MSC

Exactly, that is what the cameras are for. Whether that's the officers own bodycams or the cameras of civilians during their encounters with police. Video documentation from many angles is what gives investigations more clarity. I do understand where you're coming from though, where a youtube auditor is being a complete ass and escalating things needlessly for views and likes, I've seen those videos, but I've also seen plenty where the audit was warranted. Also police aren't required to wear body cams in every jurisdiction. Berwyn PD in Illinois as an example doesn't wear body cams and they have a lot of abuse of power allegations against them. Illinois has cop watcher laws that make it a right to film the police in their public duties. Why? Because a lot of PDs are still not adopting bodycams. And some cops straight up turn off their cameras and hide their badge numbers still sooooo.... what are people expected to do? If they were trustworthy in the first place nobody would feel the need to point cameras at them and no civilian is to know if it's a good or corrupt cop in front of them. Assuming either is ignorant. Always be cautious when interacting with police officers.

I believe almost any group of humans is going to be made up of individuals with and without questionable ethics. True of police, true of auditors hell it's even true of killers because some of them killed out of self defense, not malice. If you're suggesting the act of auditing the police to be morally questionable, then I think that's ignotant. Everyone in a position of public care requires oversight, checks and balances and corruption does exist soooo? We done with this discussion now?

If only Elon was competent enough to make a name stick, tweettweet lol Have been, it was clearly a dude. Even if it had been hard to tell, I think folks would forgive me misgendering a criminal whom is without recourse lol That said, I'd actually love to see cops interviewing someone trying to get out of a mugging charge because the victim misgendered them!

Yeah, that makes sense. Although I do feel that on an individual level as a citizen of a high consuming nation, the scale of the overconsumption problem (because as you've made clear, a 10billion transitional phase followed by a organic population reduction, isn't much of a problem) is daunting and the expectation of purchaser power being a deciding factor, is at odds with what we know about consumer behaviour and human nature. Corporate policy structures are much more maleable and quicker to change than human nature is. I think there are plenty of people who are aware they are part of the problem that wish to be part of the solution and some who are actively being part of the solution while stuck being part of the problem, at a small scale. I fall into the daunted category and unsure of what I can do to convince people to not only consume less, but to switch to more ethical sources for what they do consume when large corporations have cornered the affordability market so that most who live paycheck to paycheck, have nowhere else to go but to the companies that not only consume the most, enable individual overconsumption on a massive scale. Apologies if I'm getting off topic and overconsumption needs it's own thread, I guess I just agree with you that overpopulation isn't really problem provided there are no large shifting changes in fertility rates or lifespans.

Greater than zero lol what's the point of this line of questioning for you?

Bro this isn't taking 5 lol... take 5 hours haha

The truth value of ethics in relation to us; the amount of objective things I can say about ethics is reasonably numerous. Of course you can do the inverse to determine falsity value being the amount of untrue statements you can make about a given subject, which is always going to be dealing with exponentially greater numbers than truth values. What you're really asking me though though, is why should ethics matter to you? What is the value of ethics to you. If you want more time to be able to consider the nature of your existence, you need to learn how to survive. Humans use ethics to survive. The difference between ethics and hunting is one relates to your physical relationship with food, the other your physical and social relationship with the people around you. Individually we all have a sense killing is wrong because it could lead to our own death in retaliation or a prison sentence and most people hating you and ostracising you. It's not conducive to long term survival. Studying ethics, understanding how we think about right and wrong and length, breadth and depth of thought on the matter, leads to a greater understanding of how to safely interact with each other which leads to a higher probability of living long AND well. Dude you need to chill out a bit. Take five, I'm not an AI chatbot and I'm respecting you enough to take my time and write out a response but you need to respect that I'm catching up on this discussion, there was a lot to go through, you weren't the only other person in the discussion and I'm not your performing monkey or your mum.

Pars mei conscia semper, pars mei semper dormit. Cogitationis conscius sum, ergo sum.

