Watch the film 127 hours (again? if you've seen it) and you *might* become able (assuming at least average intelligence) to understand the distinction between wants and needs.
You're just arguing semantics. You can determine needs from wants if you define your terms. Need; the resources or environment required to maintain a human being's physical and mental health to the highest possible quality they wish, without negatively impacting the health of other human beings. Therefore food is only a need if there is still enough left over to go around, and it is produced with little to no negative environmental impact. Otherwise it would lower the health of others.
@bitbutter I agree, defining our terms is important for constructive communication. However, our language is very old, and cumbersome. This allows it to be easily manipulated. Legalese is a prime example of this.
"Need; the resources or environment required to maintain a human being's physical and mental health to the highest possible quality they wish, without negatively impacting the health of other human beings. "
Unusual definition. If two people are afloat at sea with one sandwich between them, the sandwich cannot be a need, according to your view. I think most people who like the word 'need' would disagree with you.
@bitbutter Yes the sandwhich can. The solution would be to divide it equally amongst them, because that is the highest possible quality of health they can achieve without negatively impacting the health either.
That definition was just off the top of my head, it could easily be refined and I already have a problem with "they wish" because it adds subjectivity into the mix. So I would remove those words.
this whole video is semantics & circular reasoning based on the assumption that value is subjective. there is no republican or democrat way to build a car. the only thing you got right is that without needs being meet you can't build up to the higher levels on the hierarchy of needs/wants. you can't do science or write poetry if your starving.
Semantics is the study of meaning. I think you mean I'm nit-picking. In some contexts I agree the distinction isn't very important, in others it's _very_ important because imagining a qualitative distinction where none exists leads to other errors (the venus project guys end up doing this).
"Saying I don't need water I just require it to stay alive doesn't make sense."
I need water *to stay alive*. I don't just Need Water (no matter what my goal is).
@bitbutter It is true that humans only have needs within a specific referent (to stay alive and healthy, in a general sense), that is precisely what we assume.
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are opt-in, as I understand there is no cohertion.
If people agree in sustainability as a goal and using science with human concern as a methodology, then they come aboard and benefit.
Have you seen Peter Joseph's "Were are We Now" lecture? It's on vimeo.com /6346955
Technically, we do not need any thing, you are correct. Eating, Drinking, finding shelter, are just the ego's way of surviving. There are many people (mostly in India) who transcend these "needs" and meditate into ecstasy, and send their soul into Gods hands.
@MENCADO That depends on the point of view. Widen the lens far enough and nothing really matters. From my personal point of view basic needs are the things that are necessary for me to stay alive. What you are saying is I don't need water I just want it so I can stay alive. From a universal all encompassing point of view I guess that is true but what is the point? Someone tell me why this distinction matters.
Whether it is so that from your personal point of view IT SEEMS as if, "...basic needs are the things that are necessary for..." (you) "... to stay alive...," and whether it does or does not also seem that way to anyone else does not seem to me to address the question of whether there IS any such a need as the need to stay alive.
You asked why this distinction matters.Which distinction did you mean? Did you mean the distinction between want and need? If so my reply would be that if there is not any need, then no one can logically claim that he or she (nor that anyone) has any right to anything.
@MENCADO "If so my reply would be that if there is not any need, then no one can logically claim that he or she (nor that anyone) has any right to anything."
A right is simply an agreement about how to treat one another. There's nothing about recognising that unconditional needs don't exist, that means rights (agreements) cannot. If you believe that rights are something else then feel welcome to explain.
@bitbutter It doesn't make sense outside of your delusional reality, which you have seen fit to inflict on everyone else's delusional reality, myself included. I want my 3 minutes and 12 seconds back. I don't NEED it back. See what I did there?
If values and the apparent congruency of values among different persons are, by consensus, non-negotiable then they become just that. Applying this notion of a "continuum of values" just doesn't makes sense in the same breath you spoke of "needs" being hyperbolic "wants", meaning there is a qualitative difference.
P2) Certain humans value things other than their lives more than their lives.
C) Human life is not infinitely valuable.
My only problem here is that these exceptions such as the suicide victims and other types of people who do not value their lives as much as the majority of society, could very well be the exception that substantiates the rule; Human life is infinitely valuable. This isn't a truth, just a matter of consensus.
@lookit87 "Human life is infinitely valuable. This isn't a truth, just a matter of consensus. "
It's not even a consensus. The majority of us do not behave in the ways that are optimal for longevity (eg. don't eat unhealthy food, don't travel in a car unless it's to the hospital). Our actions reveal that we value doing certain things more than we value the increased likelihood of a long life that we would get from foregoing them. If life was of infinite value, we'd always choose for longevity.
@bitbutter But that is only when taking our abilities or the consequences into consideration, most people are not yet fully aware of the dangers of what they eat or of driving but that does not mean they do not strive to live in a way that is optimal for longevity, they simply lack knowledge of possible alternatives. I can see your reasoning for this, but its faulty since actions are only an external indicator.
The Friedman quote is problematic in that it mistakes strategy for needs. Autonomy and freedom are both universal needs. To say "The idea of need is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of the practical argument for freedom" is like say needs are dangerous because the concept of needs is a threat to needs. "Each person is best qualified to choose for himself....." Autonomy.
"The analogy is not with life but with a hypothetical situation of a lifeless universe wherein "life" being posited might be seen as metaphysical view."
Such a universe cannot exist.
Life cannot be posited in a lifeless universe, as it is a *lifeless universe* (remember we live in 4 dimensions here; if there was, is, or ever will be life in a particular universe, that universe is not a lifeless universe).
