Militia question 1

[c0rbin]

Why is this not a human construct?

The language used to label it is the human construct.

Without anyone telling me (ie if I lived in absolute solidtude) I would be free to speak, bear arms, worship how I wanted to, etc.

 

[crimresearch]

Actually Mercutio, you did answer my question as to where you were going with this ( or where you were coming from) by fleshing out your behaviorist foundation...I apologize for not picking up on it in your earlier mention of it.

Not that it matters, since criminologists are taught from day one that behaviorists are misguided tools of Satan.

 

[Globert]

Back to the militia, I think an argument can be made that among the arms that I am to posses is an M16, M9, M1911, or M14. Well regulated and all. Then I just roll out when they call. For if they call out the militia the dookie is through the fan, and the threat to country has surpassed the arm and train process and every swinging richard better hit the streets holding their own smokewagon.
Uncle Sam Needs You! In your neighborhood. Now.
What’s so archaic in that?

-Globe

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Kodiak
It is not difficult to imagine such a society, but it wouldn't be human...

Then you are calling a society consisting of humans non-human based on the absence of some intangible concept. I fail to see why such a society would not be human.

I've never heard of a gazelle or antelope charging a cheetah or lion with attempted murder

They do sometimes do things that are quite similar. Another victim of lions, the zebra, is well known to sometimes attack troops of lions both to show the lions that they don't surrender without a fight and to set an example: to show young zebras who their enemy is and who to look out for.

This is arguably a primitive form of social control, the basis of any justice system.

Evidence, please...

Here, or here or elsewhere.

All evidence suggests they are.

I disagree. I think all evidence shows that there are quite a few people who prefer to define these things are purely human traits, the only way you can exclude animals from such a definition is by demanding abilities from them that humans have not proven to have. I don't know any experiment that all humans can pass, but no animal can.

"One small difference"?!?!? Are you serious?!?!?!?

I am quite serious.

In a vacuum they exist and are absolute! No interaction is necessary!

Then show me a vacuum where 'rights' exist and are 'absolute' and prove that they exist and are absolute without interacting with them. Doesn't sound very easy to me.

Only through "social interaction" are they affected, limited and infringed.

Or: only through social interaction do they get any meaning and can their existence be proven.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I don;t know. One may not believe that I have the right to speak freely inherently, but that does not make it true.

If that person merely "believed" I had no such right, I would still speak freely.

If that person was not around to forcefully stop my free speech, I would speak freely.

The only thing to stop me from speaking freely is that person's use of force.

How about this: suppose you live with a person who does not believe you have the right to free speech and can forcefully stop you from speaking freely. How do you determine whether you have an inherent right to free speech or not?

In this situation it is simply irrelevant whether you have or don't have a right to free speech. It makes no difference whatsoever. Saying that you have such a right does not convince the other that you have it. So what does it mean to say that you have such a right, if it makes no difference?

Even if the other is convinced that you have such a right it may not make any difference. He might say: "Sure you have an inherent right to free speech, but I have an inherent right to plant this machete in your skull if I don't like what you say! Prove me wrong." Can you prove him wrong? Of course not. His 'inherent right' is just as meaningless as yours in this situation.

If I am alone on a desert island and speak freely, which society constructed that concept?

Your society of one. Which is not much of a society of course. If you are alone, all the concepts you think of a purely subjective to yourself. How much you experience you have a freedom of speech depends only on what you allow yourself to say. Only with other people can they become intersubjective.

Of course having freedom of speech is pretty meaningless if there is no one else to speak to.

I think the social construct you are referring to is the language itself, rather than the proclivity.

I think you are right. Of course what we are talking about is the concept of a right, for example the concept of the right to free speech. We are not discussing any physical ability.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
Musical ability objectively exists, but has no physical properties.

Depends. If you mean the ability to recognise tones and rythms and produce them, then it objectively exists and has physical properties in the brain. If on the otherhand you mean the ability to produce something that people will recognise as music, it has no real physical properties and does not exist objectively, but instead it exists intersubjectively. The tones and rythms made by someone are not objectively 'music', they are only music if other people consider them music through their own subjective experience.

Love objectively exists, but has no physical properties.

Love has no objective existence, because it purely depends on the subjective experience of people. If one person loves another person, love exists only subjectively. If two or more people show their love for eachother, love exists intersubjectively.

Logic objectively exists (if it doesn't exist, nothing objectively exists!) but has no physical properties.

