DescentBB

You cut out the examples, they were both important:

1. At a park a drunken man, lets say the kids father, is taking a butcher knife to some kids legs.

2. A kid pinned under water by a large rock where the only way for a father to prevent his son from drowning is the removal of his legs.

Exact same act involving the exact same people.

To follow your logic, not only would we have to assume that there is a chance that father #2 was of the frame of mind: \"This little bastard is gonna get whats comming to him\" BUT, we would have to assume that it is equally likely as father #1.

One does not have to read minds, scenario's can reveal intent. If it was the intent for father#2 to harm the child, he could have simply done nothing and let him die.

A mind-reading device is only required if one throws logic out the window.

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:That's why the motivations of the actor are irrelevant, on top of being undiscernable.

They are not irrelevant or indiscernible. Intent is not irrelevant, it is (almost) everything.

Indiscernible? Fundamentally, sure, although I think intent can be discernible in certain situations, and legally there has to be some way to establish a reasonable certainty of motive in a criminal case.

But irrelevant? I'm sorry, but I'm with Gooberman on this one... from a moral standpoint, intent is more relevant and important than almost anything else.

Foil wrote:

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:That's why the motivations of the actor are irrelevant, on top of being undiscernable.

They are not irrelevant or indiscernible. Intent is not irrelevant, it is (almost) everything.

Indiscernible? Fundamentally, sure, although I think intent can be discernible in certain situations, and legally there has to be some way to establish a reasonable certainty of motive in a criminal case.

Why?

But irrelevant? I'm sorry, but I'm with Gooberman on this one... from a moral standpoint, intent is more relevant and important than almost anything else.

Why? If you cannot tell what someone's motivations are, and you have agreed that you cannot tell what someone's motivations are, then how do their motivations become relevant?

Basically, who says you, or any other human, is able to judge someone's motivations, and punish actions springing forth from one motivation, but not others? To what end?

Gooberman wrote:You cut out the examples, they were both important...

So did you.

A mind-reading device is only required if one throws logic out the window.

No amount of logic is going to get you the inner workings of a black box.

And even if you had the schematics, who made you a judge?

Your examples were based on a premise that I did not agree with. I explained why and in so, addressed them directly.

No amount of logic is going to get you the inner workings of a black box.

Nothing is ever really \"a black box.\" Again, we are not that robotic. Logic is not specific to one person. Look at the two examples I presented and address them honestly.

Gooberman wrote:Your examples were based on a premise that I did not agree with. I explained why and in so, addressed them directly.

The premise you disagree with is that you cannot know the mind and heart of another being.

No amount of logic is going to get you the inner workings of a black box.

Nothing is ever really "a black box." Again, we are not that robotic.

Most things really are black boxes.

Logic is not specific to one person. Look at the two examples I presented and address them honestly.

I have: I can honestly say I would not necessarily intervene in either, because I lack the knowledge which would justify me in applying force against someone who has not aggressed against me.

Edited to remove inflammatory rhetoric.

Look: I simply take the "judge not according to appearances, but judge ye righteous judgement" seriously. I have to remember that it is always - ALWAYS - possible to be mistaken (with one exception).

Knowing intent isn't fundamentally different from knowing any other fact of the universe--you know it the same way you know anything, by induction. \"Drunk people being violent toward children have always had poor intent in the past, so the one I am watching now probably has poor intent.\" It's the same way you even know that there is a drunk person in front of you. \"People I see in front of me have always corresponded to real people in front of me in the past, so there is probably one really in front of me now.\" (But if you are schizophrenic, you may not know if there really is a person in front of you just because you see one.)

We have various probabilities associated with inductive judgments. In the case of the drunk person being violent toward children, it is highly probable that he has poor intent. In the case of just knowing if a person is in front of you after seeing him, it is extremely probable that there is a person in front of you, unless it were a foggy day and the person were at a distance, as then it may be much less probable. But if you're 80% sure that a drunk person being violent has poor intent, then you know that no less than if you're 80% sure that someone is standing in front of you. There's no fundamental difference.

