Brains are computational devices that operate on signals from the environment. I don't understand why the emmission of signals from myself that will interact with brains in a manner determined by the laws of physics, and hopefully produce a change in behavior, requires any sort of free will at all.
You might as well claim that programmers believe that computers have free will, because they spend time using language to change the behavior of computers. The only difference in this case is that the brain computer is sloppier, and harder to program.
When the people have a voice, they control their government, and they control their lives. You're right, goverment control does result in government control. The key is to have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.
The alternative you propose is one where the voice of the people is only as loud as the size of their wallet. That's more freedom if you have a big wallet, less freedom if you have a small wallet. Most people have smaller wallets, and will be more free under democratic socialism.
This is supported by reality, where socialized health care has demonstrably superior outcomes for lower cost than private healthcare.
No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation.
Noting that the socialist regimes that have failed have been authoritarian, and that the socialist regimes that have been successful have been democratic is not ignoring facts or mental masturbation.
leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked".
That's a funny stereotype but it doesn't reflect reality. e.g. leftists promote single payer healthcare, which provides better health outcomes at lower costs. That's reality. Leftists promote legalization of drugs, which reduces drug use and decreases the harm caused by what's left. That's reality.
Conservatives instead stick their fingers in their ears and make bold moralistic pronouncements that have no relation to reality. They stick with doing what has always failed to work because they are too proud to admit that we've made mistakes.
Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense.
I try. Conservatives are right about e.g. the rule of law. But they seem to be unable to actually apply it in practice. When it comes time to actually force the goverment to obey the law, they show their true colors as authoritarians.
Democracy, that's what. As direct as possible. And strong Constitutional limitations. You should never trust any government, socialist or otherwise. They should always be answerable to the people.
And that's the problem with capitalism. Economic power is equivalent to political power. Corporations with all their economic power are unanswerable. For instance, there's no way I can vote with my dollars to ensure that everyone receives sufficient health care.
Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him".
How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?
The important part is that you base your refutation in facts and logic, and not character assassination or misdirection.
Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Socialism is necessary not because everyone is good, but because everyone *is* self interested and self justifying. Without some sort of correcting mechanism(e.g. redistribution of wealth by the government), self-interest compounds upon self-interest, amplifying inequality and leading to atrocities that no one will admit are atrocities because of their self justifying nature.
* Though actually I worry about the flip side as well - how many governments in the world do you suppose would be tempted by the ability to install an empathic "off switch" in their military and police forces, and what atrocities would that enable?
All of them, and all of them. Dehumanization has been part of warfare since humans have existed.
Heck, you could possibly even do the same thing to your entire populace - empathy seems to be linked to our ability to cooperate effectively, a psychopathic populace might be considerably easier to control.
You're absolutely right. It's absurd to see the same "conservative" politicians outraged by the IRS scandal not give a shit about the potential for abuse of the NSA data.
Of course I deny free will. There's absolutely no way to reconcile free will and the laws of physics. We have evidence to support the laws of physics, none to support free will. But that's beside the point.
The point is that forcing me to fund religious enterprises through the use of tax money violates my freedom of religion.
Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?
And how exactly am I supposed to put Obama in jail?
And what makes you think there's any "suddenly" about it? Every president who authorizes unconstitutional behavior deserves to go to jail. That has always been my position, will always be my position, and is the position of any decent human being.
1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Freedom of religion is violated by faith based initiatives.
Freedom of speech, like I said, is not much good if no one listens. And the list of prohibited speech just gets longer and longer. Oh, and let's not forget about "Free Speech zones".
Freedom of press? Tell that to the reporters arrested and beaten while covering Occupy.
Freedom of assembly? Just try assembling outside of a free speech zone e.g. during the conventions. Or just look at what happened to Occupy.
2 - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Try and keep a well regulated militia, and you'll end up like Ruby Ridge. You can have a gun for sport, but if you ever try to use it to justly defend yourself against the government, you'll end up like Cory Maye
3 - No quartering of soldiers. Fair enough
4 - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Yes, I acknowledge the controversy. Criminal justice still has to play by the usual rules.)
Unless the state has "secret evidence".
5 - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
Drone strikes on citizens, Salinas vs Texas, three strikes laws.
6 - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
Indefinite detention.
7 - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
Plea bargaining.
8 - Freedom from excessive bail
Justin Carter
cruel and unusual punishments.
Someone should tell that to Joe Arpaio.
9 - Other rights of the people....
Which has been applied when exactly? In all of US history? If they gave one shit about the 9th amdenment, we wouldn't be imprisoning thousands of people for drugs.
And here's the real question. What recourse do we have when the government violates these rights? How do we actually hold them accountable? When we violate the law, we go to jail. When our leaders violate the highest law of the land, absolutely nothing happens to them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a rule that has no enforcement mechanism isn't a rule at all.
I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard
Obama's election is a pretty big example of the people's voice being ignored. The people voted for change, more people than had voted in any American election ever, and we got an extension of the Bush administration.
We have a lot of rights, but they've been largely neutered. e.g., what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy? What good is the right to a trial by jury, if you have to risk the rest of your life in order to exercise it? Really now, what are these "large number of rights" that we still have?