Besides, what is does the *seeing* and *positing* in a lifeless universe?
"Seem to" is a problem though, isn't it? How do we establish a clear difference between "seems to" and "does" in the issue of whether or not a being has free will?
"I think we have free will and I think it emerged from natural forces."
I think it is possible that natural forces, on their own, can produce a being that thinks it has free will, but does not. And I don't see how we could practically tell the difference either way.
"I gave you several demonstrable reasons why a human IS fundamentally different form an AI. "
Sorry, I just don't see how. You've stated that an AI makes 'artificial' choices. AI's DO take things like "existence, energy/matter the law of identity, etc." into account. They must at some level, or they could not make correct choices...and that's kinda the whole point of AI. I don't see a necessary difference between an artificial and a natural(?) choice.
Rocks are not analogous to humans or AI as they cannot make decisions at all, but both humans and AI can. You haven't really provided any substance or reasoning as to how the two are fundamentally different.
@PostITnoteGUY, oh my how silly you can be. You didn't say standards for behavior but you did say "humans can compare possible actions with universal standards," which means the same thing. And it doesn't change the fact that no universal standards for "actions" (behavior) exist.
And you cannot conceive of a computer weighing variables from data input, computing different factors, and choosing between different options? What does the "choices" of a physical system have to do with free will?
@PostITnoteGUY, Richard Dawkins stated, "Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different." This is science dude, this is reality, whether you want to accept it or not.
This is my last comment. You seem like a troll to me. Please don't have kids until you wise up.
@PostITnoteGUY, you seem to be a troll for sure. Disproving determinism does not prove free will. Proving determinism does disprove free will. But when we are trying to understand a chemical reaction, or trying to understand the solar system, or trying to understand any physical system, no matter how complex and no matter whether it is organic or inorganic, philosophical arguments are out of place. Rambling on about the Big Bang, free will, determinism, predestination, et cetera, is all BBS.
@PostITnoteGUY, my dog has the experience of being an agent that can choose. Feral children, that is children who haven't been socialized and have never learned language, experience being an agent that can choose just like my dog. The child wouldn't know anything about a god, or about the religious Dogma of Free will, until he has been indoctrinated with such notions. As previously stated, the interpertation of an experience is determined by how one has learned to interpret the experience.
Your anecdotal evidence of an experience isn't scientific. When the child had never been taught how to interpret an experience, we could say the child is in a raw state. He wouldn't understand the concept of agent. He would just follow the dictates of his emotions and feeling and choose according to what he feels is best. Then when he makes a choice someone doesn't like, the person starts yelling at him, telling him that he could have chosen otherwise than he did, because he has free will.
@PostITnoteGUY, in fact, free will was invented to justify playing the blame game without second thought. The notion of free will stems from the tendency of biting back and feeling justified in doing so. The notion of free will causes parents and guardians to beat children without wondering what could have caused the child to act and think as she did. Realizing free will is an illusion is a form of awareness that is necessary for the health of the family and the community. Wise up dude.
@PostITnoteGUY, you can take determinism and shove it ... I've already advised you that discussing deep philosophical issues such as determinism is superfluous when it comes to trying to ascertain the functions, state, and processes of any complex physical system.
You were the one who used the word deny. I merely stated the fact that the word was loaded and elaborated with an example. You quoted my example out of context.
I've no intention of playing the "Right back at you" game with you.
Every person does not experience free will as you assume, because free will is a mental construct. One must be taught that humans have free will before he has any notion about free will whatsoever. This is the same as the mental construct, God. Dogs don't have the mental construct of free will or God but they make choices and their brain functions according to the same natural biochemical processes as the human brain. Reason is a good tool but not all things that seem real or reasonable are true
@PostITnoteGUY, logically you can't assert we have free will without some type of logical argument to prove your point, but you have. You haven't even defined free will. Since free will is religious dogma, I assume that is what you mean--free will as taught by The Bible.
By free will I mean, "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law," which is the common meaning for the term. And no such thing exists, because...
the processes of the brain, including the ones that produce mental states, are not without restraint of physical necessity or causal law. The will is analogous to the wind. Our ignorant ancestors did not realize the wind was not a thing in & of itself. They did not realize the wind could not exist without causal events acting on air. Likewise they did not realize the will could not exist without causal events within the physical brain producing mental states. Thus to say the will is free is nuts
@legodesi I understand. I'd say that, if we take the medicine, it demonstrates (for instance) that we value seeing our loved ones in the future more than we value avoiding nasty tastes in the present. We don't need (in the absolute universal sense) the medicine. But it's necessary _if_ we want to realise our longer term 'wants'.
I don't see why there is a necessary difference between choice and "artificial" choice. What is the way human's make choices? And how does the idea that there is a /way/ human's make choices fit at all with the idea that humans have free will?
if artificial intelligence programs couldn't have chosen otherwise, i don't think i would call what they did a choice, unless i were speaking only interpretively.
Hmm.....let me put some pressure on this claim "the best person to determine what a person should value is that person themself". I can think of two putative counterexamples, immunization and education. Currently the state requires mandatory education until the age of 16, thought being that until somebody is educated, they are not capable of evaluating the value of education. (cont)
(cont, to bitbutter) Now consider immunization. In the countries in which polio immunization was made mandatory, polio was quickly eradicated. In the countries were it wasn't, it is still endemic. Bill Gates claims to have spent $750 million in Nigeria alone to persuade people to get immunized and yet polio is actually spreading in Africa. Are these falsifying counterexamples, and if not, is there any fact which you could learn which would persuade you to abandon that belief?
