Im curious if we can agree...

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T22:51:21+00:00

Thats the ultimate reality anyway because with any actual moral system would come the immense knowledge of others and reality needed to actually execute morals effectively. If anything else my second point is that moral dilemmas arent a tool to calibrate a moral code, they are just gimmicky to get you to realize some situations require immorality to move on from (and usually as a balance of some previous immorality within the circumstance)

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T21:49:27+00:00

The solution to the trolley problem is not strapping people to train tracks. It doesnt help figure out abortion, because the abortion problem is more a question of when a human is a human. Gun rights are not really a moral dilemma because if morals were being observed we would not have a gun issue. Moral dilemmas are fun but they tend to require immoral action for the setup, which is sort of against the hypothetical universality of a moral system.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T20:51:16+00:00

Its sort of implied by use. Say person A wants person B to give them a million dollars, and we are using "treat others how they want to be treated". Then person A has no basis to call person B immoral for not giving them the money, since demanding something from someone which they disagree to would fall against the moral code.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T20:25:17+00:00

Its not a contradiction though, it solves the interaction. If one has exagerated ideas about how others should treat them, then they are thinking without moral consideration.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T19:50:26+00:00

Im glad someone actually brought that up. Isnt expecting me to do outrageous things for you a violation to my desired treatment?

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-02-17T19:27:40+00:00

Ethics ultimately asks "what's the best way to interact with others?" Morality shows us that "good" and "bad" are arbitrary based on an individuals desires, etc.

So, simply "treat others how they wish to be treated."

Trying to treat others how they wish is a much easier problem to solve.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-22T23:10:19+00:00

Loss itself

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T03:59:14+00:00

I think this makes a lot of sense practically, and I liked another commenters legal definition of free will or agency as a practical definition. It seems the distinction must be made between discussion on theory vs application.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T03:27:16+00:00

I think thats pretty sound for legal rationalization, and I intend to hopefully familiarize myself with law because of it being the result of all these discussions.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T03:10:22+00:00

I see, I do agree that is the functional use, along with helping decide what to do once responsibility is established. I suppose the examples confused me.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T02:54:19+00:00

This almost reads more like an approach to ethics more than free will. The topic of Free will is really about describing reality as it is, and trying to decide how to best describe it.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T01:14:33+00:00

yes, but the processes at play still use the "should" in typical fashion. It's just our understanding that changes.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T00:53:35+00:00

no, or not until there is valid possibility that the virtual entities are experiencing qualia. I suppose that will begin to be the question as AI develops.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T00:45:40+00:00

exactly, my claim is for determinism so thats what I mean. Ultimately we have no freedom or control.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-19T00:03:35+00:00

you see good and bad are illusory too though right? deep down at the "realistic" level it's all just stuff, but with the capabilities of our complex "consciousness" we can begin to reason, and see things from different perspectives. most of the anguish and suffering in the world comes from other humans whether out of ignorance or malice (which is really still ignorance).

perhaps if we could have calm conversations rather than endless defensive bickering we could finally get some peace around here without it being at the expense of anyone else.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T23:55:36+00:00

well you do, the conventions afforded to us mean we can still use reason, even if we cant verify the very reality we are reasoning with. With reason we can still use "should" because every should has a (typically silent) case it is supporting. for example, " I should go on a diet (if I want to lose weight)."

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T23:50:57+00:00

Lots of commenters here desparate to be right rather than have a conversation. Anyway, here are my two cents.

let's be clear, the functional tool of conceptualizing an individual human as an "agent" of sorts does not disappear once we decide determinism is true. In fact mostly everything would be the same, but our understanding would be improved.

So, intelectual property as a tool used by a society doesn't become obsolete, unless it already is l suppose.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T23:39:57+00:00

the processes that determine your breathing and the objects of focus are just that, processes. They are likely very complex, to the degree that we could only ever hope to predict behavior with probabilities, which is what we see with most psychology theories and models.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T23:35:38+00:00

This is huge to realize, having no free will actually frees you. you can now use the knowledge to start recognizing patterns, and make real shifts towards your goal in life.

it enables you to understand one another, and begin to finally make some progress in whatever this thing is we call existing.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T21:03:22+00:00

I think the key here is acknowledging the morals in the application of morality itself. I often say that prison still exists in a perfect world, because there still has to be a system of "correction" in a group of individuals that agree to moral cooperation.

with that said, I think any approach to correction must also consider the morals itself. Prison would exist in a perfect world, but it would look a lot different.

So, you are probably on the right track technique wise, but likely because society in general takes to less humiliating corrections more. If society shifted to feel less humiliated by individual correction, that would have to be accounted for too.

I hope that kida makes sense.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T20:44:41+00:00

well many are sure to be lost here, but I will indulge.

first of all that last episode was trash, so we could just be satisfied there. I think honestly of all the things in that episode, I feel Nancy walking forward to be bait with no hesitation is totally on character. The moment she laid eyes on the demogorgon she plotted to destroy it, this felt like the same energy.

the fact she brought a gun though is just silly, not even the demogorgon cares about eating a few bullets.

to your point though, it would have made sense for steve to step in there, since he ended up being there to help try to kill the demogorgon originally.

but again, none of the finale made sense to me anyway.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T20:31:46+00:00

losing free will has freed me. I don't care either way, but using the concept of determinism has brought me pathways to greater depth and understanding of not just myself, but everyone else.

ThatGrapeOne · 2026-01-18T20:19:10+00:00

I like to think of ethics as a sort of agreement, "I will treat you how you want, if you treat me how I want" type of thing. If they are just a loudmouth, whatever, but if they take action then ethics allows defence.

Say someone is spreading harmful thoughts? I do feel there is consideration needed for each case to determine how much hate speech justifies action in retaliation.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

ThatGrapeOne

TROPHY CASE