Where to get the cheapest fix of cocaine?

[delanvital]

you are right with thw treaty of versailles after ww1. it causes the 2nd ww in many different aspects.
but that was only an example. the history of mankind is a history of wars. there was no age without wars. and unfotunately... i dont think itll ever stop.
i think always civilians, woman, children... innocent people have to suffer.
in my opinion everyone has the right to life hiis life in a peaceful society, and i just wanted to point out that its very important to remove all the anti social elements(like murderers, nazis, thiefs, drugdealers...). only when you do that, people who wanna life in peace, have the chance to do so.

I know, and having a world where environment benefits everyone to the fullest is unrealistic. My point was back to the original point, that people prey on others, to which I disagree. I instead believe in the good in people and that most of these actions are done as secondary to what people really wanted to do instead due to limitations in options and what you are being pushed to do in order to survive (the latter in reference to WW1 and New Orleans). To this, as mentioned, there are of course the extreme and sick exceptions in strong minority. This applies again to the categories of asocial elements you mention.

[RizZy]

You allright now Rizzy?
Or are you now going Cold Turky?

The come downs not all it could be actually Pete, my heads a bit scrambled & I've had the most weirdest of dreams over the last few nights.

Not to hijack the thread, but in case anyone wondered why I was in hospital in the 1st place, I was finally having my follow up op on my kidney that I originally posted about back in September last year. The surgery went great - just had a bit of trouble friday night when the combination of the air they'd blew me up with for the keyhole surgery & the 3 days of constipation from the painkillers made me feel about ready to explode.

I'm feeling ok now though, just got a shaved side & some stitches for my troubles :boxing:

[Hektor]

this sounds like john locke. he said the identity of a person is independent from time or matter. which means, the identity of a person is eternal and does never change. even in case of reincarnation for example, because consciousness and spirit isnt bonded to the matter (body).
consciousness and cognition creates the ego. its a circulation like karma ans samsara. but the identity of a human is merely an aggregation of sensations, and there is no possibility of changing.

im more convinced about what descartes, the founder of the 2 substances theorie, or dualism (the science of body and soul), said to this.
all humans have the "lumen naturae", the light of rationality.
he sees the soul, the identity of a human not as an aggregation of substances, but as indepensent and defineable anytime(alike sartre).
im sure you know about the "age of enlightment", because its an imoprtant event in european history. immanuel kant, in my opinion the most important philosoph of the age of enlightment said: "enlightment is the liberation of people from their self made nonage. and nonage is the inability to use the own sanity without help from stangers".
(i hope my translation is correct, because its an important quote)
what he want to say - and what im also convinced of - is, not everyone has a philosophic mind, not everyone has sanity and reason, but only because they dont use it, not because they arent able to!
everyone has the option because everyone has rationality! rationality is not a privilege of rich people or people who grew up in good economic conditions! rationality is a privilege of every human being!!!
everyone has the potential of thinking rational, and with this base everyone also has the potential of acting rational!
the fact that a lot of people dont use sanity, doesnt change the fact that they are all able to. a lot of people prefer it to let other people think and decide for them. still today its so, just look at all the totalitarin dictatorships, all the oppression, all the injustice. the people just bearing it because they dont think and use sanity. "de omnibus dubitandum!"- but who does?
as i said everyone has the option how to act, because of that, everyone is responsible for how he act.
even when sommeone lives in a very poor state under badest circumstances, i think its arrogant to say he is poor or stupid so he dont know better or he has no other chance, when he do a crime. even in the most extreme situations, everyone can use his rationaity and act righteous.

[Benny]

Some heavy reading there gents. From what I can decipher this has turned into a nature / nurture discussion and for once I feel somewhat out of my depth with some of the philosophy that is being spread.

I'm intrigued as to which way you guys see it, is a person defined by there surroundings of is it a genetic thing (or both). I've read a few books on it, mainly before I had kids to see if I could blame bad behavior on their genetics rather than my parenting skills.

Personally I believe you are a product of your upbringing and surroundings and after a certain age your mental capacity is defined and at that point you either have - for want of a better phrase - moral fortitude or you don't. Some people can resist the obvious temptation, some can't.

I have a close friend serving 13 years for drug related crimes and as a friend he is as supportive as he could possibly be. You couldn't meet a more engaging, witty and generous person, however, academically he failed and was bullied at school. His path in life went through door work and gym ownership and one thing led to another.

I don't condone drug use or dealing and he is the first to say he got what he deserved, but his paths after a certain point were limited if he wanted legal money based on the foundation he had.

To quote a somewhat less popular philosophical statement - 'You pays your money, you takes your choice'.

Oh and welcome back Riz, also  Hektor, your posts are more than readable so don't appologise for your English. The only request I would have is stick the odd break half way down a paragraph, it's killing my eyes.

Thanks and welcome to dMw

[delanvital]

[...]Personally I believe you are a product of your upbringing and surroundings and after a certain age your mental capacity is defined and at that point you either have - for want of a better phrase - moral fortitude or you don't. Some people can resist the obvious temptation, some can't. [..]

