Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Well, I went back through the topic, and I can accept responsibility for some misinterpretation and subsequent sidetracking. However, I still consider myself to be correct, at least in spirit if not in letter.

Also yes, I am an idiot.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Ok, revised statements.

1. Even if everything that exists is in an intricate blanket of causality, the specifics of how that blanket are woven remain unknown to a large extent.

2. The basis of the "JND" isn't arbitrary, merely subjective. It reduces to preference, or perhaps more broadly culture, but then the issue is over whether or not preference or culture can be valid bases for forming rules. Since there aren't any other bases that I'm aware of, I don't see the problem. Cross evaluation of these bases determined by the merits or demerits of various systems and their effects, as judged by careful observation and preference, seems like the best method to go about such determinations.

"innocent until proven guilty" may reduce to a cultural artifact, but the effects of this cultural artifact, even if not the artifact itself, would be supported by virtually all parties within the culture that adopted it.


So, unless you were meaning to argue that the interconnected nature of reality makes it acceptable to punish anyone for anything, I don't think I need to take this any further.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

So, unless you were meaning to argue that the interconnected nature of reality makes it acceptable to punish anyone for anything, I don't think I need to take this any further.

Think of your life as being a string (a timeline of events). Now let's think back to how your life began: the converging of two timelines (your mother and your father), therefore your life is the result of social interaction. Likewise, think of all your own social interactions and the influence they've had on your life. Whether you like it or not, you're are still being influenced by the decisions others make everyday, though not always directly, just as you influence the lives those around. Basically, no action (or inaction) is entirely independent despite whether or not it has an apparent outcome.

So why don't we punish anyone for anything? Well, there is a thing known as free will...you know...the thing that makes you responsible for your actions (or in-actions). As a human, you have free will to do (or not to do) whatever it is you please. The future isn't set in stone. In fact, if anything, the future is constantly being altered by the actions (and inactions) preformed by people and their interaction with their environment (in other words, an infinite number of futures are born and die every nanosecond).

Even if everything that exists is in an intricate blanket of causality, the specifics of how that blanket are woven remain unknown to a large extent.

An intricate blanket of causality does exist and is known as an ecosystem and the specifics aren't largely unknown. While we don't know everything, we are advancing everyday in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and psychology.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Basically, no action (or inaction) is entirely independent despite whether or not it has an apparent outcome.

True, but you've only shown linear connection here, and you haven't shown a direct connection between all things. Now, while it is true that nonlinear connections can and likely do occur, it's currently outside the realm of human knowledge to know when and to what extent.

So why don't we punish anyone for anything? Well, there is a thing known as free will...you know...the thing that makes you responsible for your actions (or in-actions). As a human, you have free will to do (or not to do) whatever it is you please. The future isn't set in stone. In fact, if anything, the future is constantly being altered by the actions (and inactions) preformed by people and their interaction with their environment (in other words, an infinite number of futures are born and die every nanosecond).

Prove it. Also, free will isn't actually a counterargument.

An intricate blanket of causality does exist and is known as an ecosystem and the specifics aren't largely unknown.

This statement could only be made if you were aware of how much remained unknown. Granted this reveals a flaw in my language as well.

While we don't know everything, we are advancing everyday in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology and psychology.

Right. However, as long as the details critical to determining someones guilt, or "responsibility" are fuzzy, there's most certainly a reasonable doubt as to whether or not a causal connection exists between the persons actions and an outcome. Now of course every action so far observed has an effect, but not every action has every effect, which is the root of the issue. Since it's fair to assume we know very little about nonlinear and anachronistic causation at the moment, the spirit of my claim remains unchallenged.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

True, but you've only shown linear connection here, and you haven't shown a direct connection between all things. Now, while it is true that nonlinear connections can and likely do occur, it's currently outside the realm of human knowledge to know when and to what extent.

I'm sure you wouldn't argue something as complex as culture is linear. Your decisions are based on 10,000 years of culture. We've survived as long as we have and as efficiently as we have because of the collective knowledge inherit in culture.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

I'm sure you wouldn't argue something as complex as culture is linear. Your decisions are based on 10,000 years of culture. We've survived as long as we have and as efficiently as we have because of the collective knowledge inherit in culture.

Linear doesn't mean of a single lineage. Also culture isn't an independent identity, it's the product of the interactions of all individuals ever to exist. At least to the extent these interactions connect any given individual or group of individuals. The citizens of Easter Island probably didn't have any effect on the citizens of ancient Rome, for instance.

Knowledge doesn't come down from this ceiling you've labeled "culture", it springs up among individuals, then is tested in the proper evolutionary manner and, in terms of single generations, in a manner which is artificially (and perhaps imperfectly) evolutionary in nature by whether it confers some benefit (although this doesn't mean the benefit implies there's truth in it. Religion is probably successful for instance because of the psychological benefits and perhaps a handful of benefits in interpersonal interaction if nothing else). If it does work, it sticks around, if not, then not. That's how knowledge works. As for truth, no one knows how the **** that works.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

Ok, having given myself time to cool down from earlier, I see the following basic problems.

Let's assume that in our universal domain, there exists at least some property that A that holds for some object in the domain
(∃A)(∃x)[Ax]

Hold on, watch out, I'm about to do something really mystical here. I'm going to define another predicate that represents ~Ax BUT DOESN'T REQUIRE NEGATION TO SAY SO.
(∃B)(∀x) (~Ax -> Bx)

So Bx says that x does not have property A all the while not using negation to make the claim.

Oh my god, my claim certainly brought the world of formal logic onto it's knees yessiree.
But wait, I hear, you're going to gloss over this and respond "BUT APERSON I STILL SEE A ~ YOU ARE LYING THERE IS NEGATION DUMMY."
To which, I will elegantly respond,
"Okay, then we can define our predicate B as:

(∃C)(∀x) Cx
(∃B)(∀x) [Cx -> Ax] xor Bx

Exclusive disjunction articulates the same thing as implication of a negative. I don't see the point in articulating the concept independently of negation.

Let's take the mutually exclusive actions breathing and drowning, for example. It could be expressed D -> ~B or D =/= B. Seems pretty elementary to me.

The quantum physics thing is also very vaguely done. You didn't so much explain how not pulling a lever means killing a person as you did how sneezing causes child molestation. While it is entirely possible that something the person is doing, like breathing, or maybe even thinking, causes some sort of series of events to unravel which transcends standard conceptions of space-time to cause the person's death, this is clearly unrelated to the specific action of pulling the lever.

Also what does that fact that different people will label the same thing differently have to do with anything? I think you might be trying to argue things for which you need additional premises. Maybe you are trying to argue that since we will never have perfect epistemic access to the workings of the world, differences in perspective mean we shouldn't hold any of them since none can be substantiated.

Are you a logical positivist, by chance?