@bitbutter ???? at 3:12 you quote somebody as to why rejecting that would be dangerous. "[the practical argument for freedom] depends upon recognizing that each person is best qualified to choose for himself which among a multude of possible lives is best for him...if many of those choices involve ....things of infinite value ..which can best be determined by someone else... what is the use of freedom?" Can you clarify your position then?
Sure; people can make choices that make them unable to realising things that they value highly. Friedman's statement doesn't hold in all cases (we make choices for children for example).
@PostITnoteGUY said, "I think humans can compare possible actions with universal standards and concepts that go beyond linear causality"
Humans do not have universal standards to compare possible actions to. Standards for behavior are not even universal the world around. Again you are using the argument of a religious fanatic
Your choice to run a red-light is determined by how you have come to think about the act as a result of your own personal experience. Choices differ as experiences differ
@PostITnoteGUY, do you inject discussions concerning somewhat disputed philosophical issues when discussing the solar system? Do you inject superfluousness into discussions of all complex physical systems? Or do you only try to to confuse the issue when the complex physical system happens to be the human brain?
Again you are using the tactic of a religious fanatic. We should be discussing how perception is developed, how personality develops, how a person develops a particular mindset. Not BBS!
@PostITnoteGUY, what you mean to say is you think the fact is silly that consciousness is somewhat analogous to ADD. Well, that is your problem, not mine.
Consciousness is unconscious of more than it is conscious of. Consciousness is only aware of a tiny fraction of the sensory input being received by the brain. Consciousness is only aware of a tiny fraction of mental processes. That is a fact whether you want to accept it or not
Oh, and what in heck does determinism have to do with the issue?
@PostITnoteGUY, some Christians have a "personal relationship with God." They experience that relationship directly, just as you experience free will. The interpertation of the experience is partly the result of training.
Deny is a loaded term. You are in a state of denial because you refuse to accept the fact that free will is an illusion.
Not everyone imagines free will while experiencing life. In order for the imaginary sensation of free will to be experienced, the notion must be implanted.
@PostITnoteGUY "something that is not caused or strictly uncaused but is just self-existent."
That's unintelligible to me. Fully caused, fully uncaused or partially caused & partially uncaused, those three options exhaust the possibilities. I don't understand which of those you're talking about.
@PostITnoteGUY, your argument is precisely the same argument that most Christians give for the existence of "God." You sense free will like they sense "God." The senses can be fooled. Illusion is the word we use when something is capable of fooling the senses. If I was to compile a list of common illusions, free will would be on top. But you are inconsistent, as we all are. You also say one rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel; and you prevent your kids from watching porn, because of effect.
@PostITnoteGUY, do you bring up causality or consciousness when discussing the brain's of elephants? To say that nonhumans are unconscious but humans are conscious is as idiotic as when some used to claim that nonhumans couldn't feel pain. I don't see where consciousness can be anything but a filtering system to prevent the organism from becoming overwhelmed by all the sensory input & processes going on in the brain while the organism is trying to function. Consciousness is merely a form of ADD.
@PostITnoteGUY "I feel I have more grounds to assert it does exist because I experience it.
The feeling that we could have done otherwise doesn't mean that we actually could have done otherwise. Conscious thought has a blind spot; its causes cannot become subjects of consciousness as thought is happening. This leads to the mistake of believing that our thoughts begin with an act of ex nihilo creation on our part, that we are prime movers as far as our thoughts are concerned.
@PostITnoteGUY "But then I guess those needs start with a want (to exist)."
Yes, exactly. And different people feel this want to different degrees, or in other words; while we tend to value life highly, we each value life differently.
@bitbutter, based on your video on free will, we agree that the "will" arises as a consequence of natural processes & effects. The human has also evolved from pack/herd/group animals. And we still have those instincts necessary for running with the pack. In fact, peer pressure isn't pressure being exerted by peers but merely an internal pack/herd/group mechanism (instinct). Instincts are malleable & can be suppressed to the point of extinction or intensified by rewards (modified by circumstance)
@bitbutter, as a side note, suppressed instincts can be reactivated should the organism (human) be exposed to sufficient stress. Anyway, Marketing Firms require employees to learn enough behavioral science to get an idea as to the factors necessary for motivating & manipulating the human. Now, taking this fact into consideration, how can freedom you are talking about be anything but freedom for humans to strive to satisfy wants and desires that have been artificially created by outside "agents"?
@unseenstrings It's true that people are able to create 'wants' in others via advertising. A great many other 'wants' are caused by things other than advertising.
I don't see how this challenges anything in the vid; Whatever the cause of our valuations is, it has no bearing on the facts that we have one scale of values; with 'needs' and 'wants' both contained in it, and no one is in a better position to asses that way things are ordered on that scale than we are ourselves.
@bitbutter, the $92 derbies bought by South African natives who only made $87 a month are an example of what you were talking about. Marketing didn't stimulate the want into existence. Instead the human instinctive need for status within the community did so. The men strutted around with the hat as if it were a crown of gold. The fact that the human is a pack/herd animal means that certain pack/herd instincts are going to be just as powerful as the instincts to strive for basic "necessities."
@bitbutter, and anyone who sets up a system to fulfill only those very basic "needs" that are required to sustain life is going to find a very unhappy population on their hands. In fact, let me put it this way, kamikaze/suicide bombers are an example or just how powerful some to the pack/herd instinctive mechanisms are. In other words, when the human isn't allowed to satisfy "needs" other than those that are the most very basic to sustaining life, then the human had just as soon die. However,...