Okay, this is a bit better example. But I will still argue that logic does not objectively exist. It exists intersubjectively. There are many possible logical systems but all of them are invented by people. A logical system has a few basic assumptions and all people who agree on those assumptions also agree that the results of those assumptions must also be true if the basic assumptions are correct. Logic is therefore a tool for thinking about things. This does not imply however that there is only one possible kind of logic and people couldn't invent another kind. It also does not mean that someone can just invent a kind of logic and make a claim that something subjectively believed logically follows from it. Other people must be able to come to the same conclusions if they use the same kind of logic. This means that logic is intersubjective. It exists in the minds of many people communicating with eachother instead of just one. But it does not exist outside of people's subjective minds, so it cannot be objective.

This statement is only relevant if it is possible for people to hold them responsible. How is it possible to do so?

Exactly the same way as they do with humans. If your dog chews on your slippers, you will try to make him understand that you don't allow him to do that and you might punish him hoping he will learn from it and not do it again. You hold him responsible for what he did. It is roughly as effective as doing the same to humans.

 

[shanek]

Depends. If you mean the ability to recognise tones and rythms and produce them, then it objectively exists and has physical properties in the brain. If on the otherhand you mean the ability to produce something that people will recognise as music, it has no real physical properties and does not exist objectively, but instead it exists intersubjectively.

You show your ignorance. There is an entire science called music theory which shows objectively why different forms of music are pleasing; why some chords are major, some minor, some dissonant, there's mathematics behind musical phrasing, etc. Since the person can produce a tangible, objective product, it is an objective skill; nonetheless, musical ability itself has no physical properties. Every society's music, no matter how far separate and disparate, has all of these things in common for this very reason.

Love has no objective existence, because it purely depends on the subjective experience of people. If one person loves another person, love exists only subjectively. If two or more people show their love for eachother, love exists intersubjectively.

That may be true of one person's love, but not of love in general, which can actually be studied scientifically (and is).

Okay, this is a bit better example. But I will still argue that logic does not objectively exist. It exists intersubjectively. There are many possible logical systems but all of them are invented by people.

Why are they all compatible? Why do scientists believe we could communicate with an alien species using logical constructs, since we would have those in common?

This means that logic is intersubjective.

How can these things be intereubjective and yet have these commonalities among people who have never communicated with one another?

It exists in the minds of many people communicating with eachother instead of just one. But it does not exist outside of people's subjective minds, so it cannot be objective.

Tell that to a computer. Or an atom.

If your dog chews on your slippers, you will try to make him understand that you don't allow him to do that and you might punish him hoping he will learn from it and not do it again. You hold him responsible for what he did. It is roughly as effective as doing the same to humans.

Responsibility isn't about punishment. We aren't talking about negative reinforcement.

 

[Ed]

If your dog chews on your slippers, you will try to make him understand that you don't allow him to do that and you might punish him hoping he will learn from it and not do it again. You hold him responsible for what he did. It is roughly as effective as doing the same to humans.

A dog associates stimuli and behaviors with outcomes. The word "understand" in this context has no meaning.

 

[Jocko]

You show your ignorance. There is an entire science called music theory which shows objectively why different forms of music are pleasing; why some chords are major, some minor, some dissonant, there's mathematics behind musical phrasing, etc. Since the person can produce a tangible, objective product, it is an objective skill; nonetheless, musical ability itself has no physical properties. Every society's music, no matter how far separate and disparate, has all of these things in common for this very reason.

You're overanalyzing; simply ask her or Claus to measure it objectively. Be sure to wish them good luck.

Responsibility isn't about punishment. We aren't talking about negative reinforcement.

It's about being able to comprehend the abstract WITHOUT reinforcement, a key line of delineation between humans and other animals. Equating human society with the food chain in a literal way is pure nonsense.

 

[Mercutio]

A dog associates stimuli and behaviors with outcomes. The word "understand" in this context has no meaning.

Any behaviorist would applaud you*, and would apply your same logic to a human. "Understanding" is circularly defined, and is not causal. Of course, most humans will take umbrage at this--but then, I suppose most dogs would too, given the opportunity.

This actually is rather like what I spoke of before, the challenging of assumptions that behaviorists do which is rather unlike most other folk who examine such topics...



*ok, technically, the "association" exists in the environment, not in the dog, and the dog merely responds appropriately to the environmental stimuli, but that is really splitting hairs.

