Sounds like an interesting showerthought without any way to see if its actually real, much like most of attempts to shoehorn darwinism into social sciences/philisophy

You have such a way with words

Maybe she's wrong but your argument is incomplete, saying something developed alongside language doesn't explain how it evolved or what relationship it has to language. What if both language and morality have a deeper rooted cause / selective pressure? Sure morality and language are intertwined but so are all of human concepts and mechanisms available to our cognition, otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk about it right now or retrospect. That does not mean that mechanism doesn't exist independent of language to some degree. In fact I would argue that language in its current form is only capable of representing morality in an objective way which does not exist in real world, hinting to us a more complex relationship between language and the actual source/reason for morality. See what Wittgenstein wrote on this topic and you will understand what I mean. Bottom line is that either explanation is not very satisfactory to me because both are partially wrong or incomplete, calling it flat out bullshit is trivializing the issue and pretending we have the complete answer.

Before you two commit too deeply on a "deal with it" type of argumentation, what do you think is so special about humans? And how do you take into account the gulf between a human with severe cognitive deficit vs Albert Einstein level of cognition? What bare minimum do humans have that other animals lack?

This dilemma reminds me of the structure of Plato's dialogue on what makes something pious.

Thank you! I appreciate that.

"Only love // can make it rain // like when the beach // is kissed by the sea"... ;)

Can you further explain why this question is so intriguing, and why confidence in an answer implies not understanding the depth of the conversation around it? I always have felt that numbers and math are imagined concepts and if they are “real”, they are only so in the sense that any concept is real. Are you suggesting that numbers and math exist in the physical universe, and if so what’s your argument and evidence for this belief?

If morality didn't evolve, but humans did, how did the two become disentangled?

Lmao, wtf?

Idk if you are trying to say that the idea that chaos is “oriental” is basic Aristotelian metaphysics. Or if you are saying that chaos is bad because it’s not “western,” and I’d know that if only I’d read Aristotle? But either way, I’m just gonna go ahead and not bother with this convo anymore.

Order is a Western concept. Chaos is not; it is Oriental. That's basic Aristotelian metaphysics, not my personal opinion... ;)

You don’t like the format of his discussion group because you found it to be chaotic? Okay.

He and his followers enjoyed chaos using a "talking stick" format. "The more disagreements," one member of Latour's discussion group once told me, "the better" [i.e. complexity is superior to simplicity, Plato over Aristotle, etc. et. all]…

I was hoping to show you how implausible it would be for a curious amateur to understand physics better than the experts. Obviously I don’t. Neither do you. So you should probably stop saying that physicists are wrong about the weirdness, really QM works just like regular mechanics if only people would listen to you.

Different countries have different laws, and laws are constantly contested. Taking the example used in the article, are we more morally correct than a country which tolerates honor killing?

I was responding to this part of the article:

““What if the world isn’t made of well-defined, independent pieces of ‘stuff’?” I hear you say. “Then can we avoid this spooky action?”

Yes, we can. And many in the quantum physics community think this way, too. But this would be no consolation to Einstein.

Einstein had a long-running debate with his friend Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist, about this very question. Bohr argued we should indeed give up the idea of the stuff of the world being well defined, so we can avoid spooky action-at-a-distance. In Bohr’s view, the world doesn’t have definite properties unless we’re looking at it. When we’re not looking, Bohr thought, the world as we know it isn’t really there.”

You are not required to discuss that at all.

I don't hold any non-human creature to any moral standards at all. We're apes that wear suits because we aren't just apes. Deal with it.

I can't help you with that, sorry. But I will point out that physicists are already able to make such measurements with a great deal of precision. "Accuracy" isn't really the issue; why do you think physicists cannot measure the momentum of any particle accurately to begin with?

Yeah… idk what that means but that’s not an argument, as far as I can tell. That’s just name calling.

The entire "disagreement" is simple: you think your question relates to the topic of conversation, and I know it does not. More importantly, I know why it does not. Feel free to review the thread to try to determine why the details of QM which you are asking about are irrelevant to the issue we were previously discussing. If you cannot, or choose not to, then there is nothing I could say, in response to your quandary or otherwise, that would force you to recognize your error in this regard.

Possibly an odd request, but has anyone encountered any good comparative analysis of Jewish philosophy and ancient classical Chinese philosophy (Confucianism/Daoism/Mohism/Legalism)?

The "talking stick" bit...

I read your blog, Informed Consent & the Joe Rogan Experience.

Essentially I agree.

When a person takes an extreme position, or even one just not generally accepted, there is a tendency to insulate oneself from criticism by claiming little known but important information that only a brave person, like themselves, will continue to hold despite others' disbelief or even outrage.

Consider a staunch religious believer - scorn, ridicule, dismissal actually strengthens the person's conviction. The believer will usually feign esoteric understanding, a higher purpose, & even display sorrow for the unbeliever.

There is an element of the straw man fallacy. Informed consent is not the issue - but it is put forward as a central issue which the proponent is bravely putting forward against opposition.

The whole situation resembles a Christian contending that unless one has read the whole bible, nay further, has memorized chapter & verse of the bible, then one cannot make a valid argument against Christianity.

I think it’s good mental exercise to understand various perspectives. These perspectives can act as stepping stones for growth as long as the outcome is beneficial and one stays out of rabbit holes.

[deleted]