Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone

boots <no@xxxxx> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
like this:

Ash Wensdee <ash@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

boots <no@xxxxx> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
like this:

Ultraviolet <paula.light@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 23, 5:40 am, boots <n...@xxxxx> wrote:

<>

Personally I consider the changes I perceive in the world to be
orderly and inherently simple even though they appear complex on the
surface. To believe that there is no order in the world, no
underlying basic principle that makes it all "go", would be to embrace
chaos in its place.


So it's basically wishful thinking: believing X makes me feel bad, so
I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so.

"Wishful thinking"? When there are two views, equally valid

No. The physical world is more apparent.

So appearance is truth? That which is most apparent is most true?


That which is more apparent is more apparent, boots.


I don't think that how apparent a thing is necessarily relates to
truth in any way at all.

It is the only kind of truth that we can measure.

I've seen enough real-appearing fakery and
phoney-appearing reality to invalidate appearance as a measuring
stick. To me the command "thou shalt not test the lord thy god" is
either a statement of godfakery or an application of reverse
psychology, and I say test the motherfucker and see what makes it
tick.

Also, "show me an electron" is super gay. Thoughts aren't invisible
just because they are very very small.

"super gay"? I've few clues about what current vernacular means, I
lack the contextual understanding that might be gleaned from staring
at a TV several hours a day or talking with children who have not yet
left the nest.


It means you are so badly behind in the debate that you are relying on
ridiculously weak arguments.


Electrons may not in fact exist.

Everything may not in fact exist.

Do you not realise that that is all you are saying and no one is
disagreeing?

Oh, certainly the experiments that
'prove' their existence are evidence of behaviour that coincides with
that postulated for electrons.

That means they exist. They are definitional terms for that behaviour.

Do you not realise that that is why what you are saying is so foolish
and why the haddad cannot win this debate?

But that only shows that things
appearing to be electrons exist, not that they're electrons, not that
the postulated critter actually exists; what actually exists may be
much simpler than the postulated critter, or perhaps more complex, or
perhaps entirely different but exhibiting the behaviour expected of
electrons in only the most specialized of circumstances.


boots, electrons *are* the behaviour expected of electrons. There is
nothing more or less for them to be.

choosing
the one that seems more useful is "wishful thinking"?

Choosing the one that fits your purposes is wishful thinking.

So when Ashby says that he chooses the view that includes electrons
because it has great utility he's engaging in wishful thinking?

He doesn't have a purpose other than describing the world that I know
of. Perhaps you can see into his soul better than I can, boots.



I'm not btw disagreeing with Ashby about the utility of that view, but
neither am I accepting that view as the most useful of all possible
views.

It certainly has more utility than "I'm just imagining it all".


Knowing you, you'll be tempted to say that I have no evidence for
believing it's not so. That is true.

Well, since it's unprovable one way or the other, that's all right.

But, being logical, in the
absence of evidence for a thing's existence, I do not postulate that
it exists, even if it would be nice.

So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of
absence"?

I do for sure. The simplest explanation for the absence of evidence of
most things is that they do not exist.

Simplest explanations often have great utility.

Which is why we cleave to them, bro.


You say "for sure" yet you go on to say "most things". If the
statement must be weasified how sure can you really be?

Sure enough. The caveat isn't weaselling. It's simply that some things
do not leave evidence for other reasons. In the absence of those other
reasons, we can conclude lack of existence. Should evidence later turn
up, we can change our conclusion.

The good thing about science is that it doesn't require us to be
dogmatic in the way you seem to feel you need to.


What good is
a methodology that only handles 'most' cases when you need one that
reliably handles *all* cases?


That is like saying what is the use of knowing some things if you do
not or cannot know everything.


Science is all about accepting the simplest explanation that the
observable facts will bear. You can scarcely expect rational people,
like UV, to take any other standpoint.

I am not asking anyone to take any other standpoint than that the
simplest explanation which contains all data is most useful, but the
societal belief that what 'science' has heretofore come up with is the
simplest explanation that can be developed is a belief that I find
either hugely arrogant or viciously naive but in either case
ludicrous.


There is a considerable gulf between "the simplest explanation that
can be developed" and "the simplest explanation that we have
developed".

That seems illogical

No. It's dictated by Occam's Razor. See his works for an explanation.

I'm familiar with it as you are well aware. I prefer using a slightly
different razor that strives for maximum utility rather than maximum
simplicity. The world in which we find ourselves is not after all
simple on its surface.


It's a lot simpler than most people believe.

it seems more reasonable to believe
only that absence of evidence is absence of evidence.


It depends how much bigger the set of things that exist is than the
set of things that exist and there is evidence of it.

If you choose to bet odds, I suppose that's a reasonable way of
putting it.