 

[Mercutio]

Actually Mercutio, you did answer my question as to where you were going with this ( or where you were coming from) by fleshing out your behaviorist foundation...I apologize for not picking up on it in your earlier mention of it.

Not that it matters, since criminologists are taught from day one that behaviorists are misguided tools of Satan.

Oh, good...I was hoping I had answered.

And hey...we are used to it. Criminologists, cognitive psychologists...anybody who likes theories more than evidence...

 

[Mercutio]

You show your ignorance. There is an entire science called music theory which shows objectively why different forms of music are pleasing; why some chords are major, some minor, some dissonant, there's mathematics behind musical phrasing, etc. Since the person can produce a tangible, objective product, it is an objective skill; nonetheless, musical ability itself has no physical properties. Every society's music, no matter how far separate and disparate, has all of these things in common for this very reason.

LOL...well, yes and no, Shanek...I have a close friend who is a chapter author in The Topos Of Music, which is pretty much the current word in the mathematical science approach to music...I agree, there is this science, there is an amazing amount of objective stuff that goes into music...but...to suggest that that is all there is is ludicrous. Take something as simple as scales, for instance. Our "well-tempered" scale, which sounds so pleasing to the modern ear, was unfamiliar before Bach, when each musical key was tuned differently. What sounded "natural" before that point would sound unnatural now, and what is natural now would sound odd to their ears. Thus, even within "western" music, what is "in common" is a social construct, not a mathematical one. (But BTW, if this is an area of interest for you, I highly recommend the book!)

That may be true of one person's love, but not of love in general, which can actually be studied scientifically (and is).

Why do you think that scientific study of love means that it is not a social construction? There is no reason to think this.

[snip]
Responsibility isn't about punishment. We aren't talking about negative reinforcement.

Sorry...I don't really have a comment here, other than, as a behaviorist, to point out that "negative reinforcement" increases the frequency or strength of a behavior, whereas punishment decreases it. Please do not equate the two. These are technical terms; please be careful in their use.

Ok, maybe I do have a comment...Earthborn is right, Shanek. Whether you choose to call it "holding something responsible" or not, we functionally do hold animals responsible in some circumstances, and we do not hold people responsible in some situations (extenuating circumstances)...the line is not nearly so clear as you pretend it is.

 

[Globert]

Animals are food, it doesn't matter how cute or fuzzy, if it is not homo sapien, it is food. We are free to kill it, in season, according to our warm fuzzy social contract.

But ask a person from the hills if venison only falls in autumn. I would venture they will harvest nature according to their need. City folk get food from the market, it is only available in the set socially acceptable forms; lamb, beef, chicken, pig, (goat is making a surge) ostrich is available in specialty stores, horse is right out. One may choose not to eat meat at all.

None of this changes our place in the food chain, smack dab on top, any thing else is food. No animal takes precedence over humans in life saving math. I will save the person every time, I will not unduly risk a brother for fluffy. yes, cats are removed from trees, but if another call comes to save humans, fluffy stays up.(there are no cat skeletons in trees.)

I have seen what monsters can do, those that reject the fuzzy contract of universal peace are not hindered by our agreements. Our agreements to disarm hands them power on a silver freakin platter. I find it bizzare that feel good politics put the elderly at a disatvantage, put women out for playthings and yuppies on the shopping list.

No one has answered my right to respire unmolested, to be secure in my domicile. Those must be too concrete to compete with horses playing Motzart.

-Globe

 

[shanek]

LOL...well, yes and no, Shanek...I have a close friend who is a chapter author in The Topos Of Music, which is pretty much the current word in the mathematical science approach to music...I agree, there is this science, there is an amazing amount of objective stuff that goes into music...but...to suggest that that is all there is is ludicrous.

When did I say that is all there is? I merely said that music theory gives us an objective way of determining musical ability.

Take something as simple as scales, for instance. Our "well-tempered" scale, which sounds so pleasing to the modern ear, was unfamiliar before Bach, when each musical key was tuned differently.

Yes, I'm familiar with temperments; I've played instruments tuned with the mean-tone method, the Pythagorean system, and Just Intonation (the purest form, where the thirds and fifths are acoustically perfect, dividing evenly into the octave's frequency). Also, there is no single "well-tempered" scale; variations exist, such as the Kirnberger method, and even with the modern even-tone temperment there are different tuning curves, such as where higher octaves are a slightly higher frequency than lower octaves (this is how most pianos are tuned) as opposed to all octaves being equal.

