Your jumping back and forth between the two videos I have watched. I do like that you unlike many other atheists admit your stance on pragmatism although I believe it goes deeper than your examples. The problem I have with your arguments is this. You started the first few videos staing he was using old arguments that are a waste of time and foolish to be used. Yet you bring up Hume, and old counters for the argument. Any creative points from your own pragmatic mind? Just well read?? God is Real
Empiricism only has value because I keep praying for it. If I stopped praying it would completely break down. Prove me wrong! And no I won't stop praying, I have to think of the greater good of humanity rather than some silly tests set by scientists. If empiricism continues to deliver results it's purely because of my prayers ... ramen
I present to you a future in which anything thou desires can be conjured (through a sophisticated and automated system of molecular manipulation at an sub-atomic scale) from the very atoms that make up the air and items in your immediate vicinity. A world in which the energy required for these processes is derived from our bodies, from the stars, and avenues of energy production that today exist as concepts alone.
So the new consumables become ideas, conceptions of what is possible using that system and thought blueprints to produce new items.
For example, authors would still be in a job, they may be able to print their own books but they'd still need to think-write them. And people would perhaps render comparable services in return.
would an author want to restrict their art like that under those circumstances? I know plenty who would write just for the joy of entertaining others. In fact I would assume that art, literature etc would become all the more powerful, convey more emotion, as it wouldn't be restricted or manipulated into being a product of greed which exists in a system of scarcity as we live in today.
btw I am mostly playing devils advocate here :) I'm not a very arty person :P
And playing it well, I'm finding myself agreeing with you.
I find it hard to defend scarcity in such a world, and can only appeal to the technical difficulty of getting there!
I suppose the only scarcity in such a world would therefore be appreciation. Like youtube, where there's a practically infinite amount of content, and the only currency is subscriptions and ratings!
Brock is a mere rhetorician. That's all he is; he doesn't even reach the heights of a sophist, as they at least present rhetoric that resembles arguments. His vids are as big a muddle of lies, distortions and logical fallacies as I've ever encountered. Then again, the airforce doesn' really teach people how to think, though it does, like all military wings, imbue people with loads of attitude. No wonder they call "apologists" what they do, as they have so much to apologise for.
Sadly, I'm compelled to agree to some extent. Charisma and passion appear to constitute something meaningful to a great many people. To me he's just smug.
I know I'm talking in reference to a near utopian society of unlimited resources and technology, but I only wanted to point out how property, in comparison to the other rights you mentioned, is merely a reactionary right, to correct shortcomings in our society.
Perhaps you're right in the terms you've outlined. But I think that probably applies to all rights,and is a bit tautological. If we are behaving as though everyone has rights, there is no 'need' to formally recognise them.
Great video as always ^^ but I do have my doubts as to your statement that "Property" is in part a necessity to human welfare.
Under current circumstances I would not dispute your claim, as we live in a society that relies on property for ones identity, feeling of safety etc.
But what happens when this is no longer the case.. when we have everything we need without fail, wherever we are, without risk of it being taken away. When we live in complete security (privacy and protection from all)
I'm not sure. I find it difficult to conceive of non-scarce resources. I find it impossible to conceive of how such a society would make production decisions, as it surely must. In the words of deep thought: I shall have to think about it!
A post scarcity economy (probably derived from mining the asteroids outside our planet) would need to divide its production resources (time & energy) evenly between all its citizens, probably through some sort of an energy credit. A dress, couch, or car would thus cost a citizen the amount of time + energy put into making the object, where labor would almost cost nil due to robotic/nanobot/a.i. labor.
Why? Why wouldn't it be that time and energy are the new scarce commodities and thus the new source of value? In fact, what you're talking about isn't really post scarcity at all!
No, usable energy is only limited by the sum total of all the energy in the universe. As for time, nano-robots and robots are highly efficient builders, never require breaks or sleep and can be built in sufficient quantities to make the time necessary to output items for consumption almost a non-value.
I can see how this could lead to exceptional wealth, but not to 'the end of scarcity'. Their production capacity would still be finite. Production decisions would still have to be made.
