Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

    6249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Do you have any reason to suspect that someone would reach a different conclusion? Or are you just saying it because "what if"?
  2. I think you are wildly exaggerating. The exchange was unremarkable. It's pretty normal not to answer yes or no to yes or no questions. "It depends" means "sometimes, yes". The wording just reflects how doctors typically think, and how a scientist thinks, where they want to emphasize context even when nobody asked. Nothing sinister or fishy.
  3. I like your summaries a lot. This is the only issue I had. Why do you characterize this as avoiding a straight answer? When somebody asks about multiple things that can cause death, the best answer really is "it depends" because of how many variables were introduced. It's not avoiding because any other answer would be misleading.
  4. At the beginning of the discussion, people explained to you many times that you just don't understand what the topic is. If you forgot, it was like talking past you because you didn't understand the topic well enough to even argue for or against. I read the article you mentioned. It's a pretty poor evaluation. As far as conflicts of interest, it fails to understand the argument Smith makes (that you should calculate gains and losses according to the values you have).
  5. I'm concerned about the opposite. I'm concerned that you are seeking to be put on trial and subsequently condemned as a moral monster who deserves to be deleted from the face of the earth. I'm not going to do those things, because that never serves to improve your life.
  6. I mean, I'm not sure if it's better to be altruistic and die for the greater good of the nation, or to live a life with an empty shell of a self. In any case, you still can go off to war and die for the nation. I think people realize by now that is an insufficient way to find even a replacement of meaning. I don't think what this guy in the video is observing is very different from the end of the nineteenth century. It's just easier to see nowadays.
  7. He has a pretty Nietzschean approach. I think he's largely right about things but I have doubts about what he was saying about the studies he read. Anyway, what he is talking about is a lot like the concept "the last man". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_man
  8. Is this the primary issue you posted about? I mean, is this the thing you are trying to solve? As far as looking back on your past, it's important to recognize that you don't need to justify it or try to portray it as you being virtuous - and then immediately doubting that you were virtuous. Based on your story, I don't get the sense that you did anything right during and after the pizza incident (except to get JT to know that things were not his fault). You admit that you got upset and you literally don't remember what caused you to snap. You admit that she literally feared you would kil
  9. There is no way to verify that someone is a reliable witness. Eyewitness testimony is always unreliable. All you can really do is find multiple eyewitnesses to get a general picture of what happened - but specifics are impossible. It's more that I am surprised that the prosecution hasn't gone after the unreliability of the evidence that the defense wants to use.
  10. First off, I'm glad you felt comfortable sharing your story. It isn't often easy to do so and it shows a commitment to growth. I know that this was a while ago and you might not remember the details of many of these disagreements with her. As a matter of introspection, though, you might be taking an ineffective perspective. If you guys were both in a learning phase, then I don't think you can say that looking back you were right all along. If you were right about anything, you probably didn't know why you were right about some things. She was probably right about a lot as well. Based o
  11. I wanted to point out that this is pretty standard for any eyewitness testimony: memories of events like these are very faulty about the details. It's a natural expectation that many details will be wrong except maybe the gist of what happened. Even for events simple as shoplifting. So the defense had a really easy job. I'm surprised the prosecution would think of this as important testimony, any prosecutor should know that eyewitness testimony is inherently flawed. If anything it weakens the case for the prosecution because it gives jurors a reason to further question that there is a good cas
  12. I'm not sure what you mean, computing power can be evaluated independently. Not potential computing power; it is computing power.
  13. The Stop the Steal. Game. When you open the game, text immediately says "the creator has been canceled, donate money to help save his freedom of speech!". That's it. Very similar way to cash in on buzzwords without meaning anything. This is just what happens when you're free to make anything you want. You get a lot of trash.