All the studies i checked (sorry no ref, that was 15 years ago) on the subject correlated closely drops of burglary with increase of outdoor lightning in the same area.
More recent research shows that there is a barely significant decrease in crime after new lighting is installed. But that decrease occurs in the daytime, and not at night. The cause of the drop in crime is not the lighting. Instead, both are caused by the same third factor, gentrification.
There's little evidence that lighting city streets at night keeps it safer. At best it displaces crime to places where there are no lights. At worst, it provides light so that criminals can see what they are doing, without carrying their own light to bring attention to themselves.
It's also very hard for a potential mugging victim to see outside the direct glow of the street light. Attackers can hide outside the circle of light, and wait for the victim to leave. Since the victims eyes are not dark adjusted, he's at a significant disadvantage.
The only thing we can say with confidence is that street lighting reduces the fear of crime, not crime itself. And even if it did, astronomy is more important than you think. Astronomy is one of a very few sciences that addresses the big questions, "what is the nature of the universe?".
Besides, there are much better ways we can reduce street crime.
until we realised that for the cost of us to go a few times (including food and so on) my housemates and I could buy a projector and a set of surround-sound speakers
Yes, it's everywhere. You can't get anyone to understand anything unless you present it to them in the form of a story. e.g. organic chemistry is a lot easier to understand once you think about functional groups as characters in a narrative called chemical reactions.
Good luck getting funding for a unique motion picture when the studios not only know what makes a profitable film, they can prove it.
The implications of this kind of phenomenon are even more frightening when applied to other areas of human endeavor. e.g. politics. Good luck getting votes for a third party candidate when the corporations not only know what makes an electable candidate, they can prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
Brains are computational devices that operate on signals from the environment. I don't understand why the emmission of signals from myself that will interact with brains in a manner determined by the laws of physics, and hopefully produce a change in behavior, requires any sort of free will at all.
You might as well claim that programmers believe that computers have free will, because they spend time using language to change the behavior of computers. The only difference in this case is that the brain computer is sloppier, and harder to program.
I don't want to make it easier for you to target me with ads.
I will find you through Google.
Huh?
Exactly. Blizzard breaking free from Activision would be much more welcome news than Activision breaking free from Vivendi.
The tens of thousands of uninsured who die in the US are just as surely murdered.
When the people have a voice, they control their government, and they control their lives. You're right, goverment control does result in government control. The key is to have a government that is responsive to the will of the people.
The alternative you propose is one where the voice of the people is only as loud as the size of their wallet. That's more freedom if you have a big wallet, less freedom if you have a small wallet. Most people have smaller wallets, and will be more free under democratic socialism.
This is supported by reality, where socialized health care has demonstrably superior outcomes for lower cost than private healthcare.
No matter how many times socialism fails, you can ignore the facts and "refute" the conclusion by reasoning abstractly within your own world of ideas, by mental masturbation.
Noting that the socialist regimes that have failed have been authoritarian, and that the socialist regimes that have been successful have been democratic is not ignoring facts or mental masturbation.
leftists have lofty goals, worthy goals, but little to no knowledge of what actually works and what doesn't, what can actually be accomplished and how. Conservatives look at what actually works and end up with "let's stick with doing what has always worked".
That's a funny stereotype but it doesn't reflect reality. e.g. leftists promote single payer healthcare, which provides better health outcomes at lower costs. That's reality. Leftists promote legalization of drugs, which reduces drug use and decreases the harm caused by what's left. That's reality.
Conservatives instead stick their fingers in their ears and make bold moralistic pronouncements that have no relation to reality. They stick with doing what has always failed to work because they are too proud to admit that we've made mistakes.
Rather than refuting each other all day, how about I look for the nuggets of gold in your ideas, and you look for where what I am saying makes sense.
I try. Conservatives are right about e.g. the rule of law. But they seem to be unable to actually apply it in practice. When it comes time to actually force the goverment to obey the law, they show their true colors as authoritarians.
Democracy, that's what. As direct as possible. And strong Constitutional limitations. You should never trust any government, socialist or otherwise. They should always be answerable to the people.
And that's the problem with capitalism. Economic power is equivalent to political power. Corporations with all their economic power are unanswerable. For instance, there's no way I can vote with my dollars to ensure that everyone receives sufficient health care.
You're still a serf either way.
Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him".
How else do you determine whether you are right or wrong except by attempting refutation? If someone publishes a mathematical proof, doesn't everyone immediately search for mistakes? If I can't refute your argument, then I'll happily admit I'm wrong. If I can refute your argument, what reason do I have to believe that I'm wrong?
The important part is that you base your refutation in facts and logic, and not character assassination or misdirection.
Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Socialism is necessary not because everyone is good, but because everyone *is* self interested and self justifying. Without some sort of correcting mechanism(e.g. redistribution of wealth by the government), self-interest compounds upon self-interest, amplifying inequality and leading to atrocities that no one will admit are atrocities because of their self justifying nature.
