News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Moral Nihilism

Started by xSilverPhinx, January 27, 2020, 02:41:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bluenose

I'm tired of reading these endless meaningless diatribes, billy is now on my ignore list
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


billy rubin

Quote from: Bluenose on February 19, 2020, 12:25:06 PM
I'm tired of reading these endless meaningless diatribes, billy is now on my ignore list

well, ignoring me won t change the number of diatribes you read, scout.

perhaps you should consult a dictionary definition.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Davin

Looks like that was your last strike, billy rubin.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Recusant

#108
Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PMhere is a definition of instinct, pulled from wiki. it is subject to all the usual limitations of definitions:

QuoteInstinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior. The simplest example of an instinctive behavior is a fixed action pattern (FAP), in which a very short to medium length sequence of actions, without variation, are carried out in response to a corresponding clearly defined stimulus.

Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will automatically move toward the ocean. A marsupial climbs into its mother's pouch upon being born. Honeybees communicate by dancing in the direction of a food source without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and the building of nests. Though an instinct is defined by its invariant innate characteristics, details of its performance can be changed by experience; for example, a dog can improve its fighting skills by practice.

the learning process that occurs in tandem running in ants does not fit this definition of instinct. it is not a fixed action pattern, it is not based on prior experience, and it is definitely based on the presence of learning. it is not an invariant innate characteristic that is improved by experience.

The definition you cited states that honeybees instinctively dance to communicate directions to food sources. I honestly don't see anything about tandem running that differentiates it qualitatively from the honeybees' dance; it appears to me to be an equally instinctive behavior on the part of ants. The tandem running article clearly states that in Temnothorax albipennis (a species that appears repeatedly in the article references), all age groups, including young ants, engage in the activity. In other words, they don't have to be taught to engage in the process, though with experience they improve their performance. Just as with honeybees, there is teaching and learning going on, but the article doesn't present any evidence showing that the process is not instinctive.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PMif tandem running in ants is going to be defined as instinctive, then i think that there is no behavior in any organism that cannot also be defined in the same way, using the suitable exceptions, and the term instinctive loses any useful meaning. i maintain that discovering this single exception to the statement that "ants are completely guided by instinct," falsifies the assertion. but quibbling over the definitions is not useful. what is important is what they do, which is to display cognition.

What is it about tandem running that you believe distinguishes it from other teaching and learning behavior displayed by insects which is considered instinctive? It doesn't appear to me to be an exception.

Some species of birds build amazingly engineered nests. They weren't taught how to do it, but they do learn to improve their technique in successive years. The first sentence of the definition you cited is clear: "Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism towards a particular complex behavior." Perhaps you have some insight into this that I do not. I really do not understand why you think tandem running in insects is not instinctive.

As I understand it, instinctive behavior does not and could not eliminate volition. A bird builds a complex nest. Its choice regarding materials is guided by instinct, but the bird still must remember and/or seek out the locations of the materials. Though the bird's choice of materials will be guided by instinct, a locality will require a particular approach by the birds there. Birds of the same species in a locality with a different set of resources will adopt a different approach. In the end, both groups will build nests on the same basic plan. To me, this result shows that the nest-building is an instinctive activity. A bird that manages to live long enough to reproduce will build a nest. It didn't go to nest-building school in the mean-time.

In the same way, certain species of ants exhibit tandem running. They learn how to do it more effectively with experience, but the behavior itself is not taught to them. Given instinctive teaching/learning behavior in other insects, it's reasonable to say that the ants are born with an inherent inclination to do tandem running.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PM
QuoteFor one, most animals have an instinctive fear of fire. We seem to have been able to suppress that instinct fairly effectively. Rather than fear fire, we've learned to respect it and use it

i think that any dog that lies by the camp fire to stay warm has accomplished the same thing, so humans are no excption here.

In my opinion, dogs are a special case. When I was a child, I did some experimentation with the dogs in the kennel (Alaskan malamutes and a few Siberians). Though most of them had spent some time in the house, they were not by any means house dogs, and would have had practically no experience of fire. Talking cheerfully to the dogs, I held a stick with a definite ember, perhaps half an inch in diameter, emitting a fair quantity of smoke, at the door of a dog's run. (I couldn't manage to keep a flame on the stick, but didn't think it would matter that much to the results.) The dogs were not confined to proximity with the ember--they could easily retreat to the back of the run. None of them did. At least none of the ones I tested did. They all seemed cautiously interested and not fearful. Even when the stick was inserted through the wire mesh of the door, the dogs did not retreat.

