RobQuesting
18
RobQuesting has not written any posts yet.
RobQuesting has not written any posts yet.
re: Pascal's Mugging. There are thresholds. Would a guy hand over his wallet if he was about to die from starvation, and the wallet contained his only means to prevent this? A quadrillion doesn't matter if he is not alive to see it.
The difference is that the best information we have, indicates that no available "officially sanctioned" structural change is better than radical change, if the goal is the survival of the human species. Inequality (capitalism) killed democracy, because wealth is power. WE cannot vote using a democracy we do not have to get democracy back. We cannot vote to prevent an oligarchic class continuing to promote consumption and the poisoning of our... (read more)
re: self evident. If no one is left alive to question, then there are no more questions from us. Tree-falling in the woods. Does it fall is no-one notices? Yes. Do we care? On what foundation do we judge this new lack of tree?
We "know" so little, or at least know our knowledge is imperfect, so we also know that we would form more coherent/accurate/cogent value judgements if we had more information which was accurate. Our present judgements on moral value are likely to change with a greater understanding of reality.
If, right now, we don't value human existence as much as we ought to, we can only discover how correct that judgement is,... (read more)
This is more about "Prima facie", as a legal and rational term. On face value, we weigh evidence, intending to look anew. We must consciously discard existing assumptions, in order to consciously re-asses the topic of free will.
We accept that: -in utero nutrients and stress for the mother can affect behaviour later. -A horridly abusive childhood influences behaviour later. -A hot day can alter a person's cognitive ability. -Low blood sugar can affect emotional intensity and cognitive ability.
...There are so many circumstantial factors which influence our thinking, involuntarily, that they must be considered overwhelming.
Competing with all of that evidence for why people behave the way they do (sociology, psychology, neurology, etc) is the experience of "being"... (read 389 more words →)
So, Democracy does not exist. It isn't real. It is fake. It is a culturally accepted reality, but not an objective reality.
Short version: The lower 90% of citizens on the socioeconomic scale, have absolutely no influence over the actual policies which are enacted by the US government. No matter which party is in power, for the last 40+ years.
"Yes Minister" showed us all that the notion of an ideologue in politics is a fallacy. Whatever values a person has, those values are constantly compromised and neutered, because the way politics "really" works, is more about compromise based on career goals, not some sort of ideological purity.
Self interest kills idealistic goals.
Bureaucracy and the status quo render idealism untenable.
So, relying on politicians to create significant socioeconomic change in society, and the world, must rely on a person doing an impossible job. There is no point electing a different person to do the same job, if the job is actually impossible.
Economic power is political power. Wealth equates to political power. Democracy and Capitalism are incompatible concepts.
Princeton proved this in 2014. There is no democracy in the US, and there is no particular reason to think any other Western country is particularly different. For your consideration: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
All questioning; one reasonable definition of human progress and value, ...would end if humans end. The process is what we are, more than anything else. We ask, we find answers, we evolve, we continue (hopefully) with better information than before. We make better decisions, and forge better priorities.
Some people I know are unperturbed by the idea of human extinction, as if the result would be "deserved" because "we" failed to survive.
I have a problem with that, relating to the notion that few humans decide the fate of many. A few of us have massive influence over culture, beliefs, and the actions of the many, and so only a few of us can decide... (read more)
The first goal of any moral human is to reduce the likelihood of human extinction. I hope that clears up the issue.
I would rather obey some different ideological socio-economic-political construct/model, than accept all of humanity ought to die to avoid such a scenario. After all we are speaking of a very few humans in positions of power, making these decisions for everyone, and they seem biased towards maintaining their own privilege as if it is objectively necessary. It is not. Involuntary bias is inherent to hierarchy. It is a product of social apartheid. The alternative would be inclusion of "leadership" within the same social circumstances as the many. ie: inclusion in the communities... (read more)
Thanks for the PK Dick origin. I'm grateful.
I've recently been examining the Sopolsky lectures on behavioural biology (25 part y-tube playlist from Stanford), and have had my view that objective free will is unlikely to exist in any practical way, thoroughly reinforced.
Feeling free, is rather different to being a free self determining agent.
It is remarkably useful to note that what "is", is not necessarily what we think/believe "is" real.
Subjective reality vs objective reality. Never the twain shall meet... but our subjective position on what is real and true, can come closer to the objective foundation on which our minds are built. The journey to attain greater subjective accuracy of our understanding of the [objective] universe... is the pursuit of ... being more correct... and less wrong... and is of great value.
Addition If Gandhi was to be given the choice to reduce his empathy slightly, in exchange for a reward, and he did so, every new exchange like that is more likely to be agreed to. This idea was mentioned on this site somewhere.
It is the same with cultural indoctrination into hierarchical social structures. The more we become used to concentrated power, the less we are able to notice and assess other options. Cultural norms inform and restrain rational thought. Bias is involuntary. Now we see existential threat from the "normal" operation of our structure, we have trouble doing anything about it, because all alternatives have been caused to be widely believed to be... (read more)