adjkant

41 ms·

331.
by adjkant 6y ago
All three are used as a noun to me, FWIW. When you say "merge to master", master is a noun. My point above is that it's more uncommon in my experience to fully say "master branch". "Masters degrees" as far
332.
by adjkant 6y ago
Two things: 1. Where did I say anything about emotional trauma? 2. Even if that was the case (for most it is not as far as I can tell), I am surprised to hear an argument for "ah yes, let's not decrease emotional trauma if we can
333.
by adjkant 6y ago
Why do you assume this is driven by anger and that the worries here are "coddling" and a "weaker society"? Why can't this simply be "hey, that term has some serious historical baggage and it doesn't sit ri
334.
by adjkant 6y ago
Perhaps a better broader link than a single tweet without context: https://www.cnet.com/news/master-and-slave-tech-terms-face-s...
335.
by adjkant 6y ago
Given how even distributed systems used to use master/slave frequently, and some still do, and that people don't say "master branch" and typically just say "master", I think it would be surprising for someone t
336.
by adjkant 6y ago
> By my personal definition, your second morality must be objective -- you've given it a value, and said it is different to the previous morality -- a fact At this point we're talking definitions, yes. IMO this is a subjective
337.
by adjkant 6y ago
A think we're getting to a stuck point here, but to wrap up some of my main qualms: 1. I feel like we keep talking in circles on the definitional aspect. I'm with you on the many definitions causing confusion and I would love to s
338.
by adjkant 6y ago
First, to answer your definitions ask in the other thread. "Practical" free will, as described by both of us: > When people say that free will exists, they're saying that there is coherent notion of control over one's
339.
by adjkant 6y ago
I'm going to respond in a single thread here as this is getting pretty fragmented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23480481
340.
by adjkant 6y ago
I'm familiar with compatibilism of course. By your definition of free will I would also be considered a compatibilist to you. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that the different definition of free will (the more stringent &#x
341.
by adjkant 6y ago
I've replied to a good deal of posts you can find in this thread so to keep this short - I would argue that you can derive conclusions from the idea/existence of determinism alone, even without exploiting its "predictive&quot
342.
by adjkant 6y ago
And that doesn't get into the weeds even! If we follow that computer model style of thinking, I think it's quite interesting that we still have no real randomness in computing, only computing seemingly random signals from the outs
343.
by adjkant 6y ago
> Caring about happiness and life, to the point they have value is objective This comes down to philosophical definitions. We are both using the word "objective" differently here. In the philosophical world, this is what moral
344.
by adjkant 6y ago
> Moral nihilism doesn't mean that they're false - it means moral truths don't exist, there is no right and wrong. You were predetermined to care for your happiness I agree 100%. However, you are mismatching objective mora
345.
by adjkant 6y ago
See the end of this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479194 Nothing published yet but I have many smaller academic writings that are building the pieces of this, and currently have a master outline that basicall
346.
by adjkant 6y ago
I should clarify, hard determinism.
347.
by adjkant 6y ago
> Any possible conception of fairness exists entirely with respect to the material circumstances of reality in the moment, the ethereal weight of determinism is not detectable on the scales of justice. You've just made another coinc
348.
by adjkant 6y ago
> This is an exaggerated version of what happens to an individual once they accept hard determinism. They realize that people can’t be morally at fault because they are simply a small part of the equation, an equation that includes all m
349.
by adjkant 6y ago
I think you're being too harsh on people. It is of course used at a surface level, but most people at least mean something when they say it. Everyone can of course mean something different too, but I think the definition I gave fits
350.
by adjkant 6y ago
> When people say that free will exists, they're saying that there is coherent notion of control over one's actions that grounds moral responsibility. My top level post very much says the same thing, I agree. However, that defi
351.
by adjkant 6y ago
> Ethics are already predetermined, though. No argument here, but knowing them still seems useful to humans. So in relation to humans, those terms and ideas are 100% needed. You're taking moral nihilism and jumping straight to gener
352.
by adjkant 6y ago
I suspect we are in agreement, but I would argue that is because the conception of morality you are using happens to be compatible with the resulting morals that I believe arise from determinism here. You skipped the more relevant applicati
353.
by adjkant 6y ago
The way you are using the object and the name can also apply to humans within a deterministic world though along with the parent argument. When I say a car, I am using it as shorthand to say "this collection of atoms". Same goes i
354.
by adjkant 6y ago
This is only true if you ground morality in objectivism and objective meaning, and require all useful conceptions of morality to fit that. What you have highlighted is that the meta-ethical view of objectivism is not compatible with determi
355.
by adjkant 6y ago
Completely agreed, and there's a ton of low hanging fruit from simply applying determinism to ethics and really following it. I think it becomes an incredibly powerful tool in moral philosophy that really clears a path of progress that
356.
by adjkant 6y ago
I've spent a good deal of time on this subject. In my opinion, this article did little to nothing and the parent here is a very valid critique. The argument it made is basically "We can't accept determinism, but hey, it'
357.
by adjkant 6y ago
1. Yes > Does that prediction take time? Of course it takes an understanding of the entire universe, which we don't have. > If it doesn't, if it is instantaneous, it's just a hand-waving god. If the prediction for any g
358.
by adjkant 6y ago
> If you seriously believe that fundamental forces leave no space for free will, then it’s impossible for us to genuinely make choices as moral beings. > The underlying physics would in reality be governing our behaviour, and responsi
359.
by adjkant 6y ago
Zuckerberg couldn't run as anything but a democrat either. Cambridge Analytica and the like ensured that, but his beliefs (as far as he has shown any) are leaning democrat with libertarian tendencies at best. His lack of moral spine is
360.
by adjkant 6y ago
> He just wasn't enough of an asshole to appeal to the US voter. Based on his marketing tactics I'm inclined to disagree there. IMO he also lacked the charisma that Zuckerberg would struggle with.

More ›