Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
 |
April 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PM |
|
So, first you say "It's your wifely duty," and if that doesn't convince her, you wait patiently for God to whisper in her ear, "Fuck your husband, Dana," Does that about cover it?  Too funny  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, which will follow the rules of the network no matter what miners do. Even if every miner decided to create 1000 bitcoins per block, full nodes would stick to the rules and reject those blocks.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:13:13 PM |
|
Discussing the book again:
I do not agree with his premises 5,6,7,8.
OK, for the rest of the class, those are: Premise 5: An Objective Methodology Exists For Separating Truth From Falsehood Premise 6: Truth Is Better Than Falsehood Premise 7: Peaceful Debating is the Best Way to Resolve Disputes Premise 8: Individuals are Responsible for their Actions Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. |
|
|
|
kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:19:42 PM |
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. |
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:22:18 PM |
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? |
|
|
|
kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:24:25 PM |
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? I would have no way of determining that. but its just at likely as anything else. |
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:27:00 PM |
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? I would have no way of determining that. but its just at likely as anything else. Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore. |
|
|
|
kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:37:45 PM |
|
Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. So now you're not just a brain in a vat, but a computer program in a vat? I would have no way of determining that. but its just at likely as anything else. Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore. true, i don't have free will, and im okay with that. life would still be very interesting, as i can't predict the future. |
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:42:24 PM |
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
true, i don't have free will, and im okay with that. life would still be very interesting, as i can't predict the future.  |
|
|
|
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:45:28 PM |
|
So, first you say "It's your wifely duty," and if that doesn't convince her, you wait patiently for God to whisper in her ear, "Fuck your husband, Dana," Does that about cover it? Not really. Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
What any church does is irrelevant. Scripture is the standard to judge a church by. Unless you're Catholic, in which case you have an interpretive ecclesiastical body for that. (Don't even get me started.) Scripture teaches that the future is and has always been pre-determined. It does not teach free will as it is presented in most churches today. Or to quote R.C. Sproul, "I'm free. God is free. God is more free than I am. When my freedom runs into God's freedom, God's freedom wins." Or as scripture is summarized by reformed doctrine: all events in time flow forth from, and as a result of, the decree of God. Or as I like to put it: There are no accidents, and there is no such thing as chance. The dice are set before you ever roll. |
|
|
|
|
kokjo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
You are WRONG!
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:48:01 PM |
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
true, i don't have free will, and im okay with that. life would still be very interesting, as i can't predict the future. |
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 09:56:01 PM |
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
What any church does is irrelevant. Scripture is the standard to judge a church by. Unless you're Catholic, in which case you have an interpretive ecclesiastical body for that. (Don't even get me started.) Scripture teaches that the future is and has always been pre-determined. It does not teach free will as it is presented in most churches today. Or to quote R.C. Sproul, "I'm free. God is free. God is more free than I am. When my freedom runs into God's freedom, God's freedom wins." Or as scripture is summarized by reformed doctrine: all events in time flow forth from, and as a result of, the decree of God. Or as I like to put it: There are no accidents, and there is no such thing as chance. The dice are set before you ever roll. Which is even worse for the case for a just God... for if he has decided all that will happen - including any evildoing - it's hardly fitting that he send those that he has decided will do the evil to eternal punishment for his decision. |
|
|
|
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 16, 2013, 10:23:38 PM |
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
What any church does is irrelevant. Scripture is the standard to judge a church by. Unless you're Catholic, in which case you have an interpretive ecclesiastical body for that. (Don't even get me started.) Scripture teaches that the future is and has always been pre-determined. It does not teach free will as it is presented in most churches today. Or to quote R.C. Sproul, "I'm free. God is free. God is more free than I am. When my freedom runs into God's freedom, God's freedom wins." Or as scripture is summarized by reformed doctrine: all events in time flow forth from, and as a result of, the decree of God. Or as I like to put it: There are no accidents, and there is no such thing as chance. The dice are set before you ever roll. Which is even worse for the case for a just God... for if he has decided all that will happen - including any evildoing - it's hardly fitting that he send those that he has decided will do the evil to eternal punishment for his decision. Their decisions** Second causes is the technical term. People do evil because they want to do evil, (which is the primary cause of their actions) not because anyone has put a gun to their head. Far from it. You can point at God and say, "Well then why didn't you create us perfect in the first place!?" But the answer to that is clear: because that wouldn't have suited God's purposes for humanity, and would therefore be evil. God is God-centric, not human-centric. Or to quote Paul, "all things have been created through Him and for Him." (Speaking of Jesus.) Paul addresses this issue thoroughly in his letter to the Romans, which must be read in its entirety if you're actually interested. (I don't suspect that you are.) I will not quote it here due to it being one incredibly rich, long line of thought. Just pulling that section out of the context would not do it justice. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 10:37:58 PM |
|
Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.