  14. I feel the same way as you. It should be clear that right now I blame the cop completely. But I can't tell anything about the prosecution discussing any facts. I'm sure you could make a great case related to questioning the validity of excited delirium, and emphasizing that causes of death don't have to be singular (including the fallibility of autopsies in particular). I'm sure there are other angles including bias of the cop himself, poor judgment of threats, things like that. But when I hear his girlfriend talk about addiction, and about how they are both addicts who are trying to reco
  15. Crypto is based on computing power and computing time. You're spending too much time coming up with clever metaphors, rather than the facts about crypto.
  16. Nah, that's a pretty direct reference to International Worker's Day
  17. Did they get into much of a discussion about excited delirium? From what I can tell from what I've read, it's a questionable term. It only exists within the context of law enforcement, and not verified to be a real thing by much medical study. As I understand, it's only a description of the behavior of someone on drugs, in particular stimulants. Or to be snarky, "the condition of being on drugs when a cop is looking at you and used to arbitrarily justify excessive force". But my point is, was it questioned, or justified as legitimate? As far as cause of death, do you think they woul
  18. I've barely seen anyone make those claims when they talk about personal failures. Sure, people might say it isn't their fault, but I've never heard anyone actually claim that they are not responsible because they lack free will. I've heard people say that free will is an illusion, I'm not denying that, just that I've never heard it used as a real defense for wrongdoing. Emotionalists that you are referring to still believe in free will, but anyone who thinks that way doesn't think reason is the means to cognition. I think on some level even the people that say free will is an illusion ne
  19. I think the surgeon qualifies as misrepresenting the surgery, and we can call the surgery fraudulent, but I don't think that translates to bearing the responsibility for the murders. On the other hand, the murderer was honestly trying to receive medical treatment for a psychological disorder. A placebo effect can be very helpful for getting someone to change their behavior. I could call it a treatment. In that way, the treatment failed, and actually exacerbated the psychological issue. That only applies to the surgeon, not the neuroscientist who might simply say that free will is an illusion a
  20. I thought it was fairly clear and direct that the whole theme about Firefly was chosen family, with freedom being very important to choosing one's family. As far as cultural parasitism, I think that's a consequence of bad writing, which is itself a consequence of focusing on selling movies to the lowest common denominator rather than focusing on making the movie. Television has seem to overcome that recently, even movies, but Hollywood movies not. Firefly is not parasitic in any sense, because there is attention to the craft without trying to take over what has already worked and has bee
  21. Basically, I think Dennett is pointing out that ideas impact people's lives. No neuroscientist can say that "yeah I don't believe in free will but just because I tell people that doesn't mean I have any responsibility for what they think." I don't think they are any different than the surgeon as far as responsibility. They didn't cause the murders in a direct way, but they are responsible for creating this sort of environment where a person might realistically choose to believe that free will is an illusion and let themselves go. Since the surgeon is basically implanting a placebo, it's no dif
  22. I think that is really going beyond the scope of the discussion because you're trying to figure things out that the questions in the OP would assume you already know. If you're having trouble distinguishing the truth from knowledge of the truth, you're not going to be able to understand what Peikoff is saying about metaphysical and epistemological possibility, and certainty.
  23. That's a good restatement. The grammar was difficult to get exactly right.
  24. I realize now that truth is also mutable, but in a different way. I spoke too loosely before. The state of reality can be different in the future - A can become B. A baby can become an adult. The state of your knowledge can change in the future because you might discover new evidence or discover an error that you correct in your reasoning. As a belief, changing it is determined by you. These roughly correspond to the way Peikoff discusses metaphysical possibility (states of reality in relation to possibility) and epistemological possibility (states of knowledge in relation to possibility).
  25. The truth is not knowledge. Knowledge is not truth. What you know is mutable because it is fallible by virtue of being a belief. Truth is not a belief. What you know is irrelevant to truth. But of course, truth can correspond with knowledge. As for your other comments, I suggest just listening to the linked lectures. It should give you the background to understand the discussion better.
×
×
  • Create New...