Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
We're having a communication breakdown, unfortunately, Tleilaxu. When you use the phrase, "Free will is trivially false.", I read that to say "There is a trivial sense in which free will is false, but in a deeper sense, it is true." Which is not your view, unless I'm mistaken.What I meant to say is that trivially, there is no such thing as free will.
Do you see my point? Sorry to be annoying, but I'm just trying to understand.
I think another nice way to look at it could be that the potential energy of the system is continually decreasing.It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.
Yeah, I had my theoretical conception reversed in my head, because I wasn't thinking of entropy as temperature, rather I was conceptualizing ordered states, i.e. fusion making hydrogen into helium and the like, in a molecular sense, not regarding the obvious issue of the whole system...
I was wondering if Tleilaxu could expand on what he means by God being trivially trueThat's not exactly what I said though. I believe there is a god in a general sense, as in there is some sort of creator. This is just personal belief though, I have no evidence of such. The part about free will has been addressed in other posts.
It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?
It is hard for me to imagine the universe as anything but a closed system. What is outside the system and where does it enter?
I also have a hard time imagining that entropy is increasing in the universe. Stars are massive engines and they specifically work to decrease entropy. In fact, such a decrease might well be the "primary function" of life itself. I believe the predicted future "heat death" is the exact prediction of such low entropy that free energy is almost nonexistent.
Teenagers being "bums" is an age old problem/issue/complaint - seems once you're in a position to take care of your children, not relying on them to produce for the family, you risk them atrophying. There are letters/texts from the 18th and 19th centuries America of Senators and the like complaining their kids party all the time. I believe ( but cannot source it ) same from Romans and Greeks few thousand years ago.There's a simple solution to that. Ask him what league he is; if he's in a low league tell him he's too much of a n00b to play and that he should do something else, otherwise let him play.
I'm torn because my oldest son simply plays too much on his computer ( League of Legends, et al ), but I also have him quite active in Scouts and LaCrosse and he's developed the habit of doing his homework before doing anything else - so on the one hand, I don't want to be up his ass about his every spare minute, but on the other I wished he did SOMETHING other than computer shit with his spare time. I'm working on Friday nights being board game night, but it's not taking with him, he "puts up" with it. Tried movie night, which works some if popcorn is involved.
I am of the mind that the "special sauce" of evolution is mutation/randomness/error/etc, as from that comes innovation/creativity/progress, so I'm on the fence on this issue.Keep in mind the probability that you will procreate if you have a mutation/congenital error that leaves you mentally or physically handicapped, such as cerebral palsy.
Whenever we want. You can come up with a list of diseases that severely negatively impact the lives and viability of fetuses and then let the parents decide whether they should be killed.Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).
Right, it can be treated, so where do we grant a "right to life" or deny it? What measure do we use for "treat-ability?" In the same manner, where do we delineate consciousness? Also, what if the outcome is not 100% guaranteed? What arbitrary percent do we declare the cut off?
What are the moral (and ethical) implications of what we choose also and how do we navigate them? It really is a quagmire...
OK, but an arbitrary cut off is arbitrary. Why not 5 or 7? You see the issue then, right?Any cut-off is arbitrary by definition. Why should abortions only be allowed in the first trimester? Why not the first trimester + 1 week?
Plausibly there could be a genetic test, before birth, that allowed his parents too know what his ultimate fate would have been. Do we offer then the possibility of the life he had (has) or not?Statistically speaking, your child is not going to be the next Stephen Hawking.
And I'd probably amend any argument to include that tleilaxu, as the person arguing for such extremity, be the one to euthanize them.I'd have no problems with that to be honest.I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.
As I said, sure, so long as you kill them. It would take a whole another thread to discuss abortion, methinks.
Nah, Eugenics is very different. It's a historic pseudoscience about eliminating """inferior""" genes through selective breeding/breeding restriction. I'm mostly talking about people who will probably never reproduce anyway, e.g. because they're wheelchair bound and brain damaged. Take the example with sickle cell kids. There's a pragmatic/moral argument here whether you kill them early or let them eventually die painfully of an airway infection (although in the West that disease can be treated somewhat decently IIRC).Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.I've gotta say, if there were ever a post that needed to be moved to the "Building Better Communities" thread, this is it.
I mean, that's what eugenics and the elimination of defectives is all about, right? Building Better Communities?
Idk, we could set an initial cut-off at 6 months and go from there.I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.
First you have to define the definition of children. At what point are they no longer a child?
Second, since you now brought in the issue of conscious, we need to tightly define it and be able to measure it.
Third, there are people, like, Steven Hawking, who are wheelchair bound and do a fair amount of drooling (not only, of course) but are highly useful to society. How do we know when someone isn't (won't be)? See the second point here also.That's the thing though. Stephen Hawking is not mentally retarded, and he wasn't born in a wheelchair.
Tleilaxu, you clearly have an axe to grind. Please read more carefully before you make responses, it makes the conversations easier to have. So do multi-sentence posts.
ETA: Sorry MSJ, not trying to hound you. Doesn't seem like a lot of participation so I'm chiming in.
And, its just a way to be lazy and burn time. When they could be making themselves better people in a number of different ways, excluding sports.-> gaming is a way to be lazy and burn time as opposed to making yourself a better person.
I will agree the players I've seen in those type of tournaments are not obese, and I think most probably have a higher than average IQ. But, they are anomalies, not the norm.If non-obese players with higher than average IQs are anomalies then the norm must be the opposite.
Did you just say gaming is a way to be lazy to burn time and that most gamers are obese and have a low IQ?Quote from: TLEILAXUIf I had kids I'd be proud if they became good at SC2 or counter strike. Probably the most quintessential e-sports right there.
Sir, you're missing my point entirely. If one of my kids was able to compete in the eSports championship, I would be proud also. As long as it doesn't effect other area's of his/her life negatively.
Maybe I worded my original post on this subject very poorly, my bad. I have nothing against gamers. Just besides the few who take it seriously, most don't. And, its just a way to be lazy and burn time. When they could be making themselves better people in a number of different ways, excluding sports. I will agree the players I've seen in those type of tournaments are not obese, and I think most probably have a higher than average IQ. But, they are anomalies, not the norm.
I dunno, does it really? Just take the children with severe mental retardation/disabilities and end them right there and then before they become conscious and you have to care for somebody who's now an actual person except drooling and wheelchair bound. Although I may have to backtrack a bit here since some of those might also be useful as studies for how/why things go wrong.Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.
That sure is a hot take that requires a great deal of operationalizing definitions to even begin to possibly be deconstructed.
Hard to imagine such a thing being so cut and dry.
A more obvious example being someone heterozygous for sickle cell is rendered immune to malaria, while homozygous has deadly sickle cell anemia.They tend to die before they grow up.
Children with severe deformities/handicaps/genetic diseases should definitely be killed though.Kelly includes direct quotes from Pinker, but point taken....how about this formulation:More from Stephen Pinker:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/11/06/arguing-for-infanticide/b02d23b0-b521-4abe-8b02-c626a1b6b4e0/?utm_term=.a98ab58a3a25
You mean, more from Kelly?
"Here's a perspective on Pinker's views."
Death... It reigns strongly in the sanctuary.This band's lyrics have some many SA like similarities
The sons of God are buried in this unholy ground.
Forever trapped between here and Hell,
The reincarnation process has stopped.