In a post-scarcity economy wealth becomes meaningless also. If you need to output more then build another factory. This kind of thinking of course is highly undesirable for a number of reasons. So you're correct, production decisions would need to be made, but in order to limit production, not because production is limited. The Energy Credit system I mentioned would thus be artificial and meant to keep consumption in check.
Hang on, you're now saying production needs to be kept in check? That implies a finite productive capacity. Surely energy credits are essentially giving ownership of that capacity to people?
You say you do what you think will maximize human welfare. Does that mean you're a utilitarian? In other words, do you define "welfare" as happiness or something else?
Also, hugs for the shoutout! I really appreciate it, I don't have much visibility on my own and to have a popular channel direct traffic my way is hugely helpful, so thank you very much!
This is very difficult stuff for people to accept, even as a pragmatist like you I have a hard time really understanding that what I think of as "right" and "wrong" are not naturally occurring phenomena, but an invention of human beings. Some people would say that makes it meaningless or false, but I don't think so. Just because it's not backed up by a god or a natural law doesn't mean it's not real or important. If it does what it's meant to do- make life better- then it's right.
This has been flagged as spam show
BEENTLLAAAAAYYYYYY!!!
Our potato sausage gravy is made from original idaho potatos, of course, and surely, of course, from prime sausage, of course.
sirvegeta 1 year ago
Your claim is your approach to understanding is correct, yet your approach denies your approach.
HUMMMMMM
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Your jumping back and forth between the two videos I have watched. I do like that you unlike many other atheists admit your stance on pragmatism although I believe it goes deeper than your examples. The problem I have with your arguments is this. You started the first few videos staing he was using old arguments that are a waste of time and foolish to be used. Yet you bring up Hume, and old counters for the argument. Any creative points from your own pragmatic mind? Just well read?? God is Real
GodIsReal101 2 years ago
Empiricism only has value because I keep praying for it. If I stopped praying it would completely break down. Prove me wrong! And no I won't stop praying, I have to think of the greater good of humanity rather than some silly tests set by scientists. If empiricism continues to deliver results it's purely because of my prayers ... ramen
dsexocet 2 years ago
Ah ye of little imagination :P
*let minds wander*
I present to you a future in which anything thou desires can be conjured (through a sophisticated and automated system of molecular manipulation at an sub-atomic scale) from the very atoms that make up the air and items in your immediate vicinity. A world in which the energy required for these processes is derived from our bodies, from the stars, and avenues of energy production that today exist as concepts alone.
cmba101 2 years ago
*Casts around looking for scarcity...*
So the new consumables become ideas, conceptions of what is possible using that system and thought blueprints to produce new items.
For example, authors would still be in a job, they may be able to print their own books but they'd still need to think-write them. And people would perhaps render comparable services in return.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
would an author want to restrict their art like that under those circumstances? I know plenty who would write just for the joy of entertaining others. In fact I would assume that art, literature etc would become all the more powerful, convey more emotion, as it wouldn't be restricted or manipulated into being a product of greed which exists in a system of scarcity as we live in today.
btw I am mostly playing devils advocate here :) I'm not a very arty person :P
cmba101 2 years ago
And playing it well, I'm finding myself agreeing with you.
I find it hard to defend scarcity in such a world, and can only appeal to the technical difficulty of getting there!
I suppose the only scarcity in such a world would therefore be appreciation. Like youtube, where there's a practically infinite amount of content, and the only currency is subscriptions and ratings!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
agreed :D I quite like your youtube analogy :)
and ayay.. we are a long, long way off!
cmba101 2 years ago
Brock is a mere rhetorician. That's all he is; he doesn't even reach the heights of a sophist, as they at least present rhetoric that resembles arguments. His vids are as big a muddle of lies, distortions and logical fallacies as I've ever encountered. Then again, the airforce doesn' really teach people how to think, though it does, like all military wings, imbue people with loads of attitude. No wonder they call "apologists" what they do, as they have so much to apologise for.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
I find it all too easy to conceive of people being convinced by his rhetoric though.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Sadly, I'm compelled to agree to some extent. Charisma and passion appear to constitute something meaningful to a great many people. To me he's just smug.
MenoftheInfinite 2 years ago
I know I'm talking in reference to a near utopian society of unlimited resources and technology, but I only wanted to point out how property, in comparison to the other rights you mentioned, is merely a reactionary right, to correct shortcomings in our society.
