Welcome to INTJ Forum



  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sommers71

  • Rank


  • MBTI


  • Gender
  1. What I want to focus on is clinical significance. Now I’m not exactly talking about medical pharmaceuticals, but more specifically something of an action in a situation determining an outcome. If you treat behaviors such as actions based upon values to determine them, I infer that you could determine moral values, given that you have a theory in mind. What I mean is that as an example, given consequentialism, you could through sampling of populations, determine variables of values to evaluate theory predicted results. This of course requires something of a predicted result be determined before hand. To do that is to accept the world in a platonic sense, where mathematics could be evoked quite literally. What I want to propose is an experiment of action values. These are actions of behaviors determined to furthering some moral value. An example is charity. The null hypothesis in this scenario would be to discuss a control group, and in this case it would be actions of behaviors that does not attempt to perform charity. Now given a prefered moral outcome to compare the results. This is a preference in this case because the correct moral action may not be known. (The reason I say this is because you may not have an idea of what correct outcomes may be, or how morally correct they are. I’m still uncertain of this myself, and it is thoroughly debatable.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_significance
  2. How do you think they do or don't exist? If no, without these things do you believe you are entitled to anything, more specifically rights?
  3. Being an atheist I tend to think that entitlement is something humans apply to their own populations. A right is not granted by God, or gods. Also there is a difference between rights and privileges. So it's basically what humans say other humans or themselves can do. The establishment of right or privilege depends on the people of decision to decide. Groups such as government systems or privileged classed individuals. That is unless there is no restriction on age. Then they can live as long as they may.
  4. Reestablish new root wording to give people context to build off of for establishing context of words. Much like Latin did. They are like concept building blocks.
  5. Maybe science fiction is right, with simulations being peoples everyday lives. With the advent of virtual reality physical space no longer becomes a limitation. If we automate physical reality robots will rule the physical world, and we may become embedded in our fantasy. It reminds me of "Brave New World" in a way. This of course depends on the ability to achieve something like the singularity, which I'm skeptical about. I also doubt the idea of a Star Trek utopia future, absent of geopolitical boundaries or resource being feasible.
  6. It's very interesting discussing evolution when discussing selfish/selfless relationships, and how it relates to altruism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection . It had yet to be decided.
  7. The Earth is limited in space and resources. Enough so that freedoms are restricted by negative rights. A world without politics is a world without interference of choice.
  8. You are known more by your failures and shortcomings than success. Is this a true or false statement. I believe it’s true because society as a whole strives for improvement. There is also competition in society, so that people are always trying to play down the successes of rivals.
  9. This is just an experiment to classify arguments, and it's my best attempt. Feedback is welcomed. Just to start things off, an Agent in a model posesses a certain action potential in a situation. This is characterized as Agency, the act of action. An Agent may potentially be a biological organism, but may also be something of expressed dynamic such as chemicals or computational machines. I suppose one trait differentiating Agents could be Volition or Non-Volition Agency. To continue modeling I want to reference something I want to call Geopolitical Context. Given that I'm modeling something of a human heuristic model, it will orient things in the realm of human interaction. The Agents I want to model have Four traits I want to reference. These are Emphatic, Superficial, Superfluous, and Aversive. Given these traits, they will apply to a Class. These Classes can be of different things, such as Moral, Consumer, Political, etc. Next I would like to express possible dynamics, these will be Values and Variables. Values are expressed as an Agents regard for something of worth, be it monetary or sentimental value in a Geopolitical Context. An example would be Valuing work ethic or loyalty in a company setting. Variables are quantities or elements that vary between different Geopolitical Context. An example would be, there are 100 parts when we only need 50 parts, or it is 32 degrees fahrenheit outside. Finally the last dynamic I want to note is Pivotal. These are the Statements of notation in a Geopolitical Context that are deemed significant or important. An example of these situations is to classify as such; Agent, Agency, Geopolitical Context, Trait, Class, Value OR Variable, Pivotal An extension of this I need to add is Entropy. To add Entropy is to include Evolution of the system, or dynamics of learned behaviors.
  10. I suppose in essence what I'm arguing is that if you approach the universe physically, either Monist or pluralist like, there is a fundamental matter. What's unique about this matter is that what is distinct about this matter involving phenomenon is not it's material make, but the arrangement or configuration it occupies. I'm not arguing about arrangements of neurons as I do agree that neutral encoding in the brains arrangement is unique, but that in this fundamental matter there are finite or duplicate arrangements. Much like having a set of likewise chairs, and then specifying a specific chair in the set.
  11. I'm positing this as evidence of my argument.
  12. What if concepts may exist as states of physical matter, or quanta. Then if they do is it possible that you could reproduce a quantum state directly into someone else's mind, or that you could possibly validate a specific concept as objectively"True" in a sense? Is it possible to objectify duplicity of phenomena as both the same thing, yet subjectively different quanta? If concepts exist independently from matter, where do they exist?
  13. Whenever I hear about antisocial behavior I think it’s about being opposed to interacting with people. I believe this is the wrong case. Some people are antisocial with intention, and some people are antisocial without intention. Those with can control when and if they socialize. Those without do not. If a person without intention doesn’t communicate socially it may be because they may have a disorder, disability, or a lack of experience. whatever the case they will act differently to how you communicate to them.
  14. Is it possible to answer these questions without some sort of context or relatively? given precedence the outcome becomes less obscure.
  15. In America it costs more to execute criminals than to keep them alive. The clause is cruel and unusual punishment. I don't see this as cost effective. Is there some gratification of the victims where someone gets a reward?