@bitbutter, I don't see how a better society is possible as long as humanity is living under the delusion of free will. I probably strive to debunk the notion to the extent that it seems like an obsession. And maybe it is. But I can't imagine a better obsession for myself at this point in my life and at this point in human evolution. Humans will not be able to truly access the way things should be ordered on a scale for themselves until they become aware of the unseenstrings of manipulation.
@unseenstrings "Humans will not be able to truly access the way things should be ordered on a scale for themselves until they become aware of the unseenstrings of manipulation."
'Access' was an unfortunate choice of word I made. For this video it doesn't really matter whether people consciously access this scale or not. All that matters is that we cannot know how others will value things, so we cannot claim to know what anyone's 'needs' are.
The fallacy here is that it confuses complacency to one's needs in a system where those needs are already met with a genuine disregard for the fundamentals of human comfort.
Its easy to be complacent about healthcare, food, water, accomodation when they are guaranteed by the state. Such provisions are unlikely to be held with such contempt by those not guaranteed such basic provisions.
@MarxistandGodless There is no black-and-white dichotomy of a 'disregard' for life on one hand versus a veneration of it on the other. As the video points out, there is instead a scale of values. Everyone (from rich to poor) values their own life and health differently, none of these valuations is incorrect. That's why talk of human 'needs' isn't helpful.
@bitbutter Should have said in the last post, like your videos and find your topics thought provoking.
I would say that the data set you are using to support your conclussions is skewed. In terms of the value we place on life and health we must remove certain outliers like the mentally ill and children who in many cases lack an appreciation for mortality. If we take a mean sample of the adult population of a sound mind and given certain variants such as self sacrifice...cont
@MarxistandGodless which I feel also is too nuanced a subgroup to include, in my opinion we are left with a fairly consistent result. People value life and health highly.
@MarxistandGodless "in my opinion we are left with a fairly consistent result. People value life and health highly."
Agreed. But we don't assign infinite value to life. Life belongs to the same continuum as other things we value. One man diagnosed with a heart problem values his daily bike rides too much to change his lifestyle. Another man responds by stopping biking.
What we call 'needs' belong to exactly the same scale as what we call 'wants', they're not qualitatively different.
@bitbutter Do we have to deal in infinites? I presume the larger point you are making is that Stateists believe in absolutes. i.e - Life and health are always of infinite value. That doesn't sound correct to me.
I may have to make a video in response because there's a lot more that I'd like to say.
@MarxistandGodless The concept of needs, in the sense of things that are qualitatively different than wants, imo presupposes that certain things (human life) are of infinite value, or at least that they don't fit in the continuum of values ('priceless').
This bogus idea can be used to justify tyranny, but it's not a necessary component of statism.
@bitbutter Before I do make a video response it would be helpful to get clarification on what you mean by tyranny. As it goes I may well agree on the main thrust of the argument that needs are wants on a spectrum but are attributed far greater significance by societal consensus.
@MarxistandGodless "As it goes I may well agree on the main thrust of the argument that needs are wants on a spectrum but are attributed far greater significance by societal consensus."
Yes, that's about it. The idea that needs are a different animal entirely is dangerous because this sleight of hand opens the door for 'leaders' to massively expand their power, ostensibly to be able to satisfy the 'universal needs' they claim to know we have.
Watch the film 127 hours (again? if you've seen it) and you *might* become able (assuming at least average intelligence) to understand the distinction between wants and needs.
R2BCH2 1 week ago
You're just arguing semantics. You can determine needs from wants if you define your terms. Need; the resources or environment required to maintain a human being's physical and mental health to the highest possible quality they wish, without negatively impacting the health of other human beings. Therefore food is only a need if there is still enough left over to go around, and it is produced with little to no negative environmental impact. Otherwise it would lower the health of others.
IHighLikePlane 1 month ago 2
@IHighLikePlane "You're just arguing semantics"
I believe the meanings of words are important. I'm addressing the way most people use the term 'needs'.
bitbutter 1 month ago
@bitbutter I agree, defining our terms is important for constructive communication. However, our language is very old, and cumbersome. This allows it to be easily manipulated. Legalese is a prime example of this.
IHighLikePlane 1 month ago
@IHighLikePlane
"Need; the resources or environment required to maintain a human being's physical and mental health to the highest possible quality they wish, without negatively impacting the health of other human beings. "
Unusual definition. If two people are afloat at sea with one sandwich between them, the sandwich cannot be a need, according to your view. I think most people who like the word 'need' would disagree with you.
bitbutter 1 month ago
@bitbutter Yes the sandwhich can. The solution would be to divide it equally amongst them, because that is the highest possible quality of health they can achieve without negatively impacting the health either.
That definition was just off the top of my head, it could easily be refined and I already have a problem with "they wish" because it adds subjectivity into the mix. So I would remove those words.
IHighLikePlane 1 month ago
all you had say is this.....there are no needs that are valued at the same level, just needs that MOST individuals value MOST highly.
alternativeknowledge 4 months ago
this whole video is semantics & circular reasoning based on the assumption that value is subjective. there is no republican or democrat way to build a car. the only thing you got right is that without needs being meet you can't build up to the higher levels on the hierarchy of needs/wants. you can't do science or write poetry if your starving.
GalinorGustave 8 months ago
@GalinorGustave "based on the assumption that value is subjective."
Value certainly is subjective. This is the reason that trade happens so often.
bitbutter 1 month ago
I see this as just semantics. Saying I don't need water I just require it to stay alive doesn't make sense.
ACRanger13 1 year ago
@ACRanger13 "I see this as just semantics."
Semantics is the study of meaning. I think you mean I'm nit-picking. In some contexts I agree the distinction isn't very important, in others it's _very_ important because imagining a qualitative distinction where none exists leads to other errors (the venus project guys end up doing this).