You must have some confidence in the facts of a situation before you can intervene with force. Perhaps intervention has to have something like a positive expected value E, where E = gain_if_you_are_right * odds_you_are_right - loss_if_you_are_wrong * odds_you_are_wrong. This is too formulistic and will fail to capture subtleties, but I think that it is a good point at which to start thinking about the problem. In any case, I see no reason to think that you can never have enough confidence in someone's intent to justify intervening by force.

Jeff250 wrote:Knowing intent isn't fundamentally different from knowing any other fact of the universe--you know it the same way you know anything, by induction. "Drunk people being violent toward children have always had poor intent in the past, so the one I am watching now probably has poor intent."

You never know the intent of any person, with the sole exception of yourself, therefore your whole inductive chain is nonexistent.

We have various probabilities associated with inductive judgments.

In each case, such "probabilities" are "probabilities" in name only - they are merely pseudo-mathematical expressions of personal prejudice. Notwithstanding that, as noted above, if you cannot get your inductive chain started, it's worthless.

You must have some confidence in the facts of a situation before you can intervene with force. Perhaps intervention has to have something like a positive expected value E, where E = gain_if_you_are_right * odds_you_are_right - loss_if_you_are_wrong * odds_you_are_wrong. This is too formulistic and will fail to capture subtleties, but I think that it is a good point at which to start thinking about the problem. In any case, I see no reason to think that you can never have enough confidence in someone's intent to justify intervening by force.

That's the difference between you and me, I suppose.

I do not concede that knowledge of intent is sufficient - it is, in fact, possibly not even necessary - to justify intervening by force.

shaktazuki wrote:I have: I can honestly say I would not necessarily intervene in either, because I lack the knowledge which would justify me in applying force against someone who has not aggressed against me.

Thank you for the direct response.

I called you a would-be Mengele in jest sense you refered to me as a "would-be Führers." (Where is Palzon when you need him?) But lets assume you were the angel of death's assistent, and had the ability to create an "accident" that would lead to his death.

You would stand by because you lack the knowledge to justify force? You would assume that maybe he was doing it in "the name of science?" I am sorry, but it is that line of reasoning that allows these things to happen!

And a warning to the faint of heart, if you don't know who I am refering too, don't wiki him.

Gooberman wrote:a warning to the faint of heart, if you don't know who I am refering to [Mengele], don't wiki him.

Josef Mengele was a prime example of someone who forced their values on others, as were Hitler, Mussolini and Dr. Kevorkian.

While there are instances where it would seem that enforcing some values upon others for the sake of all society is a good idea, let me remind you that that is the exact line of thought that resulted in WWII. As the old saying goes, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." If you're really concerned with what's best for everyone, you should be very careful when deciding how far you are willing to go to achieve results.

MD-1118 wrote:....and Dr. Kevorkian

As if this thread didn't have enough tangents .

shaktazuki wrote:You never know the intent of any person, with the sole exception of yourself, therefore your whole inductive chain is nonexistent.

There is no reason to think this. If you have a trustworthy friend and ask her what the capital of the Czech Republic is, then when she tells you it's Prague, then you know the capital of the Czech Republic. If you ask her what the temperature is outside, then when she says 46 degrees Fahrenheit, then you know the temperature outside. But when you ask her what her intentions are, then when she tells you them, then, for some mystical reason, you do not know them?

Also, as you've already pointed out, your own intentions can be used for a basis of induction. This kind of induction is one of the first tools we teach children to use in ethics. Before doing something, ask "How would you feel if he did that to you..." This is to form a basis as to suppose what he would feel if you did it to him.

But on that topic, if we cannot ever know a person's intentions, then I suppose then we can never know what they are feeling either. So then, by your logic, we can never perform a favor for a person, on the off chance that they will not appreciate or even dislike the favor, since we would have committed a vice!

MD-1118 wrote: ...While there are instances where it would seem that enforcing some values upon others for the sake of all society is a good idea, let me remind you that that is the exact line of thought that resulted in WWII....

Yes, but living with our ears covered, our mouths closed, and our eyes shut, gave strength to that very type of evil. Some of the things I've read in this thread made be change my perception of some.

Bettina

If your referring to my graphic examples, I was trying to go with something so shocking that no one dare oppose it.

I failed.

Jeff250 wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:You never know the intent of any person, with the sole exception of yourself, therefore your whole inductive chain is nonexistent.

