User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2016-05-30 at 4:50 PM UTC in Why does anything exist? Why not instead of all this why not just nothing?I don't know, but I feel like it doesn't really matter. Maybe something and nothing are sort of like the opposite ends of a stick; when you pick up one end of the stick the other comes with it.
-
2016-05-29 at 9:54 PM UTC in Newspeak Definition of the Day: White-or-hispanic= mudslimeYeah, that sounds about right.
-
2016-05-29 at 9:44 PM UTC in Newspeak Definition of the Day: White-or-hispanic= mudslimeWelcome to the brave new world.
-
2016-05-29 at 9:39 PM UTC in anybody here believe in aliens?
This reminds me of the metamorphosis of prime intellect.
I was copy-pasting that story to a thread here but I never finished. I did read it though and while I think it was a little lacking as a story (I think he wrote it sporadically while in college) I really enjoy some of the themes and of course the whole idea of "prime intellect". A part of me feels like either we are heading towards something like that, or already are a part of something like that in a VALIS sort of way. -
2016-05-29 at 6:39 PM UTC in anybody here believe in aliens?I think extraterrestrial life is not only possible, but likely inevitable. Lifeforms with a human-like mind or "intelligence" is probably less likely but still possible.
I also think there could be being/entities that are able to travel across dimensions or exist as a part of "higher" dimensions, pan dimensional beings or intelligent hyperspacial structures.
Have you ever heard about VALIS (Vast Active Living Intelligence System)?Dick claimed that VALIS used "disinhibiting stimuli" to communicate, using symbols to trigger recollection of intrinsic knowledge through the loss of amnesia, achieving gnosis. Drawing directly from Platonism and Gnosticism, Dick wrote in his Exegesis: "We appear to be memory coils (DNA carriers capable of experience) in a computer-like thinking system which, although we have correctly recorded and stored thousands of years of experiential information, and each of us possesses somewhat different deposits from all the other life forms, there is a malfunction—a failure—of memory retrieval."
At one point, Dick claimed to be in a state of enthousiasmos with VALIS, where he was informed his infant son was in danger of perishing from an unnamed malady. Routine checkups on the child had shown no trouble or illness; however, Dick insisted that thorough tests be run to ensure his son's health. The doctor eventually complied, despite the fact that there were no apparent symptoms. During the examination doctors discovered an inguinal hernia, which would have killed the child if an operation was not quickly performed. His son survived thanks to the operation, which Dick attributed to the "intervention" of VALIS.
Another event was an episode of supposed xenoglossia. Supposedly, Dick's wife transcribed the sounds she heard him speak, and discovered that he was speaking Koine Greek—the common Greek dialect during the Hellenistic years (3rd century BC–4th century AD) and direct "father" of today's modern Greek language—which he had never studied. As Dick was to later discover, Koine Greek was originally used to write the New Testament and the Septuagint. However, this was not the first time Dick had claimed xenoglossia: a decade earlier, Dick insisted he was able to think, speak, and read fluent Koine Greek under the influence of Sandoz LSD-25. -
2016-05-29 at 5:40 PM UTC in The trianglist wagonist blasts off into outer spaceHow did you get the caravan?
-
2016-05-29 at 5:16 PM UTC in When people say "on my day off"^ LOL that makes a lot of sense actually. I remember in a recent thread someone posted about how humans are a disease and Lan appeared to take that statement literally instead of metaphorically.
-
2016-05-29 at 4:42 AM UTC in When people say "on my day off"In my country some people work for weeks at a time. A buddy of mine works for 14 days at a time, I think 10 or 12 hours a day, then takes 7 days off before his next shift.
-
2016-05-27 at 11:37 PM UTC in Question for the EurofagsDo you not like me Sophie?
-
2016-05-27 at 10:09 PM UTC in Question for the EurofagsI don't care what he does.
-
2016-05-27 at 9:58 PM UTC in Question for the EurofagsThe cuck-like indifference you display towards the Islamic Invasion of your motherland is amusing to me.
