Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Not at all. Learning machines are rapidly being refined, and refining themselves.
Learning machines do not get around the inherent limitations of computation. Computation is an set of algorithmic effective procedures and will never be able to understand anything, and understanding and non-algorithmic plausible reasoning is necessary to attempt to make predictions about future economic conditions.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Nonsense! Each boom and bust is itself a runaway effect - and uncontrolled run for a time.
Uncontrolled by what? Free markets are never controlled and tend toward equilibrium as a self-organizing system.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm A runaway effect as you describe is would be inevitably the end of a society. If you would like to save yourself much time and filter out unreal possibilities, you might want to consider Feynman's observations here about the difference between mathematical abstractions and reality as it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
No one said anything about mathematical abstraction.

Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Basically you are claiming that the work of all reserve banks - the steering controls - since the Great depression has been pointless.

Where is your evidence for this claim?
Worse than pointless, it has been harmful. They have been responsible for the boom/bust cycles that we have experienced. That you are asking for empirical evidence demonstrates you are not understanding the basis of economics.

I would like to direct you to an economics text:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Man%2C%20E ... e=document

Page 994 (1059 if you type it in for the PDF), you can read the section on credit expansion and the business cycle.
Littlemoon
Posts: 51
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Littlemoon »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:32 pm
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Not at all. Learning machines are rapidly being refined, and refining themselves.
Learning machines do not get around the inherent limitations of computation. Computation is an set of algorithmic effective procedures and will never be able to understand anything, and understanding and non-algorithmic plausible reasoning is necessary to attempt to make predictions about future economic conditions.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Nonsense! Each boom and bust is itself a runaway effect - and uncontrolled run for a time.
Uncontrolled by what? Free markets are never controlled and tend toward equilibrium as a self-organizing system.
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm A runaway effect as you describe is would be inevitably the end of a society. If you would like to save yourself much time and filter out unreal possibilities, you might want to consider Feynman's observations here about the difference between mathematical abstractions and reality as it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZZPF9rXzes
No one said anything about mathematical abstraction.

Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Basically you are claiming that the work of all reserve banks - the steering controls - since the Great depression has been pointless.

Where is your evidence for this claim?
Worse than pointless, it has been harmful. They have been responsible for the boom/bust cycles that we have experienced. That you are asking for empirical evidence demonstrates you are not understanding the basis of economics.

I would like to direct you to an economics text:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Man%2C%20E ... e=document

Page 994 (1059 if you type it in for the PDF), you can read the section on credit expansion and the business cycle.

Frost I do think you should read Michio Kaku book "How science will revolutionize 21st century". He explains very eloquently and in a simple language how technology will transcendent humans.
Also, there is a documentary called 2070 that explains also how AI and the computing science you speak will be demodé. I think there are subtitles in English for that documentary. I know some of the episodes exist in YouTube.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Littlemoon wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:29 pm Frost I do think you should read Michio Kaku book "How science will revolutionize 21st century". He explains very eloquently and in a simple language how technology will transcendent humans.
Also, there is a documentary called 2070 that explains also how AI and the computing science you speak will be demodé. I think there are subtitles in English for that documentary. I know some of the episodes exist in YouTube.
You can't get around the logical point that computers can't understand anything. That's the Chinese Room argument. The problem with AI is that these guys don't understand consciousness. They think in functional/computational terms.

But I wasn't able to find anything on YouTube for that documentary. You wouldn't happen to have any links, would you?
Littlemoon
Posts: 51
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Littlemoon »

You are talking about computing. But quantic computing will certainly flip the tables.
I used to think like that but I've come to believe we have been further than we are now.
https://youtu.be/69rd6I1awhU

This should put some perspective into the whole AI ordeal. I do think there are English translations. But most of the documentary is in English.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Littlemoon wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:53 pm You are talking about computing. But quantic computing will certainly flip the tables.
I used to think like that but I've come to believe we have been further than we are now.
https://youtu.be/69rd6I1awhU

This should put some perspective into the whole AI ordeal. I do think there are English translations. But most of the documentary is in English.
Thanks for the link. I will check out the documentary, but quantum computing doesn't get around that problem. It's still computing which has that inherent limitation. It's still algorithmic effective procedures...syntactical manipulation.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14994
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Sy Borg »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:32 pm
Greta wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 8:17 pm Basically you are claiming that the work of all reserve banks - the steering controls - since the Great depression has been pointless.