And in all of these, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, there is a very specific set of mathematics that defines them and determines why they're better for different purposes.

(Oh, and one of the reasons why string music sounds so pleasing to the ear is that, even today, string players use Just Intonation, even when playing along with modern even-tempered instruments.)

So I really don't know what point you think you're trying to make here.

What sounded "natural" before that point would sound unnatural now,

No, it doesn't. Just Intonation still sounds beautiful.

Thus, even within "western" music, what is "in common" is a social construct, not a mathematical one.

ALL of those tuning methods are mathematically constructed.

(But BTW, if this is an area of interest for you, I highly recommend the book!)

I will, thanks!

Why do you think that scientific study of love means that it is not a social construction? There is no reason to think this.

Because, again, we can judge the output scientifically.

Sorry...I don't really have a comment here, other than, as a behaviorist, to point out that "negative reinforcement" increases the frequency or strength of a behavior, whereas punishment decreases it. Please do not equate the two. These are technical terms; please be careful in their use.

Okay, whichever.

Whether you choose to call it "holding something responsible" or not, we functionally do hold animals responsible in some circumstances, and we do not hold people responsible in some situations (extenuating circumstances)...the line is not nearly so clear as you pretend it is.

Okay, then answer me this: can an animal use its training to decide how it should act in situations it has not been trained for, like humans can?

 

[Earthborn]

Every society's music, no matter how far separate and disparate, has all of these things in common for this very reason.

Assuming this is true (I think it is only to a very limited extend, especially when it comes to forms of music that have developed independently from eachother) it shows that people's subjective experiences are similar because of a similar biology. It does not show music to be objective.

That may be true of one person's love, but not of love in general, which can actually be studied scientifically (and is).

Everything that is intersubjective can be and is studied scientifically. Take for example language. No one is born with language, we learn it from others by interacting with them. Still there are scientists who are studying language. There are also scientists studying culture or politics, all things that only exist because of people interacting with eachother.

Why are they all compatible?

Are they? I don't think so. Boolean logic is not compatible with fuzzy logic, because it knows no concept between true or false, while fuzzy logic knows an infinite number of states between them.

Why do scientists believe we could communicate with an alien species using logical constructs, since we would have those in common?

They probably hope that because a logic system is internally consistent, other creatures may have invented something similar enough so they can understand ours. Because logic is intersubjective, they will try to communicate with the simplest logic system they believe the aliens might share with us. It is only a guess though that they will understand our logic.

How can these things be intereubjective and yet have these commonalities among people who have never communicated with one another?

I think it will be difficult to prove that logics have commonalities among people who have never communicated together or haven't learned from common ancestors. We all have a few common ancestors so it is possible that certain ways of thinking show similarities because people were taught these things across generations. Languages show similarities too, and all that proves is that they evolved from a single one.

Also the similarities in brain structure can be an explanation of similarities in logical thinking. Let's not forget though that there are also large differences between ways of thinking between different cultures.

Tell that to a computer. Or an atom.

It is a lot easier to argue the objective existence of computers or atoms, then things like love and freedom.

Responsibility isn't about punishment. We aren't talking about negative reinforcement.

What are we talking about then? Is the dog supposed to refund the damages it caused? The only reason it can't do that is because we don't allow it to own any property.

 

[Earthborn]

And in all of these, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, there is a very specific set of mathematics that defines them and determines why they're better for different purposes.

Are these specific sets of mathematics what defines beautiful, or have people learned to appreciate specific sets of musical mathematics?

And who has decided which sets to use and consider beautiful, except people interacting with eachother? Is it possible to put a lot of those elements together and produce something that people would not consider to be music? I'm fairly sure you can, or else composing by computers would be a lot further than it is today. So what constitutes as 'music' is ultimately defined by people, socially, subjectively or intersubjectively.

If what you say is true, then it should be possible to build a machine that looks at all the mathematical traits of a musical piece and decide whether it is beautiful or not. I don't think this is possible. You're not allowed to use neural networks of course, because that is cheating: it would mean you use a simulation of a brain to make the decision, actually proving that one needs a subjective mind to be able to know what is beautiful or not.

Because, again, we can judge the output scientifically.

That does not prove 'love' exists objectively. At most it proves it has objectively measureable results or measureable intersubjective results.