I may be wrong so pls correct me!! :)
C
cmba101 2 years ago
Perhaps you're right in the terms you've outlined. But I think that probably applies to all rights,and is a bit tautological. If we are behaving as though everyone has rights, there is no 'need' to formally recognise them.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Great video as always ^^ but I do have my doubts as to your statement that "Property" is in part a necessity to human welfare.
Under current circumstances I would not dispute your claim, as we live in a society that relies on property for ones identity, feeling of safety etc.
But what happens when this is no longer the case.. when we have everything we need without fail, wherever we are, without risk of it being taken away. When we live in complete security (privacy and protection from all)
cmba101 2 years ago
I'm not sure. I find it difficult to conceive of non-scarce resources. I find it impossible to conceive of how such a society would make production decisions, as it surely must. In the words of deep thought: I shall have to think about it!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
A post scarcity economy (probably derived from mining the asteroids outside our planet) would need to divide its production resources (time & energy) evenly between all its citizens, probably through some sort of an energy credit. A dress, couch, or car would thus cost a citizen the amount of time + energy put into making the object, where labor would almost cost nil due to robotic/nanobot/a.i. labor.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
Why? Why wouldn't it be that time and energy are the new scarce commodities and thus the new source of value? In fact, what you're talking about isn't really post scarcity at all!
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
No, usable energy is only limited by the sum total of all the energy in the universe. As for time, nano-robots and robots are highly efficient builders, never require breaks or sleep and can be built in sufficient quantities to make the time necessary to output items for consumption almost a non-value.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
I can see how this could lead to exceptional wealth, but not to 'the end of scarcity'. Their production capacity would still be finite. Production decisions would still have to be made.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
In a post-scarcity economy wealth becomes meaningless also. If you need to output more then build another factory. This kind of thinking of course is highly undesirable for a number of reasons. So you're correct, production decisions would need to be made, but in order to limit production, not because production is limited. The Energy Credit system I mentioned would thus be artificial and meant to keep consumption in check.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
Hang on, you're now saying production needs to be kept in check? That implies a finite productive capacity. Surely energy credits are essentially giving ownership of that capacity to people?
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Yes, the people would own production capacity.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
"But what happens when this is no longer the case.. when we have everything we need without fai"
You sound like you think this is a given.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
I was presenting a hypothetical.. I don't understand what you are driving at..
did you read the continuation of my point?
cmba101 2 years ago
"did you read the continuation of my point? "
No. Disregard my comment.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Rorty ftw
TheLoquid 2 years ago
You say you do what you think will maximize human welfare. Does that mean you're a utilitarian? In other words, do you define "welfare" as happiness or something else?
seflersinsburg10 2 years ago
I'd say that's a poor definition of utilitarianism, but yes, I am one. I hold that maximising welfare (NOT happiness) is tantamount.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Also, hugs for the shoutout! I really appreciate it, I don't have much visibility on my own and to have a popular channel direct traffic my way is hugely helpful, so thank you very much!
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
You're quite welcome, and I hope you recover the ratings you deserve.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
This is very difficult stuff for people to accept, even as a pragmatist like you I have a hard time really understanding that what I think of as "right" and "wrong" are not naturally occurring phenomena, but an invention of human beings. Some people would say that makes it meaningless or false, but I don't think so. Just because it's not backed up by a god or a natural law doesn't mean it's not real or important. If it does what it's meant to do- make life better- then it's right.
AbbeyNormal 2 years ago
you video are awesome but i have to admite that i have 2 watch them a few times before i understand what your saying but its totally wereth it
syndrome73 2 years ago
My failing as a communicator, not your failing as a viewer. Thanks for the feedback.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
Fantastic as always!
cmeast 2 years ago
The basis is emotion and dependency. Excellent video.
AgnosticNews 2 years ago
Goddamned EXCELLENT. No one I've seen gets more cogent thoughts on a defined subject within a 4 minute video than you do. carry the fuck ON!
AncientAtheist 2 years ago 6
Good job :) i love these videos.
RoronoaZoro222 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yay! Somebody uploaded a new video!
Apptendo 2 years ago