"Saying I don't need water I just require it to stay alive doesn't make sense."
I need water *to stay alive*. I don't just Need Water (no matter what my goal is).
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter It is true that humans only have needs within a specific referent (to stay alive and healthy, in a general sense), that is precisely what we assume.
The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project are opt-in, as I understand there is no cohertion.
If people agree in sustainability as a goal and using science with human concern as a methodology, then they come aboard and benefit.
Have you seen Peter Joseph's "Were are We Now" lecture? It's on vimeo.com /6346955
gabssnake 1 year ago
@bitbutter
Technically, we do not need any thing, you are correct. Eating, Drinking, finding shelter, are just the ego's way of surviving. There are many people (mostly in India) who transcend these "needs" and meditate into ecstasy, and send their soul into Gods hands.
dancingwithcalvin 11 months ago
@ACRanger13
Does anyone need to stay alive - or do certain among individuals simply want to do so?
MENCADO 11 months ago
@MENCADO That depends on the point of view. Widen the lens far enough and nothing really matters. From my personal point of view basic needs are the things that are necessary for me to stay alive. What you are saying is I don't need water I just want it so I can stay alive. From a universal all encompassing point of view I guess that is true but what is the point? Someone tell me why this distinction matters.
ACRanger13 11 months ago
@ACRanger13
Whether it is so that from your personal point of view IT SEEMS as if, "...basic needs are the things that are necessary for..." (you) "... to stay alive...," and whether it does or does not also seem that way to anyone else does not seem to me to address the question of whether there IS any such a need as the need to stay alive.
MENCADO 11 months ago
@ACRanger13
You asked why this distinction matters.Which distinction did you mean? Did you mean the distinction between want and need? If so my reply would be that if there is not any need, then no one can logically claim that he or she (nor that anyone) has any right to anything.
MENCADO 11 months ago
@MENCADO "If so my reply would be that if there is not any need, then no one can logically claim that he or she (nor that anyone) has any right to anything."
A right is simply an agreement about how to treat one another. There's nothing about recognising that unconditional needs don't exist, that means rights (agreements) cannot. If you believe that rights are something else then feel welcome to explain.
bitbutter 10 months ago
@ACRanger13 "Saying I don't need water I just require it to stay alive doesn't make sense."
It makes perfect sense.
bitbutter 1 month ago
@bitbutter It doesn't make sense outside of your delusional reality, which you have seen fit to inflict on everyone else's delusional reality, myself included. I want my 3 minutes and 12 seconds back. I don't NEED it back. See what I did there?
acknowledgeandprocee 1 month ago
If values and the apparent congruency of values among different persons are, by consensus, non-negotiable then they become just that. Applying this notion of a "continuum of values" just doesn't makes sense in the same breath you spoke of "needs" being hyperbolic "wants", meaning there is a qualitative difference.
lookit87 1 year ago
A condensed syllogism of your argument:
P1) Humans value things.
P2) Certain humans value things other than their lives more than their lives.
C) Human life is not infinitely valuable.
My only problem here is that these exceptions such as the suicide victims and other types of people who do not value their lives as much as the majority of society, could very well be the exception that substantiates the rule; Human life is infinitely valuable. This isn't a truth, just a matter of consensus.
lookit87 1 year ago
@lookit87 "Human life is infinitely valuable. This isn't a truth, just a matter of consensus. "
It's not even a consensus. The majority of us do not behave in the ways that are optimal for longevity (eg. don't eat unhealthy food, don't travel in a car unless it's to the hospital). Our actions reveal that we value doing certain things more than we value the increased likelihood of a long life that we would get from foregoing them. If life was of infinite value, we'd always choose for longevity.
bitbutter 1 year ago 6
@bitbutter But that is only when taking our abilities or the consequences into consideration, most people are not yet fully aware of the dangers of what they eat or of driving but that does not mean they do not strive to live in a way that is optimal for longevity, they simply lack knowledge of possible alternatives. I can see your reasoning for this, but its faulty since actions are only an external indicator.
lookit87 1 year ago
The Friedman quote is problematic in that it mistakes strategy for needs. Autonomy and freedom are both universal needs. To say "The idea of need is dangerous because it strikes at the heart of the practical argument for freedom" is like say needs are dangerous because the concept of needs is a threat to needs. "Each person is best qualified to choose for himself....." Autonomy.
Interesting quotes, thanks for sharing them.
NLPNVC 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"The analogy is not with life but with a hypothetical situation of a lifeless universe wherein "life" being posited might be seen as metaphysical view."
Such a universe cannot exist.
Life cannot be posited in a lifeless universe, as it is a *lifeless universe* (remember we live in 4 dimensions here; if there was, is, or ever will be life in a particular universe, that universe is not a lifeless universe).
Besides, what is does the *seeing* and *positing* in a lifeless universe?
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"Seem to" is a problem though, isn't it? How do we establish a clear difference between "seems to" and "does" in the issue of whether or not a being has free will?
"I think we have free will and I think it emerged from natural forces."
I think it is possible that natural forces, on their own, can produce a being that thinks it has free will, but does not. And I don't see how we could practically tell the difference either way.
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
"I gave you several demonstrable reasons why a human IS fundamentally different form an AI. "
Sorry, I just don't see how. You've stated that an AI makes 'artificial' choices. AI's DO take things like "existence, energy/matter the law of identity, etc." into account. They must at some level, or they could not make correct choices...and that's kinda the whole point of AI. I don't see a necessary difference between an artificial and a natural(?) choice.
