Thread: Dolphins deserve same rights as humans, say scientists

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

If you don't understand the concept of existence, I don't think any communication between us is possible. Define "define."



Define "yes," "universe," "really," "is," and "weird."



No, all empirical observation depends on logic. In fact, all everything depends on logic. Without it, there can be no communication or reason to communicate. If you're not even willing to accept that something can't not be itself, how do even know that there is such as empirical observation. Perhaps all the empirical observation you're talking about is also not empirical observation. Perhaps you are also not you.

There is no reason for debate or discussion in the world posit and no possibility for any ascribed value of more import than my favorite color. Which means one can ethically do whatever one pleases, within the bounds of practicality in regards to achieving whatever ends one personally prefers. Which, of course, may also include everything from torturing puppies to raping children to committing mass genocide.

LOL I believe you may be starting to get the point. Over applying logic gives you nothing but gibberish. You are using basic terms and concepts that are not rigorously defined, but are based on your experiences and perceptions - common sense. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to remember that common sense can be very, very wrong. Appealing to "first principles" is really just appealing to common sense, which actually makes your logical analysis less reliable then if you were starting with rigorous empirical observations and measurements.

You don't need a purely logical justification for things. You don't need first principles. When you get right down to it, those things are really nothing more then a security blanket - something that makes you feel good, but has little substance. The universe is not going to poof out of existence for lack of logic. Life is still life, even without first principles. Something that's clearly wrong (like mass murder) is still clearly wrong, even if you discover that what you thought was the intellectual basis for that is deeply flawed. You don't need to be afraid of questioning your assumptions.

How reliable a logical analysis is always fundamentally depends on the quality of your initial assumptions. You can quite literally create a logical proof of absolutely anything if you tweak your assumptions appropriately. For example, given Hitler's assumptions, his final solution was perfectly logical.

Logic is a powerful tool, but it is still just a tool. It has its limitations, and you need to keep them in mind.

And I am most definitely not me, but that's a discussion for another time.

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

LOL I believe you may be starting to get the point. Over applying logic gives you nothing but gibberish. You are using basic terms and concepts that are not rigorously defined, but are based on your experiences and perceptions - common sense. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to remember that common sense can be very, very wrong. Appealing to "first principles" is really just appealing to common sense, which actually makes your logical analysis less reliable then if you were starting with rigorous empirical observations and measurements.

You don't need a purely logical justification for things. You don't need first principles. When you get right down to it, those things are really nothing more then a security blanket - something that makes you feel good, but has little substance. The universe is not going to poof out of existence for lack of logic. Life is still life, even without first principles. Something that's clearly wrong (like mass murder) is still clearly wrong, even if you discover that what you thought was the intellectual basis for that is deeply flawed. You don't need to be afraid of questioning your assumptions.

How reliable a logical analysis is always fundamentally depends on the quality of your initial assumptions. You can quite literally create a logical proof of absolutely anything if you tweak your assumptions appropriately. For example, given Hitler's assumptions, his final solution was perfectly logical.

Logic is a powerful tool, but it is still just a tool. It has its limitations, and you need to keep them in mind.

And I am most definitely not me, but that's a discussion for another time.

The only thing I've gotten is that you do not believe that you are able to make any factual statement. If so, I don't know why you're wasting your time arguing. I know why I argue: because I think I can make factual statements about things. You don't, so it's ridiculous that you are so obsessed about imposing what you admit is no more than a personal preference on everyone else. What do you care about the dolphins? You don't even know they exist (perhaps they both exist and don't exist, right?)

Logical positive is nothing more than studied insanity.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

The only thing I've gotten is that you do not believe that you are able to make any factual statement. If so, I don't know why you're wasting your time arguing. I know why I argue: because I think I can make factual statements about things. You don't, so it's ridiculous that you are so obsessed about imposing what you admit is no more than a personal preference on everyone else. What do you care about the dolphins? You don't even know they exist (perhaps they both exist and don't exist, right?)

Logical positive is nothing more than studied insanity.

Almost, but not quite. It's not possible to make absolute factual statements. Such statements are always provisional.

And I find that a little studied insanity can be very helpful in understanding this mad, mad world.

Personally, I define "existence" as that state which I share with other observed phenomena. Which makes the question of whether something "really" exists somewhat meaningless. The better question is how something exists - what its properties are, how it behaves, what it interacts with.

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

Almost, but not quite. It's not possible to make absolute factual statements. Such statements are always provisional.

And I find that a little studied insanity can be very helpful in understanding this mad, mad world.

Personally, I define "existence" as that state which I share with other observed phenomena. Which makes the question of whether something "really" exists somewhat meaningless. The better question is how something exists - what its properties are, how it behaves, what it interacts with.

1 + 1 = 2 is an absolute factual statement, no matter how much you might want to wish it away. If you can't accept this, you are either insane or you want to pretend to be insane so that you can avoid reality. Furthermore, as I said, if you're unable to make an absolute factual statement, stop debating. You have no reason or call to make any statement about anything if you yourself claim that you don't know anything. Only those of us that believe we can know things have any call to make statements.

Anyway, your self-admitted ignorance doesn't interest me and isn't relevant to anything. The truth remains what is was before: human beings possess volitional minds and therefore have a just claim over themselves. Dolphins to not possess volitional minds and therefore do not have a just claim over themselves.

It's not possible to make absolute factual statements.

The above statement is an absolute statement.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

1 + 1 = 2 is an absolute factual statement, no matter how much you might want to wish it away. If you can't accept this, you are either insane or you want to pretend to be insane so that you can avoid reality. Furthermore, as I said, if you're unable to make an absolute factual statement, stop debating. You have no reason or call to make any statement about anything if you yourself claim that you don't know anything. Only those of us that believe we can know things have any call to make statements.

Anyway, your self-admitted ignorance doesn't interest me and isn't relevant to anything. The truth remains what is was before: human beings possess volitional minds and therefore have a just claim over themselves. Dolphins to not possess volitional minds and therefore do not have a just claim over themselves.



The above statement is an absolute statement.

As I already pointed out, 1 + 1 = 2 is not always true. And if you can't accept that, I'd say that you're the one who has issues with reality. And just the fact that I am debating while explicitly rejecting absolute factual statements demonstrates that you don't need absolute facts to have a debate, now doesn't it?

As for knowing nothing, I do my best to follow the example of Socrates.

"The Delphic oracle said that I was the wisest of all the Greeks. It is because I alone, of all the Greeks, know that I know nothing."

Thinking that you can harness the universe and force it into your intellectual preconceptions is pure hubris. The universe is vaster, older, more complex, and far far stranger then we poor mortals can fathom. You forget that we are all human, all fallible, and all mistaken about a great many things at your own risk. In my experience, the gods take a perverse pleasure in whacking people upside the head with a metaphorical 2x4 when they get too full of themselves.

Actually, the statement that there are no absolute factual statements applies to itself, and is therefore not in fact an absolute statement. It is entirely possible that the universe may indeed have some absolute facts. I've never seen one, or anything that approaches one, and honestly can't imagine what such a thing could be. But as I've said, that's a commentary on the limits of my imagination, not on what the universe can and cannot do.

Originally Posted by Kessy_Athena

the statement that there are no absolute factual statements applies to itself

Then why are you still talking? Stop speaking if you have nothing concrete to say. If you want to regress to pure fideism, in which nothing can known be through reason and therefore you're just going to assume things, then go off and have a party. Don't waste your time with commentary you admit is groundless.

Humans should have the same rights as dolphins... freedom.