FREE TAPATALK APP

leon_heller · 20th November 2008, 10:22 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Leon

Piscivore · 20th November 2008, 10:34 AM

1) You don't want to eat diseased meat, do you?

2) Which one?

3) It depends on what "that" is.

4) Nope, I skimmed it and just looked at the questions.

ImaginalDisc · 20th November 2008, 10:46 AM

Question 4 doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

<snip>

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have.

<snip]

Fred could not possibly have existened. Being able to compute the position of everything in the universe requires a computer with more bits and energy than the universe contains.

fishbait · 20th November 2008, 10:59 AM

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

If they are lawyers, sure.

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

No. I turned into a nine year old Hindu boy somewhere in the third paragraph.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

It looks like a screen, feels like a screen, smells like a screen, and acts like a screen. Whatever it is, it's close enough for me to use it as a computer screen.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

No. I clicked on it by mistake while searching for porn.

Wudang · 20th November 2008, 11:37 AM

A couple of questions are simplified versions of ones in "Do you think what you think you think?". It's an interesting book and made me think.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Do-You-Think...7209752&sr=1-1

grayman · 20th November 2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

A couple of questions are simplified versions of ones in "Do you think what you think you think?". It's an interesting book and made me think.

Ya think?

Wudang · 20th November 2008, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by grayman

Ya think?

I think I do?

GStan · 20th November 2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by BBC News Article

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

My bold. If the kidnapper is dumb enough to give you the gun, just shoot the kidnapper.

Third Eye Open · 20th November 2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

I like to ask socialists a similar question. Basically the same, but bill doesn't die.

Such as: "Bill and his family are healthy, but Bills neighbors are not. His neighbors are all dieing of kidney failure. Would it be ok to painlessly take kidneys from Bills family (who all have two each) and give them to his neighbors, who have none? What about if you give them to people in another city whom he has never met?"

Darth Rotor · 20th November 2008, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by leon_heller

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Leon

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
Who is this we, Kimo Sabe?
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Yes. I took it in and spit it out, nothing in it was of value. My net change as "me" is zero.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
Yes.
4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Yes.

All your determinism is purest mental masturbation.

DR

Beerina · 20th November 2008, 02:44 PM

"So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

The mind is associational. The sensual input matches what it associates with its internal virtual mental model of the world, and specifically, its model of a monitor and how it operates.

That is plenty of reason. Whatever "out there" is, there's a nebulous conglomeration of stuff, whatever "stuff" is, that gives off complicated sensual input that operates like a monitor does. Of course, it could be something else that's generating fraudulent sensory input to you, but something is making that sensual input into the complicated input needed to appear as a functioning, 3-D, "out there" monitor.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Good old determinism issue going back to the beginning of the universe. Then it chokes on randomness, not realizing that true randomness thrown in doesn't rescue you from being the servent of physical processes. Moreover, it's far from clear, or even likely, that "true randomness" has anything to do with consciousness whatsoever. Consciousness could sit several magnitudes above the quantum level in the size of its base components, whatever they are. Or be equal to it or smaller in size, but just not related for no reason at all.

In any case, something generates my feelings of desire and pleasure at satifsying curiosity, so if I then deterministically follow that feeling, as any old deterministic computation would, then so be it.

I have yet to hear a coherent definition of what "spiritual" free will could possibly be if it doesn't involve determinism with possible random influences.

Worse for the philosopher, punishment is still valid precisely because the mind and consciousness follow deterministic patterns. They take into account the threat of punishment when arriving at decisions, to one degree or another.

linusrichard · 20th November 2008, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
Who is this we, Kimo Sabe?
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Yes. I took it in and spit it out, nothing in it was of value. My net change as "me" is zero.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
Yes.
4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Yes.

All your determinism is purest mental masturbation.

DR

TITCR x 5

Frozenwolf150 · 20th November 2008, 06:25 PM

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Yes, but only if you eat the rest of him so that he doesn't go to waste.

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

Yes, but please don't tell him that or he'll get jealous.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

No, it's a widescreen TV. Actual computer screens are getting tinier every year.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

No, we're in Soviet Russia, so the article read me.