-
2016-05-26 at 7:46 PM UTC in women in the work place, anyone ever dealt with this?
^my dad is a fucking asshole, He told me today "well doug, you dug your own hole"
He's not wrong, it isn't like someone else fucked your life up. You made all the decisions and mistakes that led up to this.
You are the only one responsible for how your life is. -
2016-05-26 at 7:37 PM UTC in question for racistsWould you guys say Bill Krozby qualifies as a nigger?
-
2016-05-26 at 6:26 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas Edition
True, emotionally retarded. That's how I classify myself.
That cannot be healthy. -
2016-05-26 at 4:29 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas EditionAsk yourself why you hate yourself and how hating yourself benefits you in any way.
-
2016-05-26 at 4:26 PM UTC in Tips for not hating life: Your Ideas EditionHating yourself appears to be a retarded behavior.
-
2016-05-19 at 9 PM UTC in Sploo fucks ugly girls throat while high on bundy
-
2016-05-16 at 11:02 AM UTC in Got attacked at workHe was probably an illuminati agent sent to destroy your dreams because your YouTube links are spreading too much truth around.
-
2016-05-16 at 10:49 AM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongAn objective morality doesn't make any sense, at least to me Lanny. Maybe I'm just too dumb to wrap my head around the concept, but honestly in my mind it is nonsense. Maybe it makes sense to you. Either way it probably isn't very important because we're still here living this life and I don't think a subjective or objective morality actually changes anything about that.
-
2016-05-15 at 4:11 PM UTC in zoo's are fundamentally wrongIf morality were an absolute "fundamental law", something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.
Therefore a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one. That’s because by definition it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?
Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality? I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral.(plague is bad, yet plague has no consciousness or moral agency)
Without someone to consider plague to be bad, plague is not bad, it is only plague.Similarly mass extinction of complex life would result in a world where nothing is around to subjectively experience the wrongness of it and yet we can consider such a world and most of us would deem such genocide to be wrong.
Correct,, it is an opinion, a perspective, a consideration, something we deem. If we were not around to deem the world to be right or wrong the world would not be right or wrong, it would only be the world.Something in the nature of certain types of consciousness brings about morality inevitably
Our moral sense is one of a number of systems developed by evolution to do a job: the immune systems counters infection, the visual system gives us information about the world, and our moral feelings are there as a social glue to enable us to cooperate with other humans.
Evolution doesn’t operate according to what "is moral", it operates according to what helps someone to have more descendants. Even if there were an "absolute" morality, there is no reason to suppose that it would have any connection to our own human sense of morality. Anyone arguing for objective morality by starting with human morality and intuition is thus basing their case on a non sequitur.So we can look at abstract objects, regardless of what ontological status you grant them, as a similar example of something which is objective, or minimally non-subjective, and yet which owe their status entirely to subjective perception in a similar way to how we might propose a constructivist model of ethics.
I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. How can an abstract object be objective? What does this have to do with morality?
What would "objective morality" even mean? Yes, humans have an intuition about it, but that intuition was programmed for purely subjective and pragmatic reasons, and thus is a hopeless base for establishing absolute morality.
When asked, the advocate of absolute morality explains that it is concerned with what one "should do", regardless of human opinion or desire. When asked what "should do" means they’ll replace it with a near synonym, explaining that it is what one "ought to do". But if you press further they’ll simply retreat into circularity, explaining that what you "ought" to do is what you "should" do, and thus beg the whole question. They can’t do any better than that, though they’ll likely appeal to human intuition, which won’t do for the reasons above.
There is one clear answer here. The "oughts" and "shoulds" are rooted in human opinion, they are what people would like to happen. Thus morality is of the form "George is of the opinion that you should …" or "human consensus is that you should …" or "people have an emotional revulsion to …". But, without the subject doing the feeling and opining, morality would not make sense. Morality is all about what other humans think about someone’s actions. That is why evolution programmed moral senses into us. Remove that subjective human opinion and the result is literally nonsensical.