Where is your evidence for this claim?
Worse than pointless, it has been harmful. They have been responsible for the boom/bust cycles that we have experienced. That you are asking for empirical evidence demonstrates you are not understanding the basis of economics.

I would like to direct you to an economics text:

https://mises.org/system/tdf/Man%2C%20E ... e=document

Page 994 (1059 if you type it in for the PDF), you can read the section on credit expansion and the business cycle.
Basically, you are a fundamentalist libertarian. Thus, you are not interested in conversation but opportunities to preach your brand of orthodoxy.

In other words, you take more or less everything done by governments for granted. Ridiculous. I think you need other than fundamentalist libertarian sources too. What you did there was the equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness quoting from Watchtower magazine.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Burning ghost »

Frost -

Conflict is good ;)

Without some degree of "boom and bust" there is no room for creation. A featureless and leveled field is barren and volatile.

Anyway, I cannot follow this thread ... hope you stick around and express the economic model somewhere. I am still unsure what the future economic landscape will look like, and I am unsure how physical money will work in the future and how society will come to terms with "value" in term of future "value" alongside shifting views of general human "prosperity" (meaning the shift from material goods to human "skill" and "creativity".)

The whoel cryptocurrency thing has been fascinating to watch.
AKA badgerjelly
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Londoner »

Frost wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 1:23 pm
Amazing we could ever get to the point of establishing logical systems if we didn't have the capability of first recognizing valid inferences.
Within the system, the inference is 'valid' simply because it follows the rules, just like something is 'cricket' if it follows 'the rules of cricket'.

That we find it hard to doubt the fundamental axioms of logic may just be something about us, about our mental architecture. They are 'subjective and ideal' as Kant would put it, meaning that the mind needs them as a 'stable scheme' in order to make sense of our perceptions. If we were capable of really doubting the axioms, then we couldn't live in the world. They are 'that which commends itself as evident', so we are literally incapable of doubting them.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Count Lucanor »

Frost wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:Why would the psychic profit would be different? All of the elements that were present and made the exchange possible the first time, have remained the same. What element has been added to the equation?
Time..... The kid may get a larger psychic profit from making the same money in half the time.
You say "he may get..." which means that exactly the opposite could be true: the kid may get a larger psychic profit from making the same money in twice the time. And so the lawn owner, he could set different priorities to each variable, each time, so that theoretically it would be possible that he gets an enormous amount of profit from allowing the kid to do the work in one week, even though he does the same job for the neighbor in one hour. Is that how the subjective theory of value works?
Frost wrote:Dude, I'm talking about a single exchange where a kid went to the door of a guy and offered him $20 to mow his lawn. How is what you said supposed to enter the dynamics of the exchange? Can you describe that in detail as I described the valuation process in this situation?
This is what I already described. The kid and the lawn owner make decisions based on their circumstances and expectations obtained from the social context, its history, etc. There are variables at play, some of which the players are conscious of and some others they are not. It sounds more reasonable to think (and that's why it's presumed) that when the kid knocks the door he is aware of how the lawn mowing market is, and he is also aware that the lawn owner knows it, too. So they both work out the deal with similar expectations. Unlike the STV, where they just can't have any expectation.
Frost wrote: Economics is praxeological, sociology is empirical. Totally different.
Well, it depends on which school of sociology, some give more weight to empirical research and some others less weight. As all sciences, it has an epistemological base which defines not only its methods, but the object of study. So it's not exempt of logical analysis and inductive reasoning. But in any case, it deals with human action, which is what's behind economics. Praxeology is just the ultimate expression of social atomism, which is anyway a sociological theory, with a weak rational base.
Frost wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote: What prevents these people participating in the transactions from doing their own "praxeological reasoning" of the general praxeological reasoning in society, at the time of purchase?
It is irrelevant for typical exchanges.
The question was not whether someone else considered it irrelevant. Why it would necessarily be irrelevant for the people participating in the transactions? Why it would be out of the scope of the valuation process, that is, when I decide if the transaction fits my desires?
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Fooloso4 »

Attempting to determine the accuracy of that claim presupposes that there is something that can be determined in an epistemically objective manner.
No, that is what you presuppose. The reality is that accuracy cannot be determined in an epistemically objective manner. We are dealing with an epistemically subjective aspect of the law.