I didn't manage to get a full data set, though. My father saw me in the midst of the procedure, and I paid the price. He burned the back of my hand with my scientific equipment, then gave me a good licking.  :lol: Whatever, I was genuinely curious about how dogs actually reacted to fire in a novel situation (a curious boy coming to their house holding a stick with a glowing, smoking ember), and was doing them no harm. I think that there is no question that the millennia they've spent in our company have modified their relation to the instincts they inherited from the wolves.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PM
QuoteI think you're tring to pull a half-nihilist, claiming that while individuals definitely do exist, species is a human concept and therefore species don't exist "in nature." The problem with that is, individual is just as much a human concept as species.

i don't see how nihilism is involved in this question.

"definition" does not imply "value," which is only part of the concept of "meaning." i'm not asserting that.

but regarding species and individual, the "individual" does exist in the world and can be pointed to-- i can hold an individual in my hand.  "species" has no existence at the sme level. for example, the "species" of leopard frog absolutely is a human concept, one  that has changed in defintion repeatedly over time. there used to be a single "species" of leopard frog in north america, but currently there are fourteen. the individuals and their breeding populations have never changed. only their "species."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_frog

there are thousands of examples of individuals and of breeding populatins that at one time constituted "species" and at other times haven't. "species" is a fluid concept.

Yes, I see that we haven't agreed on a definition of nihilism yet.  :sidesmile:

QuoteNihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

[source]

Specifically, I was referring to epistemological nihilism: "The philosophy that we cannot know anything for sure.  Also known as radical skepticism."

You're willing to propose that the existence of individuals is a sound concept, given the evidence, yet appear unwilling to accept that the concept of the existence of species is equally sound, given the evidence. The epistomological nihilst would tell us that neither concept is sound. Regardless of evidence, no human concepts regarding the universe have any real validity. We observe the evidence for the existence of species (by any modern scientific definition you care to adopt for the moment), just as we observe the evidence for the existence of individuals. The fluidity of the concept does not detract from its usefulness. Nor does its fluidity detract from its validity. Both concepts are human constructs, based on evidence observed by humans. In the half-nihilist view, we can know for sure that individuals exist, but we can't know for sure that species exist. In the epistomological nihilist view, all explanations differentiating the concept of species from that of individual run aground.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PM
QuoteSignificance is a concept used by our species to differentiate things. You may claim that because it's a human concept, it has no "real" existence. This seems another instance of the half-nihilist move. Either concepts exist or they don't. If they do exist, then we must be able to determine which concepts provide a useful perspective on our environment and which do not.

i am merely pointing out that if you aren't going to define what you mean by "significance," and how it might be "useful," whatever i substitute might or might not be what you mean. the existence of a nominal species is not at all significant to the existence of a breeding population unless they are the same.

QuoteI already explained why I think that a species is more significant than an individual member of the species. A species exists as an entity composed of individuals. It's more significant in the same way that a cat is more significant than a cat hair. The cat is a more significant entity than any individual cat hair if for no other reason than the cat has a wider range of influence on the world.

you have NEVER explained it until now, you have just asserted it.

Hmm, you must have misunderstood what I was doing when I wrote the following:

QuoteConsidering the question of existence, I think that we exist most significantly as a species, just as any other organism does. By that I mean, individual members of the species are evanescent manifestations. They can affect the course of the species' existence, but the existence of the species as a whole doesn't depend on any individual. Rather, the individual's existence depends on that of the species.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PMthat's why i've asked for clarification. it finally appears that your definition of "significant" is "to have a wider range of influence on the world," specifically in terms of enumeration (individuals versus group) or composition (parts versus whole ). so a pile of rocks is more significant than a single rock, and a tree is more significant than a leaf. i would guess that a world war is more significant than a single death? that works so long as we aren't talking about the archduke ferdinand and his wife, where a single death caused a world war, and can be seen to have been equally "significant." but now that i understand what "significant" means, to you, i can discuss it without misinterpreting you. im still not sure how it applies to "zpeciez" though.

If the cat analogy and the explanation quoted above are insufficient, then I think any further manipulation of my keyboard is going to be as well.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 18, 2020, 05:47:38 PM
QuoteI think it is impossible to reconcile the nihilist position with the concept of value, or that of significance. That being the case, I don't expect you to agree that there is any such thing as significance. But I reject nihilism.

i agree on the insignificance of significance. i see value and significance as local concepts that don't have any meaning that transcends local usage. i see nihilism as the only unbiased view of the universe. but in conversation i can work with any defintion of value or significance that can be defined, but every conversation will likely have a different one.

Local usage is all we have. There is no universal usage; that's an appeal to the realm of gods, or Plato's Ideals. What is significant to thinking sentient beings is significant, full stop. There is no other source of significance of which we are aware.

