Earlier quoted context omitted.
You speak the truth.
www.reddit.com It's a website like this one, but you'll find more similar conversation to what you are looking for there.
This is a perfect example of a poorly executed joke.
French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
141–145 of 145 posts
Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the price of 32€/kg (+shipping) is not really cheap, it's typically what you'd pay at a regular store. This whole operation sounds a bit too marketing-y to me.
It is usually sold at 35€/kg https://fromageriepayssavinois.com/produit/abbaye-de-citeaux...
Considering regular cheese is more like €6/kg, it isn't exactly cheap.
Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
#143I assume I can’t buy this from the USA because customs rules...?
I think it might be fine, but they are sold out. > all cheese regulated by the FDA (that is, all cheese that is transported across state lines) must either be made from pasteurized (heated) milk or aged at least 60 days.
I wonder if it'd have been aged enough just from having to be shipped all the way from France?
Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think "because it's traditional" or "because we've been doing it for hundreds of years" are good ethical reasons Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms.
> Why not? Why the fact that something stood the test of time has no value? I've seen this argument often repeated but never explained in logical terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy You can use this fallacy to justify lots of awful things humans used to do are fine.
[deleted]
Re: French monks locked down with 2.8 tonnes of cheese pray for buyers
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
> namely, in this case, a language (any language!) I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why? > can you prove it? :) In principle, sure: Watch them demonstrate a learned skill. I have no reason to believe the videos are faked, but if they are, in principle I could observe IRL. > And how do you know it won't end up like the Libet experiment? The experiment which showed a…
> I assert verbal self-narrative is not necessary for free will. You assert otherwise? Why? Why don't you? If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will. bovines don't lack self narrative, they lack the ability to create complex communication systems. > Watch them demonstrate a learned skill and how do you know it's not merely imitation? btw, insects can learn too > The experiment w…
None of this is refuting to my core claim, that the concept of free will is always either (1) too poorly defined to be arguable, or (2) that humans are indistinguishable from other animals.
You are alternating between both of these problems, sometimes with references to higher cognitive function (itself poorly defined) other times by suggesting things where human and non human animals are passing and failing the same tests.
In particular:
> Why don't you?
Language seems neither necessary nor sufficient. If it was sufficient, computers would have it. If it was necessary, it would be denied to anyone who grew up alone in the wild, which happens occasionally.
For extra weirdness, given that language is notoriously difficult to pick up as an adult (both for such Wildermensch and for everyone else) if language learning structures was the test of free will, adults would necessarily have less free will than children.
> If higher cognitive functions are not necessary, than a virus can have free will.
There are many layers of cognition between these two things. Cognition is not Boolean.
> and how do you know it's not merely imitation? btw, insects can learn too
This demonstrates my point. All learned behaviour does. In fact, I would go further and say that the ability to copy another entity implies a mind has a model of itself as a separate entity within the world, and of the same category of entity as whatever it is copying. Certainly a limited model, and yet, again, this is no different from humans as we do not have perfect models of each other or ourselves.
> (the effect exists, but it doesn't show lack of free will at all)
Because the concept is too poorly defined to be testable, perchance? Because people keep trying to go “Well actually humans are special so that’s not what I meant” after the tests are done?
> also, not until they will be able to reconstruct their past history and of the entire universe by observing and studying remains, without any prior knowledge of what they are
Any single human would fail this test. Humanity collectively only just about passes, except for all the gaps in our history and the fact QM and GR are inconsistent with each other.
> where's the freedom if the reactions have been engineered through training?
Identical to humans. We have demonstrable biases towards the society — nation, religion, sports teams, languages, political parties, laws, cultural norms — that we grow up with. We have school precisely because we don’t spontaneously invent everything from scratch, and our instincts can be bad and need to be trained out. We are incapable of overriding other things, e.g. sexuality, and we don’t really even understand when and how sexuality becomes concrete.