There is no reason to think this. If you have a trustworthy friend and ask her what the capital of the Czech Republic is, then when she tells you it's Prague, then you know the capital of the Czech Republic.

No, you don't.

If you ask her what the temperature is outside, then when she says 46 degrees Fahrenheit, then you know the temperature outside.

No, you don't.

But when you ask her what her intentions are, then when she tells you them, then, for some mystical reason, you do not know them?

See above. All knowledge is direct, else it is belief.

Also, as you've already pointed out, your own intentions can be used for a basis of induction.

Generalizing from a sample of size 1 is unsound.

But on that topic, if we cannot ever know a person's intentions, then I suppose then we can never know what they are feeling either. So then, by your logic, we can never perform a favor for a person, on the off chance that they will not appreciate or even dislike the favor, since we would have committed a vice!

This doesn't follow, but it is entertaining.

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:I have: I can honestly say I would not necessarily intervene in either, because I lack the knowledge which would justify me in applying force against someone who has not aggressed against me.

Thank you for the direct response.

I called you a would-be Mengele in jest sense you refered to me as a "would-be Führers." (Where is Palzon when you need him?) But lets assume you were the angel of death's assistent, and had the ability to create an "accident" that would lead to his death.

You would stand by because you lack the knowledge to justify force? You would assume that maybe he was doing it in "the name of science?" I am sorry, but it is that line of reasoning that allows these things to happen!

I would stand by unless authorized by the one who can authorize such things to slay him.

Your comparison of me to Mengele is misplaced, which is why I ignore such comparisons.

Bet51987 wrote:

MD-1118 wrote: ...While there are instances where it would seem that enforcing some values upon others for the sake of all society is a good idea, let me remind you that that is the exact line of thought that resulted in WWII....

Yes, but living with our ears covered, our mouths closed, and our eyes shut, gave strength to that very type of evil. Some of the things I've read in this thread made be change my perception of some.

Bettina

Bet, you're right. Evil prevails when good people do nothing. I don't remember who said that, and it's probably paraphrased, but the general idea holds true. Still, it doesn't automatically mean that force is always a good idea. My only point was that one must exercise extreme caution when deciding what is best for others, because even if you mean well, and even if the results of your actions are justifiable, fair and equitable, someone will always abuse the system. Advantage will be taken of people, wool will be pulled over their eyes and circumstances and situations will be misrepresented. Just remember - anyone can fight fire with fire, regardless of their cause or intentions.

shaktazuki wrote:I would stand by unless authorized by the one who can authorize such things to slay him.

Your comparison of me to Mengele is misplaced, which is why I ignore such comparisons.

Well I did note “assistant”. But thanks again for answering directly. I don't think there is much else to explore, you have been consistent, and we are just fundamentally different.

I don't think I could stand by while he killed the first child, let alone the 3,000th. Mind you, these were by no means "pretty" deaths.

Gooberman wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:I would stand by unless authorized by the one who can authorize such things to slay him.

Your comparison of me to Mengele is misplaced, which is why I ignore such comparisons.

Well I did note “assistant”. But thanks again for answering directly. I don't think there is much else to explore, you have been consistent, and we are just fundamentally different.

I don't think I could stand by while he killed the first child, let alone the 3,000th. Mind you, these were by no means "pretty" deaths.

Well, were you not the one who said, explicitly, that initiating violence against non-aggressors was acceptable as long as someone benefits?

If you don't see the problem with universalizing that principle, then we are different indeed.

Where did I say \"as long as someone benefits?\"

We were talking about \"non-agressors\" who are doing harm to children.

Gooberman wrote:Where did I say "as long as someone benefits?"

We were talking about "non-agressors" who are doing harm to children.

We were talking about you endorsing the sexual mutilation of babies - so long as the baby can be said to theoretically "benefit." Why it must be the *baby* who can be said to theoretically "benefit" and not someone else is unclear - (the only "benefit" that has been shown, to my knowledge, is a decrease in sexual HIV transmission rates, something a *baby* has no need to worry about, and the operation can be done later, with full informed consent, if the victim so chooses, which obviates the necessity of maiming *babies*) - but there it is. If the benefit to the *baby* is, indeed, incidental (as it appears), then the principle is "Violence against non-agressors is justified as long as *someone* benefis." If there is a different principle upon which you endorse the sexual mutilation of babies, I'd be curious to hear it.