* Though actually I worry about the flip side as well - how many governments in the world do you suppose would be tempted by the ability to install an empathic "off switch" in their military and police forces, and what atrocities would that enable?
All of them, and all of them. Dehumanization has been part of warfare since humans have existed.
Heck, you could possibly even do the same thing to your entire populace - empathy seems to be linked to our ability to cooperate effectively, a psychopathic populace might be considerably easier to control.
How else do you explain Republicans?
You're absolutely right. It's absurd to see the same "conservative" politicians outraged by the IRS scandal not give a shit about the potential for abuse of the NSA data.
Of course I deny free will. There's absolutely no way to reconcile free will and the laws of physics. We have evidence to support the laws of physics, none to support free will. But that's beside the point.
The point is that forcing me to fund religious enterprises through the use of tax money violates my freedom of religion.
They already know how to turn empathy on and off. When campaigning, turn empathy on. When legislating, turn empathy off.
Does the name COINTELPRO mean anything to you? Decades ago the government used illegal surveillance to attempt to quash the civil rights movement. What assurances do we have that they won't do this again? Why should we believe they have good intentions at all when they cannot comply with the 4th amendment?
And how exactly am I supposed to put Obama in jail?
And what makes you think there's any "suddenly" about it? Every president who authorizes unconstitutional behavior deserves to go to jail. That has always been my position, will always be my position, and is the position of any decent human being.
he doesn't want to face the consequences for his action.
When Obama faces consequences for his actions, this argument will have some merit.
1 - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
Freedom of religion is violated by faith based initiatives.
Freedom of speech, like I said, is not much good if no one listens. And the list of prohibited speech just gets longer and longer. Oh, and let's not forget about "Free Speech zones".
Freedom of press? Tell that to the reporters arrested and beaten while covering Occupy.
Freedom of assembly? Just try assembling outside of a free speech zone e.g. during the conventions. Or just look at what happened to Occupy.
2 - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Try and keep a well regulated militia, and you'll end up like Ruby Ridge. You can have a gun for sport, but if you ever try to use it to justly defend yourself against the government, you'll end up like Cory Maye
3 - No quartering of soldiers.
Fair enough
4 - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. (Yes, I acknowledge the controversy. Criminal justice still has to play by the usual rules.)
Unless the state has "secret evidence".
5 - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
Drone strikes on citizens, Salinas vs Texas, three strikes laws.
6 - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
Indefinite detention.
7 - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
Plea bargaining.
8 - Freedom from excessive bail
Justin Carter
cruel and unusual punishments.
Someone should tell that to Joe Arpaio.
9 - Other rights of the people. ...
Which has been applied when exactly? In all of US history? If they gave one shit about the 9th amdenment, we wouldn't be imprisoning thousands of people for drugs.
And here's the real question. What recourse do we have when the government violates these rights? How do we actually hold them accountable? When we violate the law, we go to jail. When our leaders violate the highest law of the land, absolutely nothing happens to them. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a rule that has no enforcement mechanism isn't a rule at all.
I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard
Obama's election is a pretty big example of the people's voice being ignored. The people voted for change, more people than had voted in any American election ever, and we got an extension of the Bush administration.
We have a lot of rights, but they've been largely neutered. e.g., what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy? What good is the right to a trial by jury, if you have to risk the rest of your life in order to exercise it? Really now, what are these "large number of rights" that we still have?
I'm sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say "But that decrease occurs in the daytime, and not only at night."
All the studies i checked (sorry no ref, that was 15 years ago) on the subject correlated closely drops of burglary with increase of outdoor lightning in the same area.
More recent research shows that there is a barely significant decrease in crime after new lighting is installed. But that decrease occurs in the daytime, and not at night. The cause of the drop in crime is not the lighting. Instead, both are caused by the same third factor, gentrification.
There's little evidence that lighting city streets at night keeps it safer. At best it displaces crime to places where there are no lights. At worst, it provides light so that criminals can see what they are doing, without carrying their own light to bring attention to themselves.
It's also very hard for a potential mugging victim to see outside the direct glow of the street light. Attackers can hide outside the circle of light, and wait for the victim to leave. Since the victims eyes are not dark adjusted, he's at a significant disadvantage.
The only thing we can say with confidence is that street lighting reduces the fear of crime, not crime itself. And even if it did, astronomy is more important than you think. Astronomy is one of a very few sciences that addresses the big questions, "what is the nature of the universe?".
Besides, there are much better ways we can reduce street crime.
until we realised that for the cost of us to go a few times (including food and so on) my housemates and I could buy a projector and a set of surround-sound speakers
They have IMAX 3D now.
Yes, it's everywhere. You can't get anyone to understand anything unless you present it to them in the form of a story. e.g. organic chemistry is a lot easier to understand once you think about functional groups as characters in a narrative called chemical reactions.
Good luck getting funding for a unique motion picture when the studios not only know what makes a profitable film, they can prove it.
The implications of this kind of phenomenon are even more frightening when applied to other areas of human endeavor. e.g. politics. Good luck getting votes for a third party candidate when the corporations not only know what makes an electable candidate, they can prove it.