What any church does is irrelevant. Scripture is the standard to judge a church by. Unless you're Catholic, in which case you have an interpretive ecclesiastical body for that. (Don't even get me started.) Scripture teaches that the future is and has always been pre-determined. It does not teach free will as it is presented in most churches today. Or to quote R.C. Sproul, "I'm free. God is free. God is more free than I am. When my freedom runs into God's freedom, God's freedom wins." Or as scripture is summarized by reformed doctrine: all events in time flow forth from, and as a result of, the decree of God. Or as I like to put it: There are no accidents, and there is no such thing as chance. The dice are set before you ever roll. Which is even worse for the case for a just God... for if he has decided all that will happen - including any evildoing - it's hardly fitting that he send those that he has decided will do the evil to eternal punishment for his decision. Their decisions** Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it? If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish? |
|
|
|
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 16, 2013, 10:53:29 PM |
|
Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?
If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?
Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state. And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 11:03:17 PM |
|
Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?
If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?
Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state. And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans. Predestination says that we are robots, programmed by God to take certain actions at certain junctures, and to think we are making choices. You'll forgive me, I think, if I reject that. |
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 16, 2013, 11:14:38 PM |
|
snip
None of your points lead to me believing you understand why alternatives would look appealing. Are you implying the system we have now is as good as it has ever been? It makes sense, then, why you would support it. The problem is, if at any point in time, I don't believe the mess you're trying to push, and no longer want to participate, then I'm out of luck, it's too bad, I still have to submit to the authority you love and worship. Wasn't America, the land of the free, created entirely from slave labor? This very system we have right now; the one which could never work without the slaves, either physical slaves or economic slaves? In the very least, Anarchism wouldn't require slave labor to work; if it happened to occur, it would be a side effect. To the statist, it is a hard rule of thumb that submission is the only way it would work; everyone (except the rich, of course,) must be a voluntary slave--if not, you're just a plain ol' slave. Whether or not you want to be a slave doesn't matter. If you're okay with violence being used against me if I, say, avoided the draft, then by all means, carry on with your way of thinking. Statists agree that violence is the answer. You're okay with me dying for your narrow-minded view of how everyone should act (within a plot of land with imaginary borders.) Statists are sociopaths. Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it. Nothing else matters if this point is not touched. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 11:24:32 PM |
|
public education: some children have incompetent parents who would be useless at home schooling. Home-schooling also sounds extremely inefficient compared to at least learning in groups (I guess some people have too much money...). A fine argument for professional educators, but it doesn't address why this service needs to be provided by a State. public healthcare: various vulnerable groups exist (e.g.: sick children, mentally disabled, victims of freak accidents, the elderly) and basic human values suggest that help should be given even if there's no capital advantage or foreseeable profit motive. Likewise, a fine argument for socialized medical care, but fails to explain why this socialization can't be provided voluntarily, through mutual aid groups or insurance. 'home' care: orphanages, homeless shelters, homes for the elderly, etc.
See medicine, above. A justice system with a 3rd party that can be either impartial (not being paid by either side), or, more often: represent the potential hidden victim (society at large).
Firstly, When you find a government court not paid by the government, I'll concede that it might be impartial. Secondly, "society at large" is not something that can be a victim. Members of that society can be, perhaps even every member, but not society itself. Workable justice system in An-Cap? BAM! Arbitration! They're never able to explain how it would actually work and why it wouldn't be utterly corrupt by design. It's just supposed to vaguely somehow kind-of resemble mostly unrelated international trade arbitration.
Many authors have described exactly how arbitration would work, both in fiction and non-fiction. I've given you links. All those other social needs described above? BAM! Charities and volunteers! Ad hoc and unmetered donations by a small segment of society ought to cover it! Never been on Kickstarter, have you? |
|
|
|
JimmiesForBitcoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
April 16, 2013, 11:28:20 PM |
|
Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?
If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?
Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state. And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans. Predestination says that we are robots, programmed by God to take certain actions at certain junctures, and to think we are making choices. You'll forgive me, I think, if I reject that. You can simplify it to that if you want; yet while expressing predestination, scripture simultaneously expresses that we are accountable for our own actions. So the authors had to have some understanding which is different than that which you've arrived at. Either way, unless you believe in terminator style time travel, the future and past are both set like a fresh concrete sidewalk. That's just a logical necessity. Something has already predetermined your actions in time logically prior to your existence. So if it's not God, then what is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 16, 2013, 11:40:08 PM |
|
You can simplify it to that if you want; yet while expressing predestination, scripture simultaneously expresses that we are accountable for our own actions. So the authors had to have some understanding which is different than that which you've arrived at. Religious thinkers are known for their ability to hold contradictory concepts in their mind. They were the pioneers in Doublethink. Either way, unless you believe in terminator style time travel, the future and past are both set like a fresh concrete sidewalk. That's just a logical necessity. Something has already predetermined your actions in time logically prior to your existence. So if it's not God, then what is it?
What makes you think the future is set? The past is, certainly. The future has not yet been written. It is determined by our actions in the present. And to prove it, I'm going to influence the future, by getting you to read this sentence. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
April 17, 2013, 12:27:30 AM |
|
snip
None of your points lead to me believing you understand why alternatives would look appealing. Are you implying the system we have now is as good as it has ever been? The only alternatives that exist are ones that I can actually go to and try out. What luck! You can try out a little slice of anarchy this (and every) summer! http://porcfest.com/Meet me there? I'll buy you some chili. |
|
|
|
|