20th November 2008, 10:22 AM	#1
leon_heller Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: St. Leonards-on-Sea, E. Sussex, UK. Posts: 1,094	World Philosophy Day and four questions http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm Leon
	__________________ Leon Heller G1HSM

20th November 2008, 10:34 AM	#2
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,561	1) You don't want to eat diseased meat, do you? 2) Which one? 3) It depends on what "that" is. 4) Nope, I skimmed it and just looked at the questions.
	__________________ [R]evenge is a dish best served screaming and insane. - TM "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

20th November 2008, 10:46 AM	#3
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Question 4 doesn't make any sense. Quote: 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article. After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists. <snip> Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. <snip] Fred could not possibly have existened. Being able to compute the position of everything in the universe requires a computer with more bits and energy than the universe contains.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

20th November 2008, 10:59 AM	#4
fishbait Raggin' the Blues Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New York Posts: 1,013	1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS? If they are lawyers, sure. 2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE? No. I turned into a nine year old Hindu boy somewhere in the third paragraph. 3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU? It looks like a screen, feels like a screen, smells like a screen, and acts like a screen. Whatever it is, it's close enough for me to use it as a computer screen. 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? No. I clicked on it by mistake while searching for porn.
	__________________ "I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" ************. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are." --Bill Hicks

20th November 2008, 11:37 AM	#5
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,319	A couple of questions are simplified versions of ones in "Do you think what you think you think?". It's an interesting book and made me think. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Do-You-Think...7209752&sr=1-1
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

20th November 2008, 11:42 AM	#6
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 6,142	Originally Posted by Wudang A couple of questions are simplified versions of ones in "Do you think what you think you think?". It's an interesting book and made me think. Ya think?
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge

20th November 2008, 12:22 PM	#7
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,319	Originally Posted by grayman Ya think? I think I do?
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

20th November 2008, 12:26 PM	#8
GStan Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Wheeling, WV Posts: 1,342	Originally Posted by BBC News Article 1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS? Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not? Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.) If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five. But then why not kill Bill? My bold. If the kidnapper is dumb enough to give you the gun, just shoot the kidnapper.
	__________________ On why one would debate truthers at JREF..."Kind of like holidaying with a cult, without the inconvenience of having to give away the deed to your house." - Confuseling "Not only do I not know that your fantasy will come true, I would bet my life against a jelly donut that it will not." - Dr. Adequate

20th November 2008, 12:59 PM	#9
Third Eye Open Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Washington state, USA Posts: 1,402	Quote: Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not? I like to ask socialists a similar question. Basically the same, but bill doesn't die. Such as: "Bill and his family are healthy, but Bills neighbors are not. His neighbors are all dieing of kidney failure. Would it be ok to painlessly take kidneys from Bills family (who all have two each) and give them to his neighbors, who have none? What about if you give them to people in another city whom he has never met?"
	__________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson "Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly

20th November 2008, 01:20 PM	#10
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by leon_heller http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm Leon 1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS? Who is this we, Kimo Sabe? 2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE? Yes. I took it in and spit it out, nothing in it was of value. My net change as "me" is zero. 3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU? Yes. 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? Yes. All your determinism is purest mental masturbation. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

20th November 2008, 02:44 PM	#11
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	"So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you." The mind is associational. The sensual input matches what it associates with its internal virtual mental model of the world, and specifically, its model of a monitor and how it operates. That is plenty of reason. Whatever "out there" is, there's a nebulous conglomeration of stuff, whatever "stuff" is, that gives off complicated sensual input that operates like a monitor does. Of course, it could be something else that's generating fraudulent sensory input to you, but something is making that sensual input into the complicated input needed to appear as a functioning, 3-D, "out there" monitor. 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? Good old determinism issue going back to the beginning of the universe. Then it chokes on randomness, not realizing that true randomness thrown in doesn't rescue you from being the servent of physical processes. Moreover, it's far from clear, or even likely, that "true randomness" has anything to do with consciousness whatsoever. Consciousness could sit several magnitudes above the quantum level in the size of its base components, whatever they are. Or be equal to it or smaller in size, but just not related for no reason at all. In any case, something generates my feelings of desire and pleasure at satifsying curiosity, so if I then deterministically follow that feeling, as any old deterministic computation would, then so be it. I have yet to hear a coherent definition of what "spiritual" free will could possibly be if it doesn't involve determinism with possible random influences. Worse for the philosopher, punishment is still valid precisely because the mind and consciousness follow deterministic patterns. They take into account the threat of punishment when arriving at decisions, to one degree or another.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

20th November 2008, 04:55 PM	#12
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,668	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS? Who is this we, Kimo Sabe? 2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE? Yes. I took it in and spit it out, nothing in it was of value. My net change as "me" is zero. 3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU? Yes. 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? Yes. All your determinism is purest mental masturbation. DR TITCR x 5

20th November 2008, 06:25 PM	#13
Frozenwolf150 Formerly SilentKnight Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Under cold, moonlit skies Posts: 1,813	1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS? Yes, but only if you eat the rest of him so that he doesn't go to waste. 2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE? Yes, but please don't tell him that or he'll get jealous. 3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU? No, it's a widescreen TV. Actual computer screens are getting tinier every year. 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE? No, we're in Soviet Russia, so the article read me.
	__________________ A clogged toilet a day keeps the Daleks at bay.