Uh oh!

Quote:

In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. Because this "feeling of knowing" seems like confirmation of knowledge, we tend to think of it as a product of reason. But an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen. Bringing together cutting edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain, will challenge what you know (or think you know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.

- NonE

"Whenever I have declared myself to be a combatant of a particular group in a universally recognized manner, and I can kill a recognized combatant of another group who has not surrendered in a universally recognized manner, I will do so."

I think this this may go against the demand of universality in UPB, as not all people (who'se biological properties are not significantly different) in all places in all times are combatant members of a group.

And I am nearly certain it goes against said demand in that not all people in all places and times have the option of declaring themselves such in this recognized manner.

It is my take that the universality requirement put forward takes away the "out" of basing a maxim upon a "status" which is not describable by a pertanant biological difference.

A security guard can defend the property he is assigned to, but so can a passer-by who has no association with the property owners.

What do you think?

Indeed.
Past errors still loom large in my mind to remind me, I do not wish to simply fade into "irrational absolutist version 4.7"

blackacidlizzard
Glad to see you back and contributing to some interesting duscussion. I'm glad to say I was wrong.
When I said pounding I meant in the sense of playing catch. I's not like one person throws a ball to you and then you throw it back. Its like we all throws balls to you at the same time and you are expected to catch and throw them all back at the same time. But you are managing nicely.

Is UPB just a way to throw out some illogical theories? If all it does is sort out arbitrary illogical from arbitrary logical, its still arbitrary.

I am saying that it is arbitrary what I call moral. Without empirical independent evidence. So part of what I am saying is that which remains in the might be true remains the logical yet arbitrary moral systems.

I think it only has value if there is a morality that is not arbitrary because by eliminating illogical choices you have less to search thru to find the non-arbitrary one. Yet if they are all arbitrary I don't see the value.

What value could it be? Suppose I offer you a riddle to solve, and yet I know that it has no single, correct answer. Is it useful for you to say, "Fine, fine, but at least I know what the answer isn't!" Or if I ask you to solve the equation, "X + Y = 10", and you say, "Well, I know for sure that the answer isn't asparagus." You may feel like you've moved forward a bit, but you're not really any closer to an answer, because there isn't one.