Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

[jewpinthethird]

Thinking is an action, but not an action that intersects with the causal chain responsible for the persons death. This situation may reveal a severe fault in character, but it doesn't reveal guilt.

So, you are agreeing with me that consciously inaction (thinking and deciding not to act) is in fact and action.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

nonsense

and to me, the word "enabled" implies causation, making your entire position a huge ****ing equivocation. Oh, but no, you look at causation backwards, observing first the effects and then deducing causality where it isn't. And why do you do this? Naturally because when you see effects you don't like, you have to search for causes which also offend your majesties royal, divinely substantiated sensibilities.

I'm not the one putting things in the wrong order.

All actions have consequences, but not all, no, not any actions have consequences which extend to infinity. Some actions carry far, others carry very short. Thoughts and internal decisions don't contain an element of external causality. If you flinch at your inability to find a convergence between emotion and reality, get the fuck over yourself.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

So, you are agreeing with me that consciously inaction (thinking and deciding not to act) is in fact and action.

Sure, just not an action of any stripe which would allow you to hold someone responsible for something that occurred externally to them.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Arrogance.

Just as I was talking to a friend of mine about how much I was enjoying the discussion, and how even if I disagreed with your position, I could understand how and why you might think that way, you had to go and do the whole "10 year old, only with a better vocabulary" thing you get criticized for so often in here.

Look, this is the situation: Call it what you will (and you will) but I simply cannot see how you can be in a situation, and have the ability to simply -make- the situation happen or not happen, and sit there and tell yourself "I didn't let it happen, it would have happened anyway, in absolutely no way is this something that has to do with me" To me -that- is an equivocation to make people who are too afraid to actually intervene in a situation feel better about themselves.

"I -could- have stopped it, but I decided not to" I really can't see how you could possibly argue that someone in such a situation has -absolutely no- responsibility for the consequences of their electing not to intervene. It's a coward's way to justify apathy and non-involvement. As soon as you can effect a situation you are -in- the situation, how you elect to -act- within that situation is up to you, but if your chosen action -in- the situation is to do nothing to stop it, you have acted and are responsible for the consequences of that action.

You are standing on the sidewalk, a child is standing on the curb, and from up the nearby hill, you can see a car rolling down the hill directly towards the child. The child is in arms reach, it is a trivial action to grab his arm and pull him to safety. You can see that he doesn't notice the car, and that if you do nothing, the car will hit and crush the child. You decide "I'm going to let nature take its course" and the car hits the child and crushes him to death.

I simply am incapable of understanding an outlook that would make you then say "Well, I didn't change anything, -none- of that is the -slightest- bit of my fault"

[Kilroy_x]

How could I afford not to be arrogant, out of 6 billion people I'm the closest one to actually seeing the world.

Originally Posted by devonin

Just as I was talking to a friend of mine about how much I was enjoying the discussion, and how even if I disagreed with your position, I could understand how and why you might think that way, you had to go and do the whole "10 year old, only with a better vocabulary" thing you get criticized for so often in here.

You dislike rhetoric. OK. I dislike deeply ingrained cognitive biases which lead to fallacious modes of thought. It doesn't mean I dislike you, just what seems to be a substantial portion of you. If it makes any difference you're one of the most likable people I've conversed with in this respect, in terms of lack of relative foolishness.

Look, this is the situation: Call it what you will (and you will) but I simply cannot see how you can be in a situation, and have the ability to simply -make- the situation happen or not happen, and sit there and tell yourself "I didn't let it happen, it would have happened anyway, in absolutely no way is this something that has to do with me" To me -that- is an equivocation to make people who are too afraid to actually intervene in a situation feel better about themselves.

Would you blame the forest which surrounded a tree struck by lightning for not attracting the lighting themselves? Of course not, a tree has no animus. But what is animus except the utilized ability to act, to effect causal change? You're a superstitious fool, plain and simple.

"I -could- have stopped it, but I decided not to" I really can't see how you could possibly argue that someone in such a situation has -absolutely no- responsibility for the consequences of their electing not to intervene. It's a coward's way to justify apathy and non-involvement. As soon as you can effect a situation you are -in- the situation, how you elect to -act- within that situation is up to you, but if your chosen action -in- the situation is to do nothing to stop it, you have acted and are responsible for the consequences of that action.

Let's look at the role emotional language plays in your formulation. It looks to me like it's.... total. A total role. "Afraid" "coward" "apathy". You're using observed bad character synonymously with responsibility, in this case, pejoratively, "guilt". Again, a little too convenient for me to take your language as a serious measurement of reality.