Cheers for a good post Benny.

I guess the nature discussion has been rather vague on whether we are dealing with the human capacity to be rational AND/OR capacity to be ethical. I guess Hektor says, that being rational implicitly means being empathic enough to understand the moral in your actions?

Moral fortitude is then, in your view, something that is nurtured/result of interactions with society? I tend to believe that. There is probably some basic level of good/bad feeling in people, prob. from pure survival and instinct combined with feelings, but I guess society dictates and teaches what is right and wrong. Now, that would lead me down to the Socrates/Sofists debate IIRC whether humans have a universal moral or not. I say, look at culture studies and see how different cultures are with respect to ethics.

[Benny]

I haven't got time to do the full google bit, but I guess a study of that girl that was raised by animals would be a good place to start.

Also a friend has a mentally ill child who is 14, who doesn't understand right from wrong, would it be hardwired in before an illness?  Cue conversations about the remaining 2/3 of your brain, is that where morals are kept?

[Hektor]

hi
now this becomes very interesting, because ethics is one of the most important philosophic categories (besides epistemologie and metaphysics). only in my opinion of course.
are there any criteria for the action of humans, which are eternal, absolute, universal, cross cultural and relevant for every human being?
well, there are no evidence for that and no one can prove it logically, because its metaphysics and metaphysical objekts are beyond recognition.
some people think, that its absurd to spend time, thinking about metephysics, while everyone already know from the beginning, that humans arent able to detect anything...
but i think that metaphysical objekts are far too important to let them unnoticed; its always worth it to occupy oneself with that. for instance, everyone knows, that no one is ever able to detect god, neither rational, nor empiric. but this is the most important topic for everyone, so its always worth it to think about.
back to ethics. its a fact, that every nation, every culture and every society has different moral conceptions. but its a logical fallacy to conclude that it should be so.
logically, you can never deduce a value judgement, from an empiric fact.
an empiric fact can be at most a plausibility-argument, but never a criterion for ethics.
also, people tend to idealize nature. people say when something is natural, then its good for humans, if something is unnatural, its bad for humans. for example unnatural baviour, unnatural way of living, and so on.
also, an empiric fact, something that you see everywhere in nature, is never an ethic criteria.
this brings me to your example. i think you mean the boy who grew up alone in a forest. he grew up without any influence of civilisation other humans, culture or society.
normally, everyone is conditioned by his social environment, which leads to different moral conceptions, as said before.
but this boy grew up without any influence, so you can say that he is closest to the pure human nature.
rosseau, the avowed frensh philosoph, wrote a book about this boy. by studying the boys behaviour, he tried to find out what the real human nature is and with this knowledge, he wanted to construct an universal ethics.
but as i already explained, nature can never be a moral criteria.
otherwise, when you observe that a lot of primitive race are cannibals, and also so many animals are cannibals too,, you must conduct that it is good, because its natural!
summarizing, im sure that there is a universal ethics for every human being. the fact that every society has its own moral is no argument against it.
... now i wrot so much, but i actually didnt say what i wanted to... well ill make another post.

[delanvital]

[..]are there any criteria for the action of humans, which are eternal, absolute, universal, cross cultural and relevant for every human being?  well, there are no evidence for that and no one can prove it logically, because its metaphysics and metaphysical objekts are beyond recognition

Do you believe that if we could map out any physical and chemical relations in humans down to the lowest level, sort of saying that we learn how the human engine works and we understand how components interact chemically to create various interactions and emotions - can we then isolate generalities in behaviour? Is it a mere problem of a) learning the works of engine and b) learn to encompass all variables (there must be lots!) in order to do so, and maybe even start predicting human behaviour, or is it more complex than so? ASSUMING that we know all physical and chemical aspects of the human machine, can we do that? Theoretical game here speaking, not a discussion of whether we could map out all that stuff - even though I personally believe in this will be solved someday. Which is kinda sad really.

logically, you can never deduce a value judgement, from an empiric fact. an empiric fact can be at most a plausibility-argument, but never a criterion for ethics.

True, not conclusive, due to many factors. But you can get close.

also, people tend to idealize nature. people say when something is natural, then its good for humans, if something is unnatural, its bad for humans.

Now you are doing the deduction game... and assuming stuff.

I have to keep my answers short Hektor

[Hektor]

Do you believe that if we could map out any physical and chemical relations in humans down to the lowest level, sort of saying that we learn how the human engine works and we understand how components interact chemically to create various interactions and emotions - can we then isolate generalities in behaviour? Is it a mere problem of a) learning the works of engine and b) learn to encompass all variables (there must be lots!) in order to do so, and maybe even start predicting human behaviour, or is it more complex than so? ASSUMING that we know all physical and chemical aspects of the human machine, can we do that? Theoretical game here speaking, not a discussion of whether we could map out all that stuff - even though I personally believe in this will be solved someday. Which is kinda sad really.