The Christian claims to have access to the only genuine view of reality: "God is our Lord. Lord Jesus died for our sins." The nihilist also claims to have access to the only genuine view of reality: "Human beings are incapable of a genuine understanding of reality." Both display a marked bias. One toward religious faith, the other toward a negation of rationality in the name of rationality.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Recusant

Quote from: Davin on February 18, 2020, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: Recusant on February 18, 2020, 03:33:28 AM
Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

There is a point, and I think it's been crossed, where having someone define what they mean by a word/term ends up being more work for one side than the other. If we look at the discussion, bill rubin here has you jumping through a lot of hoops, and getting you to do a lot of extra work, only to ignore what you've said and continue to claim that you think a term means something you've clearly said doesn't mean that in your usage. That's why we have the suggestion in the forum guidelines of taking the most generous interpretation. I think you've been honoring that, and I like to honor it, but billy rubin has been doing the opposite.

The generous interpretation is that billy rubin is endeavouring to achieve clarity. My sometimes prolix wittering may on occasion be less than transparent.  :sadnod:

Quote from: Davin on February 18, 2020, 02:51:53 PMTrue, there are problems with taking only the dictionary definitions, but those problems tend to go away with the principle of charity and a few quick corrections here and there. There are also problems with making discussion dictionaries, like what we've seen here where one side seems to be asking for clarification on usages that are already clear based on the context of the usages for anyone with a reading level above grade school. Now I don't think that billy rubin is that terrible at reading, I think that billy rubin does not like to have its ideas actually challenged and uses this "define this for me" as an avoidance tactic to temporarily dodge things that directly challenge their claims.

While I admire the willingness to use the "singular they" (I've been advocating its use for some years), billy rubin is clearly a man, and identifies as such. It's "they/their" not "it/their," though.

Should temporary dodges be resorted to, they may be overcome with patience. If not, no problem--there is still entertainment value, and the possibility of things being learned in the course of the discussion. Those are the primary objectives as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Davin on February 18, 2020, 02:51:53 PMI think the first time you clarified what you meant by mind, was clear enough to understand that you did not mean only humans. And yet... they seem highly resistant to accepting what you say you mean. Then there's the claims about you saying things that you've never said. Ignoring and avoiding direct questions that could clarify things and reduce the amount of work you're doing with all these needless paragraphs of clarification. But if they did answer those direct questions, it would pin them down and they seem to like being unclear and love these muddy waters they've created. I mean there's a lot of stuff going on here where billy rubin is demonstrating that they are not arguing in good faith.

I've had many discussions with nihilists who have no issues with understanding and using common terms. Even value is not something that nihilists have no concept of, if anything, they only need to qualify it. It is possible to understand what another person means and still not agree with them. However, billy rubin seems to be taking the tact they don't have the faculties to even understand you, therefore what you say is meaningless. It's like you're either arguing with a black hole or a pigeon, neither results in a useful discussion after a point. You seem to like stretching your muscles with the basic challenges here, so there's at least that utility. I like that too from time to time, and it's also personally useful to me to roll out the concepts I've been working on and/or haven't had to pull out in a while. I never got past the basic point with billy rubin of merely agreeing to the definition of a common term because they buried their head in the sand.

Even if everything you say about the discussion is accurate, it does not detract from the entertainment value to me. Nor from the things that I've learned, like some instinctive behaviors of ants that I didn't know about.  ;)

I don't fault people for preferring not to engage in such discussions, and realize that in reading them, they don't get the same entertainment value (in fact, may find reading them to be frustrating). Probably best that they turn away from such self-indulgent displays.   ;D
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Bad Penny II

Quote from: Bad Penny II on January 31, 2020, 02:43:43 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on January 31, 2020, 02:17:44 PM
Quote from: Bad Penny II

You don't make any sense to me.
There's no supernatural, never has been.
There's just us happy or resigned to being us and the fantasists.
And disaffected fantasist refugees.
Ye, if the answer doesn't come from on high there is no answer.


where did i say that your moral sense was supernatural?

You repeatedly look to some outside authority to legitimise rules and you find none and you declare the whole rule declaring thing intrinsically lacking. Did you used to have a god?

Quote from: billy rubin on January 31, 2020, 04:03:04 PM

ive been an atheist/agnostic most all of my life. but id be a hindu if it msde sense. the food iz good, although only the aghoris eat babies.

Quote from: billy rubin on February 20, 2020, 07:22:13 PM

i bitched at the brewery back when i was a theist for doing that and the owner promised to take "society of friends" off his packaging. l

So you did (as an adult I assume) have a god.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Inertialmass

Ha, ha.