You are standing on the sidewalk, a child is standing on the curb, and from up the nearby hill, you can see a car rolling down the hill directly towards the child. The child is in arms reach, it is a trivial action to grab his arm and pull him to safety. You can see that he doesn't notice the car, and that if you do nothing, the car will hit and crush the child. You decide "I'm going to let nature take its course" and the car hits the child and crushes him to death.

Yeah, and? Think up all the examples you want, it won't change reality. Of course you don't have the strength to abandon the role of emotion in formulating your world view, so correspondingly of course you are incapable of seeing the truth of my position.

I simply am incapable of understanding an outlook that would make you then say "Well, I didn't change anything, -none- of that is the -slightest- bit of my fault"

I know. I forgive you.

[aperson]

What isn't causal?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by aperson

What isn't causal?

Thoughts. Or rather, whatever element of causality is contained in thoughts doesn't extend into the realm of interpersonal relationships or effective physical actions, including simple vocalization of thoughts, without additional action or otherwise expenditure of energy.

[aperson]

You're reaching way too hard here.

[Kilroy_x]

Do you have an actual criticism, or do you just find something repulsive about the amount of effort you believe I put into the last response?

Well, either way I'm going to bed. I'll either hear more argument/whining tommorow, V~

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You dislike rhetoric. OK. I dislike deeply ingrained cognitive biases which lead to fallacious modes of thought. It doesn't mean I dislike you, just what seems to be a substantial portion of you. If it makes any difference you're one of the most likable people I've conversed with in this respect, in terms of lack of relative foolishness.

Does "Damning with faint praise" count as a logical fallacy?

Would you blame the forest which surrounded a tree struck by lightning for not attracting the lighting themselves? Of course not, a tree has no animus. But what is animus except the utilized ability to act, to effect causal change? You're a superstitious fool, plain and simple.

I agree with the first portion of your definition, and disagree with the second. Deciding to not directly effect the situation is utilizing your ability to act. You appeal to the lack of causal effect by saying "If I wasn't there, things would be the same" except that you -are- there, and making the animated choice to maintain the situation as it is.

If, for example, a government decides to maintain a standing law, they are viewed as having made an -active- -responsible- decision...that has no direct causal effect on the way things had been previously. The law existed, they elected to not remove it, but they are held responsible for the consequences of the upholding of that law.

Being the 1 in 6 billion unique person that you are, you'll no doubt point out that there are all kinds of trivial laws on the books since days of yore which have never been removed, but which people simply acknowledge as being non-entities as far as considering them or paying them heed is concerned, but since your stance is one that says there is -never- a case as described in which your belief fails to apply, even if you appeal to millions of cases where you are correct, I need have only one where I am.

This leads back to where you openly criticized me for having vague and ambiguous terms. Well, your stance is one of 'zero' and my stance is one of 'non-zero' as any mathematician will tell you, the actual size of the non-zero is completely irellevant when just comparing 0 and !0.

Let's look at the role emotional language plays in your formulation. It looks to me like it's.... total. A total role. "Afraid" "coward" "apathy". You're using observed bad character synonymously with responsibility, in this case, pejoratively, "guilt". Again, a little too convenient for me to take your language as a serious measurement of reality.

So...because your belief says "Emotional language is invalid" my use of emotional language causes you to dismiss my point...okay, please provide varifiable, objective universal proof that emotional language is -always- invalid in this case ie. other than "Because I believe it isn't"

Yeah, and? Think up all the examples you want, it won't change reality. Of course you don't have the strength to abandon the role of emotion in formulating your world view, so correspondingly of course you are incapable of seeing the truth of my position.

Ought we to call you Friedrich from here on out? I can practically hear your will powering. As soon as you can provide proof for your negative (Since disproving one is inherently impossible, and thus the burden of proof is yours) namely, that you have the aforementioned provable, universal truth that in absolutely no case, ever, does emotion have a necessary function in ones worldview, I guess we can continue.

I know. I forgive you.

Well, isn't that consoling.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Do you have an actual criticism, or do you just find something repulsive about the amount of effort you believe I put into the last response?

Well, either way I'm going to bed. I'll either hear more argument/whining tommorow, V~

I don't do something
event x occurs

I do something
event y occurs

Why put so much special exclusivity on to negative cases

Did you see how many commas and subordinate clauses it took you to try to get to something that wasn't causal. It should've taken you an infinite number more because you still didn't get there and you never will.

