On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
No; it's faulty and arguably inferior. There are two proofs of that, one historical fact and the other a bit more feel-goodish but still valid (IMO). One, the Nazis lost the war. That happened at least in part because of their arrogance and belligerence, but possibly too because of the sense of outrage that formed when it was realized what was really going on over there.
Huh? People accepted what was really going on over there after the allies
marched into the death camps.
Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd been given much credence.
Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR that defeated the Nazis.
In Russia, on land, sure. But it was US and UK efforts that won the air and sea battles.
Not all who sieg heiled were bad people.
Its fairly well established
Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the trenches and the civilians left behind.
Two, any social system that attempts to quell diversity will suffer and
probably fail when it is forced to compete with another, more
cosmopolitan social system.
That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable.
I think it was inevitable, yes.
I presume you agree that, without a powerful United States, it would have
been a contest between the Nazis and Stalin's USSR for dominence, right?
After WWII, you mean? No -- presumably the USSR would have been carrying on a long war of attrition with the Nazis, but there were really two major powers at work on the side of belligerence. I think the major players would have eventually been whomever won the Nazi/USSR standoff, and Japan/Asia. (The USSR could very well have won the European conflict, I think.)
Yes. Cold-blooded killings happen all the time in Texas, as an example,
under edict of law.
And I say it is wrong.
I didn't mean to indicate I thought it was right, only that the decision that killing is wrong is an arbitrary one that is turned away from with well-documented regularity, and not just by individuals.
Yes; I intimated one way above.
But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have suceeded for centuries.
That's true but it doesn't make my way of judging which systems are ethically preferable "suspect". In the absence of competition, a given social system might very well persist for centuries, whether it's relatively more or less ethical.
Responsibility -- if there is no free will, then naturally no. Otherwise, yes.
OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence for
it.
As I said, I really don't know whether free will exists or not. I believe it does, but if it doesn't then I have no choice but to believe it does -- and since I believe it does, that means I believe responsibility exists as well.
But the second conclusion is based on something that can't actually be proved. Classical physics would seem to imply that there is no free will; but QM seems to let it sneak in after all.
It's one of those things that's fun to discuss over a pint of Guinness.
Reflective self-awareness -- since I use that to arrive at my ethical decisions, I'm inclined to think it exists as well.
OK, can you point out the increased predictive power of using "brain + reflective self-awareness" compared to "brain" in modeling observation?
Possibly, if I understand your question. Reflective self-awareness lets me understand not only that I sometimes have complex and subtle reasons for the things I do; but that I'm not always consciously aware of those effects.
Therefore if someone I know does something baffling, strange or extraordinary, I'm more likely to be forgiving because I know that I don't always know myself, and it would be unfair, to say the least, of me to expect others to be perfect.
Does that make sense and/or answer your question?
I think this is dependant on the existence of free will, otherwise reflective
self awareness is merely an effect.
I agree -- it's another case of something that doesn't exist if free will doesn't.
-- WthmO
"Egalitarianism" does NOT mean "Rule by the least common denominator". --
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