It has nothing to do with odds. I'm sure John recognises that I'm
saying that it can be true of 100% of things and there can still be
infinite things it is not true of.


Besides, if you
do not postulate a thing's existence, how can you begin to falsify its
existence?


You begin by providing an outline of what evidence you would expect
for it.

We await your hypothesis.

Do be patient as I am not driven by the expectations of others nearly
so much as by the progress of things I've already set into motion and
those bear fruit when they will.

I wish you would work on my poker, bro. I apologise for not getting
back to you (lost in busyness) but the practical use of it is what I
care about.


Apparently there are people who can embrace chaos yet somehow believe
that 'good' and 'bad' have meanings beyond convenience.


Who does that?

You can find the same people talking about how things happen randomly
and how important moral choices are, that's the same thing wouldn't
you say?


No.

I would say that if life is a result of randomness then all ethics and
morality is a matter of convenience.


Convenience is the wrong word.

I would say that if any
randomness exists anything can be random.

That is clearly not true.


But what I do in fact say
is that randomness is a hoax, an excuse, a throwing up of hands in the
face of a view occluded by lace doilies.


No, sorry.

If I was to
live in that world of ultimate anarchy, where things just happen,
where there is no superlative underlying principle (nevermind deity
that isn't a necessary part of it) there would be no reason whatsoever
to obey laws that could be skirted, which in large part seems to be
the way most of the world operates from Joe who scoffs at speed laws
and cheats on his taxes to national governments that scoff at treaties
they have agreed upon.


Yep. If you were 100% sure you could get away with all that, sure. The
consequences of getting caught are pretty unpleasant though, so in the
absence of 100% certainty, it's logical to obey the laws.

The consequences of being helpless are pretty unpleasant too, so
what's the difference between being upfront about taking what you want
and sneaking around to suck it up when the tit is unoccupied? I mean,
if it's all chaos and we're going to die of it, who fucking cares?

Anyone who does not believe in making a principle of their
metaphysics.

I always get confused by philosophical terminology, the difference
between metaphysics and ontology, crap like that, so if you want to
communicate unfortunately you'll need to deal with the moron of me.



Metaphysics is the study of what things are *really*. In other words,
how the world is structured.
Ontology is the study of what things exist. In other words, what the
world consists of.

They are related, obviously.

Of what use is philosophy if it is not applied as a principle of life?

It's largely of no use whatsoever.

Is it simply a handy distraction to prevent consideration of the real
conditions of things?

I think it is a refusal to accept that the "real" conditions of things
is unknowable.

Something one keeps around to impress one's
betters that one is better than one?


Not really. It's not exclusive. Anyone can do it. You don't need to
know the jargon to know how to do it, just as you don't need to know
what an adverb is to use them correctly.

If
there's no underlying order to things, all's fair because fairness is
a conceptual scapegoat used by those who have to get more from the
Stupids.


Why does there have to be an underlying order to things for good and
bad to be conceptually useful?

If there is no underlying order to the world, what point have the
concepts 'good' and 'bad'?

You don't think they are useful in constructing a more superficial
order?

If there is no underlying order, if
anything and everything can be random, helter-skelter unpredictable
whatever *** happens next for no reason whatsoever, the concepts are
valueless trinkets clutched in the hands of cargo-cult savages hoping
to *** that their amulets of obeisance will save them from something
really really bad that could just as well happen next as never.


Yes, you have it exactly right. Epicurus said the same thing,
actually.

Also, most
people have evolved to want to be part of a community, and if cheating
your fellows makes you feel separate from them and thus sad, you might
not want to in that case either.

Have most people evolved that way? Interesting. Bovine, even.

More canine than bovine.

Perhaps. Never having been a part of any herd or pack for more than
the briefest of moments, I'm hardly qualified to discern between the
two.


Don't be stupid. You are not an island.


If the physical drives the spiritual there is only advantage to
consider and we're stuck in it with no way out; if the spiritual
drives the physical it's fuckall complicated and difficult to
understand but if one can somehow manage to understand why he's done
that to himself it's a matter of changing a few small things that
magnified change everything.

It's a choice. You can be the victim of a physical chaotic world and
fight for whatever is to your advantage, or take the other view and
seek out what is right.


I'm glad you're not a victim of the physical world; that's neato. Like
magic!

Your sarcasm is appreciated. There is more magic in the world than
you care to recognize.


I recognise none at all. Show me the magic, bootsy.

It is not a thing for me to show as if I've just created it, it is a
thing already in your world waiting for you to recognize it. That you
have not is not indicative that you will not.

So long as it manifests as a run of wins at poker, I'm cool with that.

--

Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.

Ash Wensdee
.