[jewpinthethird]

Sure, just not an action of any stripe which would allow you to hold someone responsible for something that occurred externally to them.

So, by this logic, a doctor can deny a patient life saving treatment by deciding not to administer it and not be guilty of allowing the patient to die.

Better yet, say a person is driving and down the road is a child in the middle of the street. The child isn't moving out of the way and the person decides not to brake or swerve out of the way. The person hits the child and the child dies. By your logic, the person is not guilty of killing the child.

[devonin]

Ah but see, he claims that his logic applies only in cases where somehow magically going back in time and removing you from the situation could happen without any change in effect. Like...if you went back and removed the driver from that situation the child woudln't die, thus the person did in fact have a casual effect on what happened.

However, such a thing is impossible, and I still see a case where you had the action of changing course, and the inaction of not changing course, both of which carry consequences for which you are at least somewhat responsible.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

Does "Damning with faint praise" count as a logical fallacy?

No. Back-handed compliments are more of a literary device anyways.

If, for example, a government decides to maintain a standing law, they are viewed as having made an -active- -responsible- decision...that has no direct causal effect on the way things had been previously. The law existed, they elected to not remove it, but they are held responsible for the consequences of the upholding of that law.

Every example you can think of is going to rely on the fact that other people think the same way. There's no example you can provide external to human perception, so there's no example I would readily accept. Now, my thoughts are a matter of perception as well, but again they at least pretend a distinction between the real and the ideal, and subsequently they at least pretend a basis which your thoughts are incapable of providing.

Being the 1 in 6 billion unique person that you are, you'll no doubt point out that there are all kinds of trivial laws on the books since days of yore which have never been removed, but which people simply acknowledge as being non-entities as far as considering them or paying them heed is concerned, but since your stance is one that says there is -never- a case as described in which your belief fails to apply, even if you appeal to millions of cases where you are correct, I need have only one where I am.

Too bad you don't. Unless of course we're back to arguing duty rather than consequentialism. If government has a duty to make all laws fair, then leaving an unfair law on the books is wrong. Leaving an unfair law on the books is not wrong based purely on consequentialism.

This leads back to where you openly criticized me for having vague and ambiguous terms. Well, your stance is one of 'zero' and my stance is one of 'non-zero' as any mathematician will tell you, the actual size of the non-zero is completely irellevant when just comparing 0 and !0.

...

So...because your belief says "Emotional language is invalid" my use of emotional language causes you to dismiss my point...okay, please provide varifiable, objective universal proof that emotional language is -always- invalid in this case ie. other than "Because I believe it isn't"

I couldn't provide universal, verifiable, objective proof that gold is yellow, and neither could you. What I can say, in the proper scientific fashion, is that if something is always observed then it is likely always true. What I can also say, in a mathematical sense, is that if a model is more elegant, even if it describes the same thing, it should be the one adopted. Using "bad character" synonymously with "responsibility for evil" strikes me as inelegant. If I recognized your ability to use emotional language in a superior way, then perhaps I wouldn't condemn it. It's largely the central role I'm wary of.

Ought we to call you Friedrich from here on out? I can practically hear your will powering.

Um. Thanks?

As soon as you can provide proof for your negative (Since disproving one is inherently impossible, and thus the burden of proof is yours) namely, that you have the aforementioned provable, universal truth that in absolutely no case, ever, does emotion have a necessary function in ones worldview, I guess we can continue.

I never said that. To be honest I doubt there is a necessary function in a worldview. However, firstly your inability to discard your prejudices is responsible for your continued equivocation, in my perception, and secondly since skepticism is more useful in my experience than faith in constructing models, I don't need to disprove a negative, I assume the negative until it is proven otherwise. "innocent until proven guilty" "null hypothesis" "Black swan occurrence" whichever.

Well, isn't that consoling.

I'm not particularly sure the part of you that's aching should be consoled, but all the same the whole of you is forgiven.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by aperson

I don't do something
event x occurs

I do something
event y occurs

Why put so much special exclusivity on to negative cases

Because it applies.

Did you see how many commas and subordinate clauses it took you to try to get to something that wasn't causal. It should've taken you an infinite number more because you still didn't get there and you never will.

Um, that's nice. Nice but wrong.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

So, by this logic, a doctor can deny a patient life saving treatment by deciding not to administer it and not be guilty of allowing the patient to die.

Yep.