We do not live in the land of bivalent logical purity.
There is no need for any actual epistemically objective act on his part because I was afraid, damn it!
If I waited for any actual epistemically objective act on his part before protecting myself from harm it would be too late. I cannot wait to be harmed before protecting myself from being harmed. It is a matter of perception, and that perception may be wrong, but that cannot be determined in an epistemically objective manner. The best we can do is decide whether the perception of harm is reasonable and shooting in self-defense an appropriate response.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Count Lucanor »

Littlemoon wrote: February 3rd, 2018, 9:53 pm You are talking about computing. But quantic computing will certainly flip the tables.
I used to think like that but I've come to believe we have been further than we are now.
https://youtu.be/69rd6I1awhU

This should put some perspective into the whole AI ordeal. I do think there are English translations. But most of the documentary is in English.
No one doubts that gaining computational power will have an important effect on society. But it will not be able to "transcend" humans, because still there will be humans controlling it. No consciousness will emerge from pure computational power. At best, it will imitate human behavior.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Greta wrote: February 4th, 2018, 1:05 am
Basically, you are a fundamentalist libertarian. Thus, you are not interested in conversation but opportunities to preach your brand of orthodoxy.

In other words, you take more or less everything done by governments for granted. Ridiculous. I think you need other than fundamentalist libertarian sources too. What you did there was the equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness quoting from Watchtower magazine.
In other words, when you cannot refute my points just label me in an attempt to negate me. I quoted an actual section of an economics textbook and you try to brush it off as "fundamentalist libertarian sources." Give me a break.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Londoner wrote: February 4th, 2018, 6:04 am That we find it hard to doubt the fundamental axioms of logic may just be something about us, about our mental architecture. They are 'subjective and ideal' as Kant would put it, meaning that the mind needs them as a 'stable scheme' in order to make sense of our perceptions. If we were capable of really doubting the axioms, then we couldn't live in the world. They are 'that which commends itself as evident', so we are literally incapable of doubting them.
It is because the inferences are independently valid and a result of the logical structure of the world.
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Fooloso4 wrote: February 4th, 2018, 11:39 am
Attempting to determine the accuracy of that claim presupposes that there is something that can be determined in an epistemically objective manner.
No, that is what you presuppose. The reality is that accuracy cannot be determined in an epistemically objective manner. We are dealing with an epistemically subjective aspect of the law.

We do not live in the land of bivalent logical purity.
Epistemic objectivity does not require logic. It is not epistemically subjective is a person makes a certain motion with their arm. In other words, it is not a matter of opinion of whether the person's arm moved in a particular way. If there is a video showing the man reaching quickly, one cannot say "well that's just your opinion that his arm moved." On the other hand, it is a matter of opinion to say "I was afraid" or "I was offended."
Fooloso4 wrote: February 4th, 2018, 11:39 am
There is no need for any actual epistemically objective act on his part because I was afraid, damn it!
If I waited for any actual epistemically objective act on his part before protecting myself from harm it would be too late. I cannot wait to be harmed before protecting myself from being harmed. It is a matter of perception, and that perception may be wrong, but that cannot be determined in an epistemically objective manner. The best we can do is decide whether the perception of harm is reasonable and shooting in self-defense an appropriate response.
Merely being afraid is not justification for self-defense. If there was no act on his part, there is no justification for shooting him. There must be something that is ontologically objective or epistemically objective that must occur in order to justify shooing, otherwise it is quite literally murder. It is deeply concerning that people here are suggesting that people should have the legal right not to be offended or to be able to shoot others just for being afraid.
[/quote]
User avatar
Frost
Posts: 511
Joined: January 20th, 2018, 2:44 pm

Re: Why we Cannot have the Right Not To Be Offended

Post by Frost »

Burning ghost wrote: February 4th, 2018, 3:28 am Frost -

Conflict is good ;)

Without some degree of "boom and bust" there is no room for creation. A featureless and leveled field is barren and volatile.

Anyway, I cannot follow this thread ... hope you stick around and express the economic model somewhere. I am still unsure what the future economic landscape will look like, and I am unsure how physical money will work in the future and how society will come to terms with "value" in term of future "value" alongside shifting views of general human "prosperity" (meaning the shift from material goods to human "skill" and "creativity".)

The whoel cryptocurrency thing has been fascinating to watch.
The boom and bust cycles misallocate resources. We are worse off at the end of the cycle.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021