I guess I have 3 points.

1.
From the mayo clinic
Circumcision may have health benefits, including:

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it's simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.

Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.

Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.

Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men.

Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way.....

2. To me \"harming\" (the reason for quotes, see above) someone for their own benefit, and harming someone for someone elses, is as different as night and day. I am not saying that there are not cases in one might be justified in doing so: take for instance having one twin give up a kidney for another. That is more complex, I am mearly saying that they cannot be equated.

3. I see no benefit in the two cases I presented. (The drunk and the angel of death). So until you can show me where the benefit exists, points 1 and 2 are irrelevant.

shaktazuki wrote:No, you don't.
. . .
See above. All knowledge is direct, else it is belief.

You obviously have some highly technical definition of knowledge in mind that you're intentionally withholding. I don't know what you mean by "direct." I'm going to assume that you have something like vision in mind as being "direct." I don't see how getting information via your vision makes it any more special than getting it via your friend. Depending on the circumstance, either can be more reliable than the other. But more to the point: given your definition of "knowledge" and "belief", why should one favor "knowledge" over "belief" when deciding to intervene with force, especially in cases where they are equally reliable, i.e. especially when the object of belief is equally likely to be true as the object of knowledge?

shaktazuki wrote:Generalizing from a sample of size 1 is unsound.

See above.

Gooberman wrote:To me "harming" (the reason for quotes, see above) someone for their own benefit, and harming someone for someone elses, is as different as night and day.

Why? This is actually the most interesting part.


Jeff250: if you don't have direct experience of something, you don't know it, but only believe. It's that simple.

The fact that something may or may not be beneficial to somebody or the society in general is not the point. Anything the government mandates must pass a test, that being: is it absolutely necessary, not “is it beneficial“.

There are many things we could make mandatory for peoples benefit, but it’s not the governments job to create a utopia.

Someone raised circumcision, that’s the perfect example of someone deciding what is good for someone else gone wrong. And although it’s not a law, it’s the perfect example, especially when something goes wrong, and the hospital decides to turn a boy into a girl, again something done for “his own good”.

Extreme example? Maybe, but it’s just the kind of thing that happens when people use this kind of reasoning.

And, all through history it has been proved to be a bad idea, over and over again.

Anyway, on a lighter note, I want the government to mandate that Bee must save a human being from drowning before her dog. Perfectly reasonable, right…except that it steps all over Bee’s right to let someone drown.

MD-1118 wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

MD-1118 wrote: ...While there are instances where it would seem that enforcing some values upon others for the sake of all society is a good idea, let me remind you that that is the exact line of thought that resulted in WWII....

Yes, but living with our ears covered, our mouths closed, and our eyes shut, gave strength to that very type of evil. Some of the things I've read in this thread made be change my perception of some.

Bettina

Bet, you're right. Evil prevails when good people do nothing. I don't remember who said that, and it's probably paraphrased, but the general idea holds true. Still, it doesn't automatically mean that force is always a good idea. My only point was that one must exercise extreme caution when deciding what is best for others, because even if you mean well, and even if the results of your actions are justifiable, fair and equitable, someone will always abuse the system. Advantage will be taken of people, wool will be pulled over their eyes and circumstances and situations will be misrepresented. Just remember - anyone can fight fire with fire, regardless of their cause or intentions.

I don't know who said that particular one but my favorite has always been this one...

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; and the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”-- Haile Selassie

I'm done with this horrible thread but not before saying that Shaktazuki's indifference to human life is heinous to say the least and a good reason that government intervention is neccessary to protect children and I will vote for it every time.

Bee

“I'm done with this horrible thread but not before saying that Shaktazuki's indifference to human life is heinous to say the least and a good reason that government intervention is neccessary to protect children and I will vote for it every time.”

Now that’s what I call timing!

shaktazuki wrote: Why? This is actually the most interesting part.

Well you cut the parts that I found most interesting .