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
No. Determinism is a metaphysical concept. Life is a physical concept. They are fundamentally dissimilar, you cannot compare the two in this way.
@PostITnoteGUY
"I suggest..."
Correction, you assert.
"What could be more substantive..."
Explanations, rather than assertions.
"The "gaps" thing is unfair as you are basing your beliefs on the same limited knowledge."
I don't think I've made my beliefs known to you. Don't make unnecessary assumptions.
Dashes000 1 year ago
@Dashes000
Also, what are "objective, uncaused / non-random things" and how exactly to we measure our decisions against them??
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "You want me to change my mind even though I have no free will."
There's no contradiction there. There is obviously (plain old) will, and will can do things, including make choices in the same sense that AI does.
FW is:
1. Unintelligible (no FW advocate I've heard, including you I'm afraid, has been able to provide a coherent account of what it is).
2. Not the solution to any problem, but the cause of new ones,
3. Mumbo jumbo that we don't need.
bitbutter 1 year ago 2
What is this "intelligence threshold" you speak of? Can you back this idea up?
Why could an AI not be constructed to make decisions on the same way we do? "objective and uncaused/non-random things"
Can you unpack that for me? What are these things, and how exactly do we measure our decisions against them?
Dashes000 1 year ago
@Dashes000
Bah, the last bit of my last comment "Can you unpack..." was referring to "objective and uncaused/non-random things"
Youtube doesn't like me.
Dashes000 1 year ago
It sure seems like your idea of free will hides behind the unknown. Free will of the gaps, if you will.
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
Rocks are not analogous to humans or AI as they cannot make decisions at all, but both humans and AI can. You haven't really provided any substance or reasoning as to how the two are fundamentally different.
Dashes000 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, oh my how silly you can be. You didn't say standards for behavior but you did say "humans can compare possible actions with universal standards," which means the same thing. And it doesn't change the fact that no universal standards for "actions" (behavior) exist.
And you cannot conceive of a computer weighing variables from data input, computing different factors, and choosing between different options? What does the "choices" of a physical system have to do with free will?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, Richard Dawkins stated, "Most scientist today subscribe to a mechanistic view of the mind. We are the way we are because our brains are wired up as they are; our hormones are the way they are. We'd be different--our character would be different--if our neuroanatomy and physiological chemistry were different." This is science dude, this is reality, whether you want to accept it or not.
This is my last comment. You seem like a troll to me. Please don't have kids until you wise up.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, you seem to be a troll for sure. Disproving determinism does not prove free will. Proving determinism does disprove free will. But when we are trying to understand a chemical reaction, or trying to understand the solar system, or trying to understand any physical system, no matter how complex and no matter whether it is organic or inorganic, philosophical arguments are out of place. Rambling on about the Big Bang, free will, determinism, predestination, et cetera, is all BBS.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, my dog has the experience of being an agent that can choose. Feral children, that is children who haven't been socialized and have never learned language, experience being an agent that can choose just like my dog. The child wouldn't know anything about a god, or about the religious Dogma of Free will, until he has been indoctrinated with such notions. As previously stated, the interpertation of an experience is determined by how one has learned to interpret the experience.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Your anecdotal evidence of an experience isn't scientific. When the child had never been taught how to interpret an experience, we could say the child is in a raw state. He wouldn't understand the concept of agent. He would just follow the dictates of his emotions and feeling and choose according to what he feels is best. Then when he makes a choice someone doesn't like, the person starts yelling at him, telling him that he could have chosen otherwise than he did, because he has free will.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, in fact, free will was invented to justify playing the blame game without second thought. The notion of free will stems from the tendency of biting back and feeling justified in doing so. The notion of free will causes parents and guardians to beat children without wondering what could have caused the child to act and think as she did. Realizing free will is an illusion is a form of awareness that is necessary for the health of the family and the community. Wise up dude.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, you can take determinism and shove it ... I've already advised you that discussing deep philosophical issues such as determinism is superfluous when it comes to trying to ascertain the functions, state, and processes of any complex physical system.
You were the one who used the word deny. I merely stated the fact that the word was loaded and elaborated with an example. You quoted my example out of context.
I've no intention of playing the "Right back at you" game with you.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
Every person does not experience free will as you assume, because free will is a mental construct. One must be taught that humans have free will before he has any notion about free will whatsoever. This is the same as the mental construct, God. Dogs don't have the mental construct of free will or God but they make choices and their brain functions according to the same natural biochemical processes as the human brain. Reason is a good tool but not all things that seem real or reasonable are true
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, logically you can't assert we have free will without some type of logical argument to prove your point, but you have. You haven't even defined free will. Since free will is religious dogma, I assume that is what you mean--free will as taught by The Bible.
By free will I mean, "the power asserted of moral beings of choosing without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law," which is the common meaning for the term. And no such thing exists, because...
unseenstrings 1 year ago
the processes of the brain, including the ones that produce mental states, are not without restraint of physical necessity or causal law. The will is analogous to the wind. Our ignorant ancestors did not realize the wind was not a thing in & of itself. They did not realize the wind could not exist without causal events acting on air. Likewise they did not realize the will could not exist without causal events within the physical brain producing mental states. Thus to say the will is free is nuts
unseenstrings 1 year ago
i get what you're saying, but the distinction is useful to me.
what we need is bad tasting medicine. what we want is to see our loved ones. what we need is the means to obtaining what we want.
legodesi 1 year ago
@legodesi I understand. I'd say that, if we take the medicine, it demonstrates (for instance) that we value seeing our loved ones in the future more than we value avoiding nasty tastes in the present. We don't need (in the absolute universal sense) the medicine. But it's necessary _if_ we want to realise our longer term 'wants'.
bitbutter 1 year ago
I don't see why there is a necessary difference between choice and "artificial" choice. What is the way human's make choices? And how does the idea that there is a /way/ human's make choices fit at all with the idea that humans have free will?