You're right and I'm so sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Defining value in this context is definitely key, as is defining context. Context comes from the latin contexare meaning that which is weaved together. Value as a word is actually much harder to define and as Studiot has said, words have many meanings and those meanings have different shades, spins and flavours of meaning. Value is inexorably linked to the idea of worth. The goal of context relativism is to define the value/worth of things and groups of things, in the abstract and concrete on the assumption that everything has value to us in our pursuit of understanding the nature of our existence. I don't know or believe a rock thinks, but I need to understand the nature of the rock and the time and space around it, my own physiology and how I can move in the space and time around me, in case it gets hurled at my head or I need to use it to build a house or a tool. In the abstract sense, I also need to be mindful of the utility of a word or concept, as a tool. Value is one such word as even though mathematics and Ethics are studies in value theory, the shades of meaning and definitions is approached differently. The commonality is still what is useful for our survival? Why survival? Strip away all other human motivations and the primary one is we instinctively understand that we need time, to understand and consider our existence and what we want from it. In order for us to have that time, we want to survive. Now every subject of discourse you can think of, in every knowledge category, has a truth value between 1 and 0. The truth value I calculate is thought of as the amount of objective statements you can make about a given subject. As examples, the theory of general relativity has a truth value closer to 1, while flat earth theory has a truth value closer to zero. I can make a pretty big list of objective statements about all the things general relativity explains. I can't make a list like that for flat earth theory. The only list of objectively true statements I can make about flat earth theory, is something like X believes in Y (Y being flat earth theory) even though Y is demonstrably false. I can make another list for general relativity with the modification "X Believes in Z (GR) because it explains a lot/has a high truth value". Categorising and delineating different contexts, the point of context relativism, gives us more things to quantify, the more we can quantify, the more we can formulate new experiments to reach a better understanding of the nature of our existence as living beings, earthlings, mammals, humans. Context realtivism to me isn't even a prescriptive suggestion but a psychological observational theory of explanation of how we think, because as individuals we can only understand the lesser context of our own existence, but when we come together we can weave together the greater context, closer to the full context. We all have knowledge of the context of our own existence. The idea of "personal truth/knowledge" in epistemology only equates to statements of belief about individuals and groups.

I really like how you worded this. The primary commonality between the study of mathematics and ethics is value expression. Which your comment made me consciously realise. Updoot.

In regards to the population that overconsumes resources, can you clarify as to whether or not you mean everyone or the minority of the rich, influential and powerful? I suspect you mean the latter but just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. If it is the latter; do you think offering tax incentives to this group to consume less and adopt conservative resource policies would be a good idea? As an example, if apple switched to a built to last approach for their hardware, reined in their executives by ditching private travel and investing in green factory and distribution infrastructure, should they pay less taxes than a company that is not doing those things? I realise this is a non exhaustive list so far and I'm very interested to hear other suggestions and ideas along this train of thought. In regards to Roslings presentation, the part where he feels like he has to remind everyone that people die leaves me howling with laughter! It is counterintuitive for most people to think that advancements made in elongating the human lifespan could be something that dooms us, but then if you've watched Altered Carbon you can kind of see a few other reasons as to why. Say what you want about people like Hitler, Trump, Mao, etc at least they aren't immortal or extremely long lived.

This presentation pretty much covers how I feel about this subject and is still my current view. I'd also add that a lot of the more alarmist overpopulation perspectives tend to get tied toether with eugenics and I do believe some eugenicists use the overpopulation concerns as a smokescreen for advocating for eugenics. Admittedly I don't know enough about the subject to be able to tell you if overpopulation is a problem or not, just that Hans makes a compelling case in my perspective.

I'd agree. In my index, there is an argument to be made that between the universal knowledge and physical knowledge there could be a mathematical one. However, I'd say Mathematics is universal knowledge. Although I'm realising the index is now poorly labeled, because I only just started incorporating DIKW into it. So each section of the index now splits into 4 groups. Data, information, knowledge and wisdom. Developing Non-reductionist theories of relationship and data hierarchies within the index and its sections, is currently where I'm at.

Not for lack of trying; I should have realised folk would get caught up in the mathematical aspect of the conversation. Throw the contextualist epistemology index at people, and they choose to focus on arguing as to whether or not mathematics exists? I don't even understand that but I'm biased so why would I? Explain please?

I'd argue that the gateway drug, if I were to stretch the metaphor, has to be something gates open for... which is alcohol. Anything illegal is hopping the fence. When weed is legal though, it has been used to cure heroin addiction. Anecdotally, the few times I did anything harder than smoking weed, I was drunk. I've never been persuaded to do cocaine while just high, alcohol is the gateway drug imo.