Better yet, say a person is driving and down the road is a child in the middle of the street. The child isn't moving out of the way and the person decides not to brake or swerve out of the way. The person hits the child and the child dies. By your logic, the person is not guilty of killing the child.

Not quite, we can trace the cause of the cars motion back to the person operating it, even if they weren't operating it at a given time. Thus if we consider the cause of the childs death as the car, the car was effected by the driver at some point, so following a syllogism, and noting that each part contains a causal element, we can blame the person for killing the child. Although technically we could put the child at fault as easily as the driver, but of course we wouldn't do that because that just feels wrong. No, if two parties are equally responsible for something the criminal is determined based on who suffered or lost more, even though this doesn't necessarily make sense.

The death could be considered either suicide or manslaughter, but we all know what it will be considered, don't we?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

However, such a thing is impossible, and I still see a case where you had the action of changing course, and the inaction of not changing course, both of which carry consequences for which you are at least somewhat responsible.

You're entitled to be wrong, but at least you understand my position to some level.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Because it applies.



Um, that's nice. Nice but wrong.

No, negative cases to you are positive cases to another person; the concepts of actions are all relevant notions that pivot around your cognitive biases. You can't even define what inaction is because of this, and your failure to do that shows when you start trying to jump circles around Jewpin's point. Quit trying to back up your arguments with a bunch of junk philosophy that 'big men' like Kant have thrown around, too. It makes you look like a sophist when you apply their reasoning without even having a firm substrate.

Since you aren't grasping the depth of what I'm saying, you can't come up with anything better than some canned response like "Because it applies." No it doesn't, and I've shown you three times over now why it doesn't. But instead, you've chosen to stick your fingers in your ears and shout the same stuff over and over as loudly as you can.

As human beings, we are woven together in a beautifully intricate network of causality. Everything we do affects others with infinite magnitude, but our computational and perceptual limitations keep us from ever recognizing this (just like a butterfly flapping its wings...). Quit pigeonholing yourself into the most basic grasps at causality by arguing like you are; you're never going to see the beauty of the big picture if you do. Instead, you're making a threshold argument; you're saying that somewhere along the gradient of perceived causal manipulability, things slip from a semantic label of 'action' to one of 'inaction.' I'm fine with this concept, but for god's sake, at least be aware that you're doing this. Posts like your response to my "What isn't causal?" question demonstrate just how blind to what you're doing you actually are. You're seeing things in black in white instead of a spectrum. Stop.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by aperson

No, negative cases to you are positive cases to another person; the concepts of actions are all relevant notions that pivot around your cognitive biases. You can't even define what inaction is because of this, and your failure to do that shows when you start trying to jump circles around Jewpin's point. Quit trying to back up your arguments with a bunch of junk philosophy that 'big men' like Kant have thrown around, too. It makes you look like a sophist when you apply their reasoning without even having a firm substrate.

I'm sorry, but pointing out the dead-end nature of perspectivism isn't a refutation.

Since you aren't grasping the depth of what I'm saying, you can't come up with anything better than some canned response like "Because it applies." No it doesn't, and I've shown you three times over now why it doesn't. But instead, you've chosen to stick your fingers in your ears and shout the same stuff over and over as loudly as you can.

There is no depth to what you're saying. It's post-modern nonsense.

As human beings, we are woven together in a beautifully intricate network of causality. Everything we do affects others with infinite magnitude, but our computational and perceptual limitations keep us from ever recognizing this (just like a butterfly flapping its wings...). Quit pigeonholing yourself into the most basic grasps at causality by arguing like you are; you're never going to see the beauty of the big picture if you do. Instead, you're making a threshold argument; you're saying that somewhere along the gradient of perceived causal manipulability, things slip from a semantic label of 'action' to one of 'inaction.' I'm fine with this concept, but for god's sake, at least be aware that you're doing this. Posts like your response to my "What isn't causal?" question demonstrate just how blind to what you're doing you actually are. You're seeing things in black in white instead of a spectrum. Stop.

You know what the great thing is about this? I can dismiss it by saying it's just your perspective. That's not why I dismiss it though, I dismiss it because ultimately it's meaningless. So, you argue that our ability to perceive causality is far beneath our ability to see all causality? That's great, but it doesn't mean anything because any conjecture on the causal or non-causal nature of reality beyond that threshold is untestable. Now, again since skepticism is more useful in critical epistemology than faith, I assume there is no causal link beyond our ability to perceive or otherwise deduce. Keep in mind that quantum physics doesn't count because quantum physics are within the realm of human perception. Also, I'm not sure how a butterfly flapping its wings is related to thoughts somehow permeating through reality to effect every event, but even if it were it has no practical application. You can't hold a person morally responsible for their thoughts being connected to a given action through a chain of millions of other events any more than you can hold a butterfly responsible, meaning there's no purpose in this conjecture.