Dashes000 1 year ago
This was really interesting and profound until you drove right off the cliff into mindless anarchist religion.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "How can we have choices if we have no free will?"
Artificial intelligence programs make choices. I don't think you believe they have free will.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter
if artificial intelligence programs couldn't have chosen otherwise, i don't think i would call what they did a choice, unless i were speaking only interpretively.
legodesi 1 year ago
Hmm.....let me put some pressure on this claim "the best person to determine what a person should value is that person themself". I can think of two putative counterexamples, immunization and education. Currently the state requires mandatory education until the age of 16, thought being that until somebody is educated, they are not capable of evaluating the value of education. (cont)
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
(cont, to bitbutter) Now consider immunization. In the countries in which polio immunization was made mandatory, polio was quickly eradicated. In the countries were it wasn't, it is still endemic. Bill Gates claims to have spent $750 million in Nigeria alone to persuade people to get immunized and yet polio is actually spreading in Africa. Are these falsifying counterexamples, and if not, is there any fact which you could learn which would persuade you to abandon that belief?
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
@randyhelzerman "let me put some pressure on this claim "the best person to determine what a person should value is that person themself""
I didn't make that claim (as far as I remember).
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter ???? at 3:12 you quote somebody as to why rejecting that would be dangerous. "[the practical argument for freedom] depends upon recognizing that each person is best qualified to choose for himself which among a multude of possible lives is best for him...if many of those choices involve ....things of infinite value ..which can best be determined by someone else... what is the use of freedom?" Can you clarify your position then?
randyhelzerman 1 year ago
@randyhelzerman Ok understood.
Sure; people can make choices that make them unable to realising things that they value highly. Friedman's statement doesn't hold in all cases (we make choices for children for example).
bitbutter 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY said, "I think humans can compare possible actions with universal standards and concepts that go beyond linear causality"
Humans do not have universal standards to compare possible actions to. Standards for behavior are not even universal the world around. Again you are using the argument of a religious fanatic
Your choice to run a red-light is determined by how you have come to think about the act as a result of your own personal experience. Choices differ as experiences differ
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, do you inject discussions concerning somewhat disputed philosophical issues when discussing the solar system? Do you inject superfluousness into discussions of all complex physical systems? Or do you only try to to confuse the issue when the complex physical system happens to be the human brain?
Again you are using the tactic of a religious fanatic. We should be discussing how perception is developed, how personality develops, how a person develops a particular mindset. Not BBS!
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, what you mean to say is you think the fact is silly that consciousness is somewhat analogous to ADD. Well, that is your problem, not mine.
Consciousness is unconscious of more than it is conscious of. Consciousness is only aware of a tiny fraction of the sensory input being received by the brain. Consciousness is only aware of a tiny fraction of mental processes. That is a fact whether you want to accept it or not
Oh, and what in heck does determinism have to do with the issue?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, some Christians have a "personal relationship with God." They experience that relationship directly, just as you experience free will. The interpertation of the experience is partly the result of training.
Deny is a loaded term. You are in a state of denial because you refuse to accept the fact that free will is an illusion.
Not everyone imagines free will while experiencing life. In order for the imaginary sensation of free will to be experienced, the notion must be implanted.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "something that is not caused or strictly uncaused but is just self-existent."
That's unintelligible to me. Fully caused, fully uncaused or partially caused & partially uncaused, those three options exhaust the possibilities. I don't understand which of those you're talking about.
bitbutter 1 year ago
awesome video bitbutter! :P
dakshinamurti 1 year ago
The universal and unnegotiatable human need is nature (without it, no humans) ;-)
AmarokSOW 1 year ago
awesome.
Chrisnoscrub047 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "It's neither completed caused or random. I call it cruisality."
The choices are:
1) Free will is completely caused
2) Free will is completely uncaused
3) Free will is partly caused and partly uncaused
It's a mystery to me how any of these alternatives is appropriate to the word 'free'.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, your argument is precisely the same argument that most Christians give for the existence of "God." You sense free will like they sense "God." The senses can be fooled. Illusion is the word we use when something is capable of fooling the senses. If I was to compile a list of common illusions, free will would be on top. But you are inconsistent, as we all are. You also say one rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel; and you prevent your kids from watching porn, because of effect.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY, do you bring up causality or consciousness when discussing the brain's of elephants? To say that nonhumans are unconscious but humans are conscious is as idiotic as when some used to claim that nonhumans couldn't feel pain. I don't see where consciousness can be anything but a filtering system to prevent the organism from becoming overwhelmed by all the sensory input & processes going on in the brain while the organism is trying to function. Consciousness is merely a form of ADD.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "I feel I have more grounds to assert it does exist because I experience it.
The feeling that we could have done otherwise doesn't mean that we actually could have done otherwise. Conscious thought has a blind spot; its causes cannot become subjects of consciousness as thought is happening. This leads to the mistake of believing that our thoughts begin with an act of ex nihilo creation on our part, that we are prime movers as far as our thoughts are concerned.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "But then I guess those needs start with a want (to exist)."
