Rational Ethics

[FirstAscent]

Roger Penrose uses Godel's Theorem and quantum mechanics (quantum gravity more specifically) to discuss consciousness. He's a great writer. Give his books a whirl. And unlike certain self published youtubers with the initials S.M., Penrose is actually an oft cited academic of no small repute. Point being (other than the fact that Penrose makes a great read), S.M. has little or no respect in the field of academia, else he wouldn't be self publishing, but rather, the great university presses would be publishing his work. We can infer then, that S.M. really has no respect in the fields of economics, environmental science, social systems, psychology, political science, climate science, ecology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, etc.

Instead, what he is, and it's obvious, is he's very much like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, but with much less star power. None of these individuals are anything but cult leaders of a somewhat brainwashed crowd. They all spout self formulated nonsense, and are prone to repeat the same things over and over, all built on flimsy logic, if not outright lies.

[FirstAscent]

primer on Kurt Gödel
Edit: I'm not a huge fan of god-bothering, but in general the article sheds a lot of light on things.

Note his logical mistake: he assumes that circles exist at the boundary of the Universe.

[FirstAscent]

I've heard some people mention "emergent intelligence", and they suggest that intelligence (and probably consciousness) is an inherent property of complex structures. This seems plausible since it seems compatible with my own conflicted beliefs: perhaps I as a consciousness, somehow transcend this imaginary Matrix universe suggested to me via the senses? Yet if I believe the story told by those senses, I am an infinitesimally small dot in a giant universe that's filled with other people and planets, and my consciousness isn't even measurable. It's like division by zero -- positive infinity or negative infinity. Do I have to choose??.....

Don't fall into the trap of confusing intelligence (emergent or otherwise) with consciousness. The former is an attribute that comes from effective processing. The latter is an attribute with no reasonable explanation - see David Chalmers. My best guess regarding the existence of consciousness is some as of yet undetermined fundamental property of the Universe. In other words, consciousness, in some primitive form is intrinsic to the Universe, just as gravity, matter, time and space is. With that fundamental building block (consciousness, or proto-consciousness, if you will), intelligence emerged more powerfully, quicker, or more effectively, than if that fundamental building block did not exist. Furthermore, it imbued intelligence with qualia, awareness (consciousness!) rather than not, as in a philosophical zombie (see David Chalmers again).

[bitcoinspot.nl]

@augustocroppo

wow, well this goes above my head but im glad you responded to my question with more than "he's a cult leader". I guess he says a lot that probarbly does not makes sense to you but ti a laymen like he can make things a lot more understandable, like the difference between a opinion and a fact.

but: Do you maybe have a podcast that you think it worth-while listening to? do you have like a favorite author?

Roland.

[FirstAscent]

@augustocroppo

wow, well this goes above my head but im glad you responded to my question with more than "he's a cult leader". I guess he says a lot that probarbly does not makes sense to you but ti a laymen like he can make things a lot more understandable, like the difference between a opinion and a fact.

but: Do you maybe have a podcast that you think it worth-while listening to? do you have like a favorite author?

Roland.

Podcasts aren't where it's at. Are you looking for a niche celebrity voice for some niche crowd? Why? Solid academic studies are far more enlightening.

Study works published by respectable publishers written by academic peer reviewed professors. Don't go looking for quacks who seem to echo what you're looking for. You'll only be lead down a narrow tunnel.

Try Herman Daly. Try The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich.

[Ragnar17]

you can find real knowledge anywhere. Just because something is academically peer-reviewed doesnt make it any better than the "quacks" you are talking about. Degrees mean just about nothing and I see more and more everyday how our education system is just spewing out exactly what you would expect, cookie cutter copies of machines without an ounce of logic, creativity, or even any independent thinking.
"If you want to get laid, get an education. If you want an education go to the library."

SM might be considered a quack to some people, but at least he is thinking independently of some pretty important stuff. Yes, there are cult followers (the people who like what he says but dont really know whats going on or what is really behind the words). And there are the people similar to the dissenting opinion on this forum who dont say anything bad about his IDEAS but just quack about who he is and what he does that makes him a cult. His following is less cultish than any religion I have heard of but hey its only wrong if the ideas are wrong, but nobody seems to want to talk about ideas about rational ethics on this forum anymore.