Okay, then answer me this: can an animal use its training to decide how it should act in situations it has not been trained for, like humans can?

Perhaps you can give an example that shows that humans can.

 

[shanek]

Assuming this is true (I think it is only to a very limited extend, especially when it comes to forms of music that have developed independently from eachother) it shows that people's subjective experiences are similar because of a similar biology.

No, it happens because of the physics of harmonics and rhythm.

Are they? I don't think so. Boolean logic is not compatible with fuzzy logic, because it knows no concept between true or false, while fuzzy logic knows an infinite number of states between them.

Fuzzy logic still starts with true and false. And at its very basic it's doing just true and false just like Boolean logic—its basis is IF X AND Y THEN Z, which is quite Boolean. You just have the bits arranged in matrices that can be compared to each other to within a tolerance level (based on the significance of the error and the significance of the rate of change of the error). And it's not infinite; it depends on the size of the matrix.

What are we talking about then? Is the dog supposed to refund the damages it caused? The only reason it can't do that is because we don't allow it to own any property.

The dog is supposed to be able to make value judgements on each and every action and weigh it against the possible consequences. I'll ask you what I asked Mercutio above: can the dog only stop bad behavior that he's been specifically trained for, or can he also apply what he's learned to new situations?

 

[shanek]

Are these specific sets of mathematics what defines beautiful, or have people learned to appreciate specific sets of musical mathematics?

Neither. They're the physics behind what the ear hears. For example, a perfect fifth is a combination of two notes where the frequency of one note is 1.5 times that of the other. It sounds "perfect" because the frequencies have such a close match: every 3 oscillations of one and every 2 of the other they are in phase. But it's not as perfect as an octave, where one note's frequency is exactly twice that of the other.

Then consider the tritone. This is a very ugly fit, because the frequency of one tone can be calculated by mutliplying the frequency of the other tone by the square root of two. In other words, it ain't gonna get in phase. This is a very dissonant interval, so much so that in ancient times it was called diabolus in musica, or "the devil's tone." Take almost any song that's ever been written. Listen to the last two chords. The very last chord will have a perfect third, fourth, fifth, or some combination of those. The next-to-last chord will almost always have a tritone (if not, it'll have a minor second or minor seventh, some sort of dissonant interval). It wouldn't sound at all right if the music ended on that chord; your brain would be waiting for a resolution. That's precisely because of the physics behind those dissonant intervals.

Of course, that shouldn't be taken to read that the dissonant intervals are unpleasant. The "darker" music, such as Danny Elfman's, makes extensive use of tritones, for example. Or for a more simple example, the "dramatic chord" of the horror movies (usually played on an organ) is in fact two evenly-spaced tritones, a "diminished" chord.

It's all about the physics.

And who has decided which sets to use and consider beautiful, except people interacting with eachother?

Again, it's the physics of how the sound reacts with the ear.

If what you say is true, then it should be possible to build a machine that looks at all the mathematical traits of a musical piece and decide whether it is beautiful or not. I don't think this is possible. You're not allowed to use neural networks of course, because that is cheating:

Uh-huh. Nice way to worm out of the solution. Neural networks are quite logical and objective to set up, thank you very much. You can't get out of it by defining them away.

it would mean you use a simulation of a brain to make the decision,

Actually, you don't. Human brains are actually wired up quite differently. Neural networks are meant to be an approximation of how the brain works, but physically they're quite different.

Perhaps you can give an example that shows that humans can.

People do it all the time! Come on, you've got to do better than that!

 

[crimresearch]

"Animals are food, it doesn't matter how cute or fuzzy, if it is not homo sapien, it is food. We are free to kill it, in season, according to our warm fuzzy social contract."

Protein is food, animals is just one way of getting protein in the digestive tract.

If you want to be completely unsentimental, like Dahmer was, people make perfectly useable foodstuffs.

 

[crimresearch]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, then answer me this: can an animal use its training to decide how it should act in situations it has not been trained for, like humans can?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought this kind of stuff was a staple of experimental psych back in the '50s...put chimps in a room with objects that they had not used together before, and observe them adapt to combined tool use and get food from the ceiling?

Perhaps you can give an example that shows that humans can.

Well, in music it is called improvisation... And not all humans (or musicians) can do it worth a damn.

Training in fighting skills comes to mind, since a real attack rarely resembles anything experienced in training...and many trained fighters cannot adapt, some apparently can.