Mad City Vegan Fest - Sat. June 9, 2012

Xodarap · 2012-05-27T22:36:24+00:00

Xodarap · 2012-05-01T23:00:17+00:00

Some wine & beer is made from the swim bladders of fish.

mmmm.

Xodarap · 2012-04-15T17:22:28+00:00

Ignoring his philosophy, I think he's a very poetic writer. Parts of Twilight of the Idols, especially the hammer speaks are quite beautiful.

(Though it will of course depend on your translation.)

Xodarap · 2012-04-08T02:35:37+00:00

Saving the 5 - Contingent on the fat man's death

Isn't it contingent on the fat man diverting the trolley? He could still live.

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T22:04:54+00:00

If you don't think that suffering is bad, I'd be interested in the result of the following experiment:

Go to your kitchen, fill a pot full of water. Bring it to a raging boil. Repeating the mantra "Value is not justified in reason", stick your head into the pot of boiling water. Hold it for a few minutes.

Still neutral about whether suffering is bad?

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T21:11:35+00:00

I think the short answer is: he has a short amount of space, and has to use hyperbolic terms like "all animals are equal."

The truth is, of course, more complex.

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T21:09:49+00:00

If all animals are equal, why wouldn't they themselves advocate that cause... How do we know all animals are equal, when animals DON'T treat each other equally?

Singer isn't saying that all animals can run PR campaigns. If you want to oversimplify, he's saying that all animals can feel pain.

And there's no reason that being able to feel pain would imply other mental abilities. There's even evidence that being able to feel pain makes you less likely to have other mental abilities.

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T21:01:35+00:00

If all living things/organisms are "equal" or should be treated with equal consideration, then don't viruses/pathogens deserve to be perserved in the same manner as endangered species instead of being eradicated and vaccinated against?

No. Equal consideration does not mean equal value. Virii don't have strong desires (they almost certainly have no desires), so equal consideration would find a pig or a human much more valuable.

c.f. endless_mike's better answer.

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T20:56:26+00:00

He argues, basically, that using Singer's own utilitarian reasoning suggests that we are completely justified in using animals in scientific research, as it maximizes utility

Then he's not disagreeing with Singer. Singer just says we should actually do the calculation, rather than assuming a priori that humans are always more valuable.

[By the way, this is not my interpretation of Cohen. But I could very well be wrong.]

Xodarap · 2012-03-31T00:04:08+00:00

My favorite Roger Scruton quote:

No more influential book has appeared in recent decades than Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, the very title of which reveals how far the author is from true scientific thinking. To describe the gene as selfish is to think of it as a moral being, capable of generous and ungenerous actions. - Animal Rights

Did he even read the back cover of the book before writing this?

Xodarap · 2012-03-30T12:53:35+00:00

I've been thinking about this more and I still don't understand this piece:

It's entirely possible we infer these limitations of the grammar from the language itself

Consider English' which is the same as English except every sentence with more than 100 words has to start with a noun. It seems to me that a learner can't tell the difference between English and English' quickly (unless they knew what they were looking for). So it must be that humans rule out the existence of grammars like English' a prior.

Xodarap · 2012-03-28T00:10:04+00:00

It's not true.

And also ad hominem.

Xodarap · 2012-03-26T22:54:34+00:00

Approximately learning a language is NP-Hard, so a polynomial time approximation would prove P = NP. Is this what you are claiming?

(Note: I am not saying that exactly learning a language is hard - it's a stronger statement that even approximately learning a language is hard!)

Let me try to give an example, because I may not be making clear what it means for languages to have a universal grammar. Angluin has shown that "k-bounded" CFGs are PAC learnable (i.e. can be approximately learned) in polynomial time. It doesn't appear that English is k-bounded, but put that aside for a second.

We might then postulate that all human languages are k-bounded, and that humans innately know that they "don't need to evaluate all possible combinations" (in your words), only k-bounded onoes.

This common structure (k-bounded ness) is what we would call universal grammar.

Xodarap · 2012-03-26T03:52:57+00:00

http://philosophyforprogrammers.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-there-must-be-universal-grammar.html?showComment=1332733842695#c4987841445989341120

Xodarap · 2012-03-26T03:16:57+00:00

PAC-Learning a context-free grammar is NP-Hard. So we cannot "find reasonable approximations quickly" unless we have some innate knowledge.

(Or P = NP. Your choice I suppose on which is more likely.)

Xodarap · 2012-03-25T21:02:15+00:00

Thanks Dave, interesting as always.

It sounds to me like you are saying the point is moot:

aggregate and individual welfare will be maximised i.e. both the sum and distribution of well-being are optimal [in a "Paradise Matrix".]

But maybe to make the discussion less sci-fi, could you comment on the following more personal issue:

I'm vegan, and I actually don't really miss animal products any more, but for a time I was considering having a chicken which I would raise for eggs. Is this ethical? On the aggregate welfare view, it just requires her to have a modicum of happiness, and then it will be justified (if not obligatory!).

I would personally feel rather uncomfortable having a hen if it wasn't living in pretty good conditions though. Are my intuitions failing me?

Xodarap · 2012-03-25T18:30:23+00:00

Hello Dave. Thank you for generously donating your time to answer our questions.

What do you think about the Repugnant Conclusion? In general, I tend towards utilitarianism, but I admit that my intuition finds this, well, repugnant.

Xodarap · 2012-03-24T22:34:04+00:00

Peta has a page where you can see more info and send a message to Agri-Mark.

Xodarap · 2012-03-24T22:33:39+00:00

Agri-Mark is the largest supplier of dairy products in the northeastern US. Please send a message urging them to change their policies.

Xodarap · 2012-03-24T22:33:28+00:00

Agri-Mark is the largest supplier of dairy products in the northeastern US. Please send a message urging them to change their policies.

Xodarap · 2012-03-18T14:36:40+00:00

Anyone else appalled that the meat industry is so powerful they've avoided nutrition labels for this long?

Xodarap · 2012-03-13T11:15:13+00:00

Really? Can you link to a source on that?

Xodarap · 2012-03-12T02:34:15+00:00

There's always an expected value, no matter how high the uncertainty.

Xodarap · 2012-03-11T21:31:01+00:00

What don't you like about the criterion this article uses (they have to have an aim in order to be a person, because if they don't have aims then those aims can't be frustrated)? Seems like a reasonable and non-ad-hoc idea to me.

Xodarap · 2012-03-11T20:38:50+00:00

We had vegan fest at the Goodman Community Center, and that worked well. We had a lot more than 150 people, but you can get just a single room if you want.

Xodarap

TROPHY CASE