[justusranvier]

My view is that there's not much point in idolising anyone's philosophy. You're not their clone! Sure, research different philosophies to gain insights and learn about yourself, but don't forget to do your own critical thinking.

What does that actually mean? Would you say that physicists "idolize" the theory of relativity just because they recognize it as being correct (or at least, consistent with all evidence that exists thus far)?

[FirstAscent]

you can find real knowledge anywhere. Just because something is academically peer-reviewed doesnt make it any better than the "quacks" you are talking about. Degrees mean just about nothing and I see more and more everyday how our education system is just spewing out exactly what you would expect, cookie cutter copies of machines without an ounce of logic, creativity, or even any independent thinking.

You're missing the point. I didn't say seek out someone who has a degree. Degrees are a dime a dozen. However, highly published individuals with a history of acclaimed work, who lay out previously published studies and facts by other well cited authors, and who include citations of other published works, and are noted for doing important groundbreaking studies themselves are about 1,000 times more credible and respected than some self published quack and youtuber who, for the most part, just puts together words which argue with other words, rather than words which argue against established studies.

[Snipes777]

Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, these are absurd. First, I don't know when I became a puppet, but that's good information for me to have. I should get the hand out of my backside. Second, the man who makes the arguments is irrelevant. The question is do the arguments make rational sense. All of this garbage and lack of rational argumentation means nothing. An argument can be made by a poor pauper without a degree, experience, or popularity that can be true and can change the world.

Rational argument is all that is asked. Examine the argument, find a hole or fallacy, change the argument to compensate and come up with a new truth until it can be improved upon.

[FirstAscent]

Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, these are absurd. First, I don't know when I became a puppet, but that's good information for me to have. I should get the hand out of my backside. Second, the man who makes the arguments is irrelevant. The question is do the arguments make rational sense. All of this garbage and lack of rational argumentation means nothing. An argument can be made by a poor pauper without a degree, experience, or popularity that can be true and can change the world.

Rational argument is all that is asked. Examine the argument, find a hole or fallacy, change the argument to compensate and come up with a new truth until it can be improved upon.

Indeed. But he lacks it. See this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133140.msg1419965#msg1419965

[Snipes777]

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

[FirstAscent]

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

[Snipes777]

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

This is patently false. He has stated several times that he is skeptical, but doesn't know whether it is anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Any rational person should be skeptical of anything that anyone tells them until every hole they may have can be closed.

I also have heard him state the opposite that many things schools teach are good and other things are bad. They obviously provide some sort of legitimate service if only to cloud some nefarious purpose. Police provide public safety, besides raising revenue for small towns, arresting people for having the wrong plant and other giant list of crap they do.

[FirstAscent]

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

This is patently false. He has stated several times that he is skeptical, but doesn't know whether it is anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Any rational person should be skeptical of anything that anyone tells them until every hole they may have can be closed.

Then I suggest you learn to be more skeptical of this fellow.

I also have heard him state the opposite that many things schools teach are good and other things are bad. They obviously provide some sort of legitimate service if only to cloud some nefarious purpose. Police provide public safety, besides raising revenue for small towns, arresting people for having the wrong plant and other giant list of crap they do.

Then he's obviously rendering his claim about the validity of climate change false - A self contradictory argument.

[Snipes777]

I am skeptical of him, as I spent years with friends tearing up his arguments and finding issues I had with them and then building back up once the issues had been resolved logically. It was not an easy transition by any means.

He also has never said that climate change is false. He has said several times that he is skeptical and doesn't know the real story and looks into both sides. In his mind, neither has yet produced decisive evidence as to the cause of climate change. As the evidence changes, his opinion may change.

[FirstAscent]

I am skeptical of him, as I spent years with friends tearing up his arguments and finding issues I had with them and then building back up once the issues had been resolved logically. It was not an easy transition by any means.

He also has never said that climate change is false. He has said several times that he is skeptical and doesn't know the real story and looks into both sides. In his mind, neither has yet produced decisive evidence as to the cause of climate change. As the evidence changes, his opinion may change.

Did you actually look at the video I posted? He says climate science is nonsense. He says it has no 'innate' value. And then he says he doesn't know much about climate science.