chewybrian wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 4:55 pm
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pmAs far as being wrong on all 3 counts, I can't really comment because I can't even see what these counts are, sorry. But if anything requires further clarification, don't hesitate to let me know.
I listed them but I will try once more.
Count 1
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think it is not fair to say that the internet is not real: the monitors, screens and transistors that makes it up are all worldly things that exist for real. It is what is on the internet that isn't real world stuff and which is imaginary. What happens in a person's imagination can have real world impacts depending on how the person reacts to this imagination. So, the impact of what happens on the cyber world is entirely dependent on what you make of it. Your imagination cannot tell you what to do or what to think about what you imagine: it can only allow you to think and see. Imagination on its own has no impact on the real world and yes, I would agree that most reasonable folks would agree with that.
Are you saying that nothing is 'real' unless it is tangible? Isn't the color green or the fourth amendment 'real'? If someone sent Matt Dillon a telegraph message that the bank was going to be robbed, wouldn't he act on that? (I do know Gunsmoke is not real, btw). Are signals representing the taps on the telegraph machine real? Telephone signals to 911 or radio signals to the patrol car seem no more or less real than this communication to you right here, so I am not sure what you are on about, there. But, I disagree with your contention that we should not act on information received in any of these ways. It seems only slightly less credible than a report in person to an officer, but still credible enough to take seriously.
Count 2
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
No, it isn't fair to say that all police are simply out to get you, especially if you are not on their wanted list. Police has informed me that police matters do not concern me and so I do not judge them, like I wouldn't judge a volcano with any moral credentials but I certainly would be willing to judge it with a scientific, skeptical approach. You seem to suggest there are two types of cops. There is not much evidence of that: when you go to the police station, you never see any "Good" Police station or "Bad" Police station so I don't give much weight to your concept. As a matter of fact, I think you are caving in to the bad cop good cop approach that police regularly use to get what they want from suspects, but this is digressing a bit.
There are police of all stripes, as there are people of all stripes in every profession. It is a spectrum, not a choice of just good or bad. Are the good or bad people labelled as such at the checkout lane of the supermarket? Aren't there good and bad people there, and in the police station, and everywhere else? Am I wrong to assume there are good and bad people everywhere?
Count 3
Empiricist-Bruno wrote: ↑September 29th, 2019, 3:18 pm
I think there are ways by which we could empower neighboors to go into our homes in a way that would be acceptable to most. If, for some reason, you don't want anyone to come to your home under any circumstances, you should be allowed to post this in a conspicuous place so that when Emergency Personnel come to your house thinking you might need rescue without any worldly evidence of it, they would know not to ask your neighboors. Although they could still ask them if they heard anything suspicious like a gun shot and if they did, then they might have enough worldly evidence to go in on their own to investigate. As far as liability issues with the police being ok with a neighboor entering your home and even inciting him/her to do so, well, I think that could be handled under the good Samaritan laws that many countries have. And if you don't want any neighboor to ever come to your place under any circumstances, you could still post up your wishes on on your front door and these wishes should be respected. And so you may have to pay the price for putting up such a sigh but then you would have only yourself to blame for the rescue people not being able to reach you, right? One thing I do not think that cops should be viewed as is "good Samaritans."
Perhaps you are not here in the US. The liability issues make this a non-starter. No way would the city or county ask someone to go into another person's home under any conditions, much less when the police might have cause to go in. This amounts to wishful thinking for us. In some other countries, maybe...?
Count 1
See, you suggest I am wrong on all 3 counts but here you start by requesting a clarification on what I mean. So, you judge before you have a clear understanding of the matter at hand. I am not overly impressed by this. I do like your interest in trying to figure exactly what I mean and so I will play along with your questions: What is tangible in other imaginary world may not be tangible to us. It is a question of relativity. If you read about Santa and there he jumps into a chimney to enter a house, the chimney will be very tangible to him. Yet, none of that is real. What is real is what is of the world we live in and not of fiction, or imagination. Colors are a properties of things of the world (presumably) and so they are real. The fourth amendment of the Constitution is part of the world and not fiction so yes, it is real. The data that a telegraph machine produce are real but the reading of this data or the story that you come up from reading that data is not real. If, what you receive from that telegraph machine is a copy of the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US, then that copy is still not the real constitution of the US. It is just a copy of it. You can destroy it without destroying the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US because it is not the real thing; it is something that is being imagined by the telegraph machine and which transmit the propaganda of the 4th amendment of the constitution of the US. Propaganda is definitely imaginary even if it is contained on real paper. This communication to me here is real to the extend that I have an imaginary handle, Empiricist-Bruno, that stands for me in the cyber world. To the extent that I accept this world as real, yes, the communication appears real but to me, the guy watching a screen at a computer monitor, all of this is imagination. Is that really hard to figure? But Empirist-Bruno never goes into real people's home whereas I do. When Empiricist-Bruno slaps someone, I haven't done anything. Now, we have a legal system that has just found someone really guilty for what his phone character did and the real guy is going to jail. That should concern everyone. We are real and what we do in the real world matters. What we simply imagine with the help of imagination machines should never ever land us in jail.
As far as your disagreement that we shouldn't act on information coming from the window on the cyber world, let me just say this: I have not said that we shouldn't react, I have said that we should react differently in some circumstances which is substantially different from what you claim that I claim. You have complained earlier that I put words into your mouth but you seem to do the same thing here and I do not appreciate. When I put words into your mouth, it was to simply complete your sentence because it seemed to me that it was the way you were going. Your complaint regarding me putting words in your mouth did not clarify whether I was or not right on about this by the way.
It seems interesting to me that you compare real world evidence with pieces of imaginary evidence and say that one is only slightly less credible than the other. The fact is one is not evidence of anything worldly and the other is evidence of something of the world. You can understand that. What you receive from imagination machines is imagination and not information; if you want to treat as information the imagination of machines, you should assume the responsibility if things go wrong with your assumption and someone dies in the process. If that killer cop gets a long jail sentence, we would all end us safer as a result.
Count 2
You say that police is a profession? You obviously know much more about the police than I do. You know them. I don't know them really. I do know them just a bit, apparently, as I generally feel the need to keep my distance from where ever they are, and so I will stay mum on the subject here. Here again, I don't see that much where something I have said on the topic is wrong. Maybe it's because our views of the police differ?
Count 3
So, in your country, my suggested approach would not be possible. Ok, let me think: So, the Emergency Personel knocks on the door, and there is no answer. They imagine a FBI guy is bleeding to death in the house with a gun shot but there is no worldly evidence for it. So, how do you get this evidence, legally? You get a helicopter overhead with a radar that has infra red or heat seeking capabilities to check on the cooling body? You try to find out contacts, finding out who is the owner of the house, who could let you in legally? If no one comes in or out of the house in a certain amount of time, say 12 hours, police may go in to investigate if neighboors say that isn't normal? But the person would likely have died by that time.
I guess the situation is the same as when police kind of strongly suspect that there is criminal activity somewhere but there isn't enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant. The result is that the criminal activity continues but our rights to privacy continue to be protected. Occasionally, a person may die like that as a result of these protections. If that is what's needed to prevent cops from going around and killing people based on "information", that may still be the right way to go.
Here again, I am definitely not found as being dead wrong with this position. You just disagree with it as if there were pros and cons like with the abortion issue.