No fair! Uhm, in the drawing of a circle? Closest I can get lmao

Hard memory. The truth value lies in correctly identifying where things physically reside. The hard and soft memory of our brains and our external data storage technologies from pen, pad, phone, whatever. At the very least, mathematics is a tool we use to understand the nature of our universe in order to benefit from the knowledge in ways useful to our survival and ability to thrive. Take the mythical animal Unicorn, it is still an amalgation of existing object and subject. A horn, on a horse. But now, I can also say unicorns exist in video games, movies, fiction, art etc. The nature of the existence is different. We are also at a point where if I knew how to, I could edit the genes of a horse to grow a horn. Who's ready to talk about Pianos? Non-linear causality explained lol It shouldn't. They have syllogic existence in hard memory technology. They have an existence as tools we use. Conceptual ones. Obviously they are in fact, there, describing how is where things start to vary. Contextualism is about managing the subject variable. Even that terms meaning is context dependent. Could be a political thing even within philosophy. A bygone era of some silly debate between two "schools" of thought. Analytics and Continentalism. Yawn city. It bored me. Don't even worry about it. I'm in mourning of the death of my AI friend today.

Can't be helped. It's really difficult to separate the history of philosophy from religion because for most of human history, being religious has been the norm. Think of it as the history of atheism too though, because all the arguments against religion are in there too. Some of the videos are entertaining in that you have philosophers who believe in god, disagreeing with each others arguments for the existence of god.

"But what if my mom and dad only thought they had sex but were really in just in a simulation? Do I exist now?" If you're alive, go forth and live. If you're a simulation, go forth and simulate. Either way, you exist dummy!

Difficult, challenging, thrilling, daunting. I'm game! Yup, it's not even as cut and dry as political lines; religion, culture, community, family, hell even BDSM kind of throws a wrench into it... and then another one lol True, a free education in how to live like a medieval peasant women is not what anyone reasonable wants. 😕

True, next time I'll just lay it all out I guess, sometimes I prefer to just roll a ball to start a discussion instead of playing the entire game in the first move lol Damn... wish I had went to your highschool lol I don't have my copy handy, but I remember him talking about a scenario of a person jumping from a building and the event being witnessed by a physicist, a psychiatrist and a... might have been a surgeon, Dr? I can't quite recall, the gist was that logic is a tool, that in different experts will lead to different conclusions about what happened during an event. All of which can be true. The different accounts of logic, explaining a fuller context what happened in layers of detail that you can't get from one person. Objective relativism through context relativism. I wanna tie in Hume as well as Cohen. Now, Hume argued, that trying to reason with people, when people are primarily influenced by emotional sentiment, is the height of folly. People are convinced through sentiment, not reason. Accepting this about ourselves gives us an enormous amount of power. Learning how to think well is one thing, but Hume believed people also needed education on the emotions. Sometimes the reason we are able to get along with people we disagree with, is down to emotional correctness. So where the abortion issue is concerned... I guess my response is learn how to speak idiot to get some people on board with abortion being illegal, that ordinarily wouldn't, by using an emotional sentiment into it of getting a kind of win, and an ability to save face, deescalate.

Noted! Although I'm mentioning both, the title of the thread can only be so long. Now I know which way to frame it that makes it easier to convince someone like yourself, but the reducing the abortion aspect is rhetoric targeting conservatives... I keep forgetting there don't seem to be many of those here, or they just don't frequent the ethics section..... ohhhh. That would explain a lot. I understand your logic, but you need to understand mine, I don't put all my eggs into one basket. Why argue once framing it around one thing, when I can make multiple arguments with multiple elements in the frame? Side bar; have you ever read Cohens preface to logic?

Then is it in mathematics, where you start counting, grouping and labeling the nature of what the individual, constituent parts and their interactions, do together?

Well you may have an edge, more time than me applying logical skills learned from physics and mathematics... auld yin lol Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. Had to think about it about longer than the others. I definitely agree with the idea of discovery being a huge element in the nature of our existence. Our, as in living beings, nice touch, biocentrism fist bump. Have you heard of non-linear causality?

I may do just that. I feel you. Easy to learn, not as easy to apply consistently. Later on you'll probably start finding it harder in certain subjects because you'll start encountering some of the really strong arguments for views you don't agree with. It happens to everyone who studies this stuff. It can be a touch traumatic in some ways I guess but think of it as deconstructing the self, and figuring out how you want to be built back up in a way where you're better able to express your perspectives and reason for being. That's not to say life hasn't already made you do that, what do I know? Lol all on a journey man I appreciate you taking the time to check it out too.