Yes, exactly. And different people feel this want to different degrees, or in other words; while we tend to value life highly, we each value life differently.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter, based on your video on free will, we agree that the "will" arises as a consequence of natural processes & effects. The human has also evolved from pack/herd/group animals. And we still have those instincts necessary for running with the pack. In fact, peer pressure isn't pressure being exerted by peers but merely an internal pack/herd/group mechanism (instinct). Instincts are malleable & can be suppressed to the point of extinction or intensified by rewards (modified by circumstance)
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@bitbutter, as a side note, suppressed instincts can be reactivated should the organism (human) be exposed to sufficient stress. Anyway, Marketing Firms require employees to learn enough behavioral science to get an idea as to the factors necessary for motivating & manipulating the human. Now, taking this fact into consideration, how can freedom you are talking about be anything but freedom for humans to strive to satisfy wants and desires that have been artificially created by outside "agents"?
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings It's true that people are able to create 'wants' in others via advertising. A great many other 'wants' are caused by things other than advertising.
I don't see how this challenges anything in the vid; Whatever the cause of our valuations is, it has no bearing on the facts that we have one scale of values; with 'needs' and 'wants' both contained in it, and no one is in a better position to asses that way things are ordered on that scale than we are ourselves.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter, the $92 derbies bought by South African natives who only made $87 a month are an example of what you were talking about. Marketing didn't stimulate the want into existence. Instead the human instinctive need for status within the community did so. The men strutted around with the hat as if it were a crown of gold. The fact that the human is a pack/herd animal means that certain pack/herd instincts are going to be just as powerful as the instincts to strive for basic "necessities."
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@bitbutter, and anyone who sets up a system to fulfill only those very basic "needs" that are required to sustain life is going to find a very unhappy population on their hands. In fact, let me put it this way, kamikaze/suicide bombers are an example or just how powerful some to the pack/herd instinctive mechanisms are. In other words, when the human isn't allowed to satisfy "needs" other than those that are the most very basic to sustaining life, then the human had just as soon die. However,...
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@bitbutter, I don't see how a better society is possible as long as humanity is living under the delusion of free will. I probably strive to debunk the notion to the extent that it seems like an obsession. And maybe it is. But I can't imagine a better obsession for myself at this point in my life and at this point in human evolution. Humans will not be able to truly access the way things should be ordered on a scale for themselves until they become aware of the unseenstrings of manipulation.
unseenstrings 1 year ago
@unseenstrings "Humans will not be able to truly access the way things should be ordered on a scale for themselves until they become aware of the unseenstrings of manipulation."
'Access' was an unfortunate choice of word I made. For this video it doesn't really matter whether people consciously access this scale or not. All that matters is that we cannot know how others will value things, so we cannot claim to know what anyone's 'needs' are.
bitbutter 1 year ago
Indeed, needs are always relative to wants.
silentbob36 1 year ago
The fallacy here is that it confuses complacency to one's needs in a system where those needs are already met with a genuine disregard for the fundamentals of human comfort.
Its easy to be complacent about healthcare, food, water, accomodation when they are guaranteed by the state. Such provisions are unlikely to be held with such contempt by those not guaranteed such basic provisions.
MarxistandGodless 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless There is no black-and-white dichotomy of a 'disregard' for life on one hand versus a veneration of it on the other. As the video points out, there is instead a scale of values. Everyone (from rich to poor) values their own life and health differently, none of these valuations is incorrect. That's why talk of human 'needs' isn't helpful.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter Should have said in the last post, like your videos and find your topics thought provoking.
I would say that the data set you are using to support your conclussions is skewed. In terms of the value we place on life and health we must remove certain outliers like the mentally ill and children who in many cases lack an appreciation for mortality. If we take a mean sample of the adult population of a sound mind and given certain variants such as self sacrifice...cont
MarxistandGodless 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless which I feel also is too nuanced a subgroup to include, in my opinion we are left with a fairly consistent result. People value life and health highly.
MarxistandGodless 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless "in my opinion we are left with a fairly consistent result. People value life and health highly."
Agreed. But we don't assign infinite value to life. Life belongs to the same continuum as other things we value. One man diagnosed with a heart problem values his daily bike rides too much to change his lifestyle. Another man responds by stopping biking.
What we call 'needs' belong to exactly the same scale as what we call 'wants', they're not qualitatively different.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter Do we have to deal in infinites? I presume the larger point you are making is that Stateists believe in absolutes. i.e - Life and health are always of infinite value. That doesn't sound correct to me.
I may have to make a video in response because there's a lot more that I'd like to say.
I'll hopefully do that soon.
MarxistandGodless 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless The concept of needs, in the sense of things that are qualitatively different than wants, imo presupposes that certain things (human life) are of infinite value, or at least that they don't fit in the continuum of values ('priceless').
This bogus idea can be used to justify tyranny, but it's not a necessary component of statism.
Looking forward to your possible vid response.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@bitbutter Before I do make a video response it would be helpful to get clarification on what you mean by tyranny. As it goes I may well agree on the main thrust of the argument that needs are wants on a spectrum but are attributed far greater significance by societal consensus.
MarxistandGodless 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless "As it goes I may well agree on the main thrust of the argument that needs are wants on a spectrum but are attributed far greater significance by societal consensus."
Yes, that's about it. The idea that needs are a different animal entirely is dangerous because this sleight of hand opens the door for 'leaders' to massively expand their power, ostensibly to be able to satisfy the 'universal needs' they claim to know we have.
bitbutter 1 year ago
@MarxistandGodless "like your videos and find your topics thought provoking."
Thanks!
bitbutter 1 year ago
Did you write the script for this video, or are you reading from Friedman?
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
@Dhorpatan I wrote the script except the last part, preceded by 'I'll close with an excerpt', which is a quote from Friedman.
bitbutter 1 year ago