Why would anyone ever gratuitously announce to the world "I never tell lies!!!" unless... ?

Look for the massive quaker christer quotes sprinkled throughout "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" and "Is God Imaginary?" Forum archives, coincidentally all in lower case and claiming ad nauseam that morality absent god is illogical.



billy rubin

Quote from: bad penny
So you did (as an adult I assume) have a god.
,
sure, as ive said. for what thats worth. i grew up in a religiously apathetic household, with various hinduz, muslimz, roman catholics, atheists and so on. in my forties i experienced a series of highly improbable experiencez which i interpreted as mozt likely associated with gods. so i gave godz the benefit of the doubt for about 15 years. the experiences have ceased, and so has my belief.

rheres only one world, as i see it, and so i modify my interpretations to reflect what i experience.

sorry about my stalkers, by the way. giving them attention just encouragez them, but its unfortunate that they try to draw in other people.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Magdalena


"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Davin

Quote from: Recusant on February 21, 2020, 12:28:11 AM
The generous interpretation is that billy rubin is endeavouring to achieve clarity. My sometimes prolix wittering may on occasion be less than transparent.  :sadnod:
I think it's better to use the principle on what is said than assuming intentions.

Quote from: Recusant
While I admire the willingness to use the "singular they" (I've been advocating its use for some years), billy rubin is clearly a man, and identifies as such. It's "they/their" not "it/their," though.
I don't remember reading anything about billy rubin's gender, and I don't really care that much, in most posts I ignore them. I don't see an issue with using "it."

Quote from: Recusant
Even if everything you say about the discussion is accurate, it does not detract from the entertainment value to me. Nor from the things that I've learned, like some instinctive behaviors of ants that I didn't know about.  ;)
Yeah, I figured.

Quote from: Recusant
I don't fault people for preferring not to engage in such discussions, and realize that in reading them, they don't get the same entertainment value (in fact, may find reading them to be frustrating). Probably best that they turn away from such self-indulgent displays.   ;D
Doesn't bother me, I'm just pointing out the bad faith argument red flags.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Davin

Quote from: Magdalena on February 21, 2020, 02:14:25 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 21, 2020, 12:37:45 PM
...
sorry about my stalkers, by the way...

That looks like more drama. Like billy rubin is trying to stir shit with their "stalkers."
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Magdalena

Quote from: Davin on February 21, 2020, 02:27:07 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on February 21, 2020, 02:14:25 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 21, 2020, 12:37:45 PM
...
sorry about my stalkers, by the way...

That looks like more drama. Like billy rubin is trying to stir shit with their "stalkers."
I don't think the problem is billy rubin. I don't really care what he said at the "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" and "Is God Imaginary?" Forum. Do you? Does anyone, here? Why would Inertialmass even want us to go there? Again, billy rubin hasn't responded to the constant, "ha ha ha ha's" and the gossiping they bring. I admire his patience.
~Good thing this is the most BORING forum in the whole wide world!
:smilenod:


:levitate:
There will be no drama.
There will be no drama.
There will be no drama.
There will be no drama.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Inertialmass

^^^^  Now that's drama.  All I offered were a couple very terse suggestions.  Which you were obviously totally free to ignore.  Speaking of which, is pleading the Fifth, thus ignoring one's interlocutor, more often symptomatic of innocence or guilt?  Openness or secrecy???

Now, were I a contemporary woman posting regularly on this sort of Forum I'd seriously have reserved my energy and my wrath for the rape jokes and the "he, he, he" emoticons to follow.


Tank

Quote from: Inertialmass on February 21, 2020, 03:32:40 PM
^^^^  Now that's drama.  All I offered were a couple very terse suggestions.  Which you were obviously totally free to ignore.  Speaking of which, is pleading the Fifth, thus ignoring one's interlocutor, more often symptomatic of innocence or guilt?  Openness or secrecy???

Now, were I a contemporary woman posting regularly on this sort of Forum I'd seriously have reserved my energy and my wrath for the rape jokes and the "he, he, he" emoticons to follow.

Inertialmass

Stop shit disturbing now. You've made your point. If you continue I will consider it trolling and that is against the rules.

Tank
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Magdalena

Quote from: Inertialmass on February 21, 2020, 03:32:40 PM
^^^^  Now that's drama.  All I offered were a couple very terse suggestions.  Which you were obviously totally free to ignore.  Speaking of which, is pleading the Fifth, thus ignoring one's interlocutor, more often symptomatic of innocence or guilt?  Openness or secrecy???

Now, were I a contemporary woman posting regularly on this sort of Forum I'd seriously have reserved my energy and my wrath for the rape jokes and the "he, he, he" emoticons to follow.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant