of hard determinism, but I think we are computing machines, so some aspect of semi-arbitrary logical choice is preserved:
@monarchist @freepatriot Got it. It does seem like compatibilism seems to be the fashionable choice these days. I do find it convincing, but due to the fact that it is the "fashionable choice" I also entertain some suspicion towards it. ;)
I think it is a category split. Both "free will" and "absolute determinism" are too polarized. Determinism with some degree of choice is a reasonable position, but it requires accepting determinism as the basis and dialing back free will from a religious definition to a functional one.
@monarchist @freepatriot Well, compatibilism, if I understand it correctly, does that. It accepts determinism, but defines free will as acting without external force or constraint. So as long as you are free to do what you want, within a deterministic world, you have "free will", and for you, _in_ the system, it truly appears as free will, but from at the system level as a whole, everything is governed by laws. I find it a nice way to reconcile the feeling of free will, with determinism.
You nailed it right there: "free will" is a feeling. A sensation. Maybe the sixth sense.
In any case, I think we are calculating machines that make choices. We suffer more or less depending on those. Life is suffering, but no point in putting one's hand on a hot stove!
@monarchist @freepatriot Feeling/perception, yes, I think I agree that it can be described in this way.
Another way to look at it is that this feeling is generated, since the deterministic variables and laws that predict what we do require such massive amount of input, that we can never use them. Since the world is so complex that we cannot "grasp" it deterministically (except for obvious things such as motions of planets etc.) that is what gives rise to the feeling of free will.
Good response to compatibilism. This parallels a lot of the nihilist critique. We do not know how we think, so we just do things, and then conclude it was free will, ex post facto rationalization style. Nietzsche mentioned this in "On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense."
@monarchist @freepatriot Nietzsche is such a gold mine. To me, he always seems to be almost impossibly ahead of his time. For some strange reason, it also seem to me that he is the philosopher that is the least understood, and most often interpreted in the least charitable (or ridiculous) way. =/
I wonder if there are any more modern philosophers of a similar calibre?
That question is tricky, since it seems like history is required to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Wittgenstein is another
@monarchist @freepatriot When it comes to life is suffering, I disagree. I agree that there is suffering _in_ the world, but I disagree that that makes all of life suffering.
I know many people who enjoy life, and I do so myself (except when I have to deal with banks or employees of the public sector, especially the thieves of the tax authority), so this is what I call the fallacy of buddhism.
Life is good! Compared life today with life 1000 years ago, and we have it infinitely better today.
I do not think the phrase is meant as "life is (only) suffering" but more as "life necessarily involves suffering."
@monarchist @freepatriot Well, that would be a charitable interpretation. I am not at all certain that that is what buddhists actually mean when they talk about life as suffering. But suffering now, can lead to good things later, so not all suffering is bad either.
As you surely know... what doesn't kill me makes me stronger! ;)
My guess is that "free will" feels good because it is a rationalization.
Everyone is logical, everyone is making logical and informed decisions, and so whatever result comes about is their intention.
No, in my view... most have no intention. They simply react to fears and desires.
@monarchist @freepatriot I think there is a mix. People provably can be swayed by propaganda, manipulation, etc. there is no doubt about that. But they can also plan and act rationally. Different individuals are prone to reacting in different ways.
But the human being is probably the only being that can override his biological programming for better and for worse. Sometimes it makes for great decisions, and sometimes it makes for a miserable life.
Probably a bell curve like anything else, from schizoid to genius.
I also disagree on biological programming. Regular critters can learn too.
The problem is that our ability to learn is biologically determined...
@monarchist @freepatriot At one level, it is entirely true. We are biological creatures, so everything is ultimately determined by our DNA, but in terms of _potential_. It's like the hard limit.
Within that, we have mental techniques, study techniques, mnemonics, IT, technology etc. that allow us to reach more and more of that potential, and depending on the topic, technology can actually expand on our biological hard limits, for instance, when it comes to how much information we can store.
@monarchist @freepatriot Btw, for a nice philosophical exploration of the theme I recommend the TV show Devs.
As a nihilist, I both affirm relativism and what relativity affirms, which is the existence of a consistent external reality.
@monarchist @freepatriot Oh boy did you just step on a philosophical mine. ;) I agree that there is proof or evidence of an external world, but there is no more certain way to kick a philosophical hornets nest than to claim there is proof of the external world! ;)
Yes! The only other option is solipsism, which is nuts, so I avoid that one.
There is one type of side stepping that I see from time to time and that is the probability argument. The argument goes tha ultimately we can never prove anything beyond solipsism, however, the fact that there is an external world is likelier than the fact that one does not exist, so I'll act as if there is an external world, but maintain my intellectual honesty by keeping the option of solipsism open.
This kind of philosophical fence sitting just feels so wrong to me.
Just the fact that you act _as if_ there is an external world, to me, proves that you deep down acknowledge an external world.
It's the same when I debate transhumanists who believe in an infinite number of split universes where all choices happen, and they are in fact immortal, since they are just one instance of an unlimited nr of themselves.
Yet! Not a single one of them acts as if this were
@monarchist @freepatriot true.They could sacrifice themselves and their lives for the tiniest argument, since it would be just one life out of infinitely many, yet all of them, act as if they only have one life in one universe.
I ask, so what is the point of your ideas about multiple universes if it doesn't change the way you live, if it doesn't affect us in any way, and if you don't show any conviction at all? Isn't that the same as implicitly admitting that you do in fact not believe in this?
@monarchist @freepatriot Of course not. And on and on and on the conversation goes on until I lose interest.
To me, it is clear that something exists and is consistent, so whether it is internal or external does not really matter.
I agree on the fence-sitting. How useless!
I think most people "argue for" what they want to believe is true, instead of paying attention to what is actual.
@monarchist @freepatriot This is probably the key issue. For me, the evidence for an external world is as simple as the evidence of my senses, or in a more formalized way, G.E. Moores "Here's a hand" argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
But since people crave absolutely, undeniable certainty, they argue themselves into some kind of reductio ad absurdum, where solipsism is the only "sure" thing, althought that can be disputed as well.
My response is to adopt the scientific method. I claim there
@monarchist @freepatriot is an external world, hypothesis, and I provide proof, the evidence of my senses, the success of science, the fact that we seem to agree and act as if there is an external world.
Until someone presents proof to the contrary, or falsifies "the world", I feel justified in claiming this is the truth.
Since I do _not_ claim to be infallible, I am happy to bite the bullet and admit I was wrong about the proof if evidence arises to disprove me.
@MelGibsonafter4Beers @freepatriot @monarchist You can do better than this. This was a boring post. =(