True, not conclusive, due to many factors. But you can get close.



Now you are doing the deduction game... and assuming stuff.

I have to keep my answers short Hektor

you are right, my mind straggle a lot
ill try to give straight answers about what i think.
im convined, that we are more than merely materia. thinking, feeling, emotions..., you cant reduce it to chemical processes.
im sure humans have a unique soul. as i said i can never prove it. its what im convinced of.
to take your example, when a human being (with his spirit his mind...) can be reduced to physikal correlation, and when we have the scientific knowledge to analyze everything one day,(atoms and so on) than we are able to create a a person, a mind by just bringing the right atoms together.
which means for example by analyzing all the atoms in your body, taking the same kind of atoms and bringing them together in the right order, exactly in the order how they are in your body, then ive created exactly the same person. then i have 2 persons who are exactly the same; same body of course, but also same charakter, same personality, same memories, same experiences, same feelings, same thoughts, same will... everything is in total concurrence. then there are 2 delanvitals and everyone is exactly the same person with exactly the same personality as the other.
did i understand you correct?
well, this sounds very strange doessnt it?
as i said, i think that there is more that compose a human being. something which isnt tangible, something unique and eternal. something, ill call it soul, which isnt enduring bonded to the body, because it is no matter, and because of that beyond knowledge. of course i cant give you any prove...
its what i belive.

[Hektor]

you can never predict a humans behavior, because humans have a free will!
in every situation, everyone can choose from different options. imagine i kill someone and say, i had no choice, because i have some bag genes, so im not responsible and you cant punish me for that- ridiculous isnt it? i always have the free will and i can always decide how i act.

[delanvital]

An interesting clash we have here Hektor.

Me, I am an atheist, and a very strong one at that, and I guess I belong to the scientific camp. That means, I believe that we are simply no more than matter functioning in a fun way. Our conscience and every aspect of it, even what makes us human, can in the end be mapped and explained. There is nothing particular to being human.

Free will... I wonder on that a lot. Thing is, if we don't have it, then if you think about it, there is no point in being here with a conscience and being aware of the world around you. Sadly. We are then just reproducing because of the urge to do so and our awareness of ourself is a curse. If we could see this lack of free will it would be like being stuck in a car going in one direction only and we would never be able to get off. Hopefully, we are not aware of it.

I think I believe (nice sentence, eh?) that we have some functionality attached to our conscience, some ability to make independent choice. But what if that is merely a complex algoritm (however  you spell that) that is result of a complex mix environmental influences, genes and such? That passes as a conscience, and might lead to some uniqueness in minor decisions, but in essense we are a functional mind running the same overall patters which we just can't comprehend?

I know there is a paradox - I can't make up my mind about free will, whether we have one or nor, not yet.

[TeaLeaf]

Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat.  Then you'll know if you were right or wrong.  Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:

TL.

[delanvital]

Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat.  Then you'll know if you were right or wrong.  Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:

TL.

Lol and now we've moved into quantum physics as well...

Assuming the way we prove stuff is valid... and seeing science as an ongoing process of continuous new ideas (and falsification) instead of just a static image of what Niels Bohr, Einstein and others went on about in, what, the 20's - well, yeah, it does? :bleh:

[Hektor]

Open Schrodinger's box and check on the cat.  Then you'll know if you were right or wrong.  Science provides all the answers, right? :norty:

TL.

what is schrodingers box? is it something like pandoras box?

[Hektor]

An interesting clash we have here Hektor.

Me, I am an atheist, and a very strong one at that, and I guess I belong to the scientific camp. That means, I believe that we are simply no more than matter functioning in a fun way. Our conscience and every aspect of it, even what makes us human, can in the end be mapped and explained. There is nothing particular to being human.

Free will... I wonder on that a lot. Thing is, if we don't have it, then if you think about it, there is no point in being here with a conscience and being aware of the world around you. Sadly. We are then just reproducing because of the urge to do so and our awareness of ourself is a curse. If we could see this lack of free will it would be like being stuck in a car going in one direction only and we would never be able to get off. Hopefully, we are not aware of it.

I think I believe (nice sentence, eh?) that we have some functionality attached to our conscience, some ability to make independent choice. But what if that is merely a complex algoritm (however  you spell that) that is result of a complex mix environmental influences, genes and such? That passes as a conscience, and might lead to some uniqueness in minor decisions, but in essense we are a functional mind running the same overall patters which we just can't comprehend?

I know there is a paradox - I can't make up my mind about free will, whether we have one or nor, not yet.

its exhausting to argue about metaphisics isnt it?
i think i believe its a question of faith not of thinking. well, thats what i belive... i think... :g:
(also not bad hu?)
is it in your opinion possible to make an artificial intelligence which is alike humans?
you said, that there is nothing special on a human being, so to follow your argumentation, humans must be able, technical knowledge assumed, to create an artificial intelligence which is exactly like the intelligence of a  "normal" human being. would you say that this is possible?