Or, to simplify how Montaigne put it, "A man can only be held accountable within the limits of his means."

Thoughts are within the realm of means. At the same time, means can only be determined as an absolute based on whether or not any given action was taken, meaning if someone doesn't take a given action there's no way to prove that action was within their means.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I'm sorry, but pointing out the dead-end nature of perspectivism isn't a refutation.

No, then you can't say that other's cognitive biases lead to fallacious modes of thought like you did above. Oops. You've fallen into a postmodern pit too. Nice one.

You're right, it isn't a refutation but it dismembers most of your pathetic arguments above.

There is no depth to what you're saying. It's post-modern nonsense.

Mind pointing out why or how? Oh wait you can't you just like throwing blanket labels on things and casting them aside; get some substance or get the hell out. Haha how postmodern. Haha how perspectivist. Haha how consequentialist. Hold on let me namedrop some Nietzsche be right back.

You know what the great thing is about this? I can dismiss it by saying it's just your perspective. That's not why I dismiss it though

So basically you just dug yourself a postmodern pit and jumped out right before you buried yourself in it. Nice save.

I dismiss it because ultimately it's meaningless.

Oops nevermind, you buried yourself.

So, you argue that our ability to perceive causality is far beneath our ability to see all causality? That's great, but it doesn't mean anything because any conjecture on the causal or non-causal nature of reality beyond that threshold is untestable. Now, again since skepticism is more useful in critical epistemology than faith, I assume there is no causal link beyond our ability to perceive or otherwise deduce.

And why wouldn't it be just as skeptical to say "Now, again since skepticism is more useful in critical epistemology then faith, I assume that there is no evidence of inherent action beyond our ability to perceive or otherwise deduce."

Well I'll be damned, there's the negation of your claim worded as a similar positive. Funny how that works. Wrench your brain really, really hard with some far transfer skills and maybe you can fathom how this applies to my original arguments. Hold on, I'll probably have to make it black and white for you:

Here's a direct example of the relativity of positive and negative I was talking about earlier. Haha jesus christ, you said this and can't even notice what is going on. Also, it's hilarious as hell that you're arguing against causality with scientific empricism when every single bit of scientific discovery ever made pretty much underlies the notion that events occur as causal phenomenon. You should really listen to some of the crap you're saying some time.

And beyond that, your argument boils down to some thought process analogous to the thought an ostrich makes when it runs away from fear by sticking its head in a hole; well if I can't see it, it can't be there: "That's great, but it doesn't mean anything because any conjecture on the causal or non-causal nature of reality beyond that threshold is untestable."

Nice one, you call my stance empty postmodernism then do the exact same thing. You're brilliant, man. This is A+ sophistry right here.

Keep in mind that quantum physics doesn't count because quantum physics are within the realm of human perception. Also, I'm not sure how a butterfly flapping its wings is related to thoughts somehow permeating through reality to effect every event, but even if it were it has no practical application.

It's an example of the subtlety of causality. If you can't understand this then you're just dense.

You can't hold a person morally responsible for their thoughts being connected to a given action through a chain of millions of other events any more than you can hold a butterfly responsible, meaning there's no purpose in this conjecture.

Oh wait you do understand it. You just feigned ignorance above to wrap around my last point and then magically got the picture when you started arguing against moral repsonsibility here. Man that's neat.

But you know what, YOU'RE RIGHT! Now maybe you can understand that you are making an arbitrary threshold argument. You're trying to set a JND (I'm namedropping psychology terms now) on where intentful causality occurs. And you're setting this threshold through some nonsensical view based on your cognitive biases on what denotes a positive action versus a negative (I mean this in the sense of A and ~A, not in the sense of good and bad).

Or, to simplify how Montaigne put it, "A man can only be held accountable within the limits of his means."

Okay and isn't one of his means to choose not to act? Oops glaring contradiction in your entire argument. Maybe you should think more before you choose to namedrop yet more people.

Thoughts are within the realm of means. At the same time, means can only be determined as an absolute based on whether or not any given action was taken, meaning if someone doesn't take a given action there's no way to prove that action was within their means.