A few brief comments on those: Many medical things are listed as "may" or "can" or "have been shown to," that doesn't mean we should ignore them. You took away that comment so I'm not being fair. However, with regards to (paraphrased) "whose to say there isn't someone who benefits from the Angel of Death's torture," well, I am.

I guess that is the point. That is our contrast. I don't assume anyone in authority is smarter or dumber then I am. Your willingness to pass the responsibility as Mengele's assistant to a higher authority is a lack of confidence in self. You cannot assume that someone else's ability to reason is greater then your own. If a kid is getting shots directly into his eyes to change their colour to make the child part of the "Aryan race", and something inside you is freaking out, I have no problem answering that call.

Just because science and reason leads us astray from time to time doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. There is a common saying in the scientific community that one, "fails their way to success." It is true. Without failed scientific works we would not be sitting here communicating through these boxes.

You made the point, that you would not intervene in the slaughter because you don't know if the perpetrator’s intentions are sound, this asserts that the perpetrator of the heinous act is your superior.

You have substituted your lack of willingness to use reason for his. Again, there are no blackboxes, only those who refuse to open them .

Now to answer your question: It is only if one is harmed for their own good, that an argument can be made that no harm was done at all. Take forcing a kid to go to the dentist. It hurts, but reason tell's us that someday the child who was offended will be glad you did it.

If you hurt a child for another child's benefit, reason does not dictate that the harmed child would ever be "glad you did it." Maybe in some cases, see the kidney example.

If your trying to get me to say that it is all subjective to the world we want to live in, well that is a low fruit from the tree of knowledge that I will gladly handover. Having said this, we have established that in your world there would be no computers, no modern medicine, and butcher’s like Mengele would be allowed to run rampant.

Are you sure that is the one you want?

shaktazuki wrote:Jeff250: if you don't have direct experience of something, you don't know it, but only believe. It's that simple.

Alright, so that's how you distinguish them, but how would you answer the question I asked in my previous post:

Why should one favor "knowledge" over "belief" when deciding to intervene with force, especially in cases where belief is equally (or more) reliable, i.e. especially when the object of belief is equally (or more) likely to be true compared to the object of knowledge?

Yes. Never throw a baby. Even at a burglar. And if you see someone do it, make sure it's for the right reasons. (It could really be a bomb disguised as a baby.)

As far as mandatory school activities go, parents have always been able to request that their children not participate. It's a non-issue.

As far a mandatory community service goes, I doubt it will pass (lazy, watches commercials. Mooo). If it does pass it will be as mandatory as jury duty. And if it's a reason to get out of the office and into fresh air people might jump at the chance.

Sorry for backup up a bit on some points, but I'm coming late to the thread.

TIGERassault wrote:If left to the parents, not much will be done. I never liked the idea of leaving major decisions up to parents, because it relies on the premise that parents are very wise and understanding people. They're normally not, they're just ordinary people who have a kid.

You are absolutely correct that most parents are just ordinary people and will often make bad decisions. The problem is with the assumption that the government will make better ones. This is seldom true. We have countless historical examples where it is provably NOT true. In the not too distant past the consensus was that bleeding was the best treatment for illness. Thank goodness the government at the time did not decide to make it compulsory treatment or to take children away from parents who refused to bleed them.



And don't think this problem has gone away with modern medicine. Check the history on how you should put your child to sleep in order to reduce the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. They've flip flopped repeatedly. One year the government says you should put your child to sleep face down, the next they say, "oh no, that CAUSES SIDS! Put them face up!". A few years after that they switch to the side.



The government is obligated to protect minors as best it can, but if they don't limit that to the most OBVIOUS cases, its almost guaranteed they will make worse decisions than individuals.



I'm uncomfortable with compulsory education. The state has an obligation to protect minors because they are not old enough to make decisions for themselves. That is why I support making laws that require children to wear helmets while biking, but do NOT support laws requiring adults to do the same. OBVIOUSLY getting an education is absolutely vital. It's also an area ripe with abuse once the government takes control of it. So I'm uncomfortable, and a bit wishy washy on the issue, but lean towards mandatory education being ok, just so long as the parents have a choice of different educational avenues.

Tunnelcat wrote:When doing something will be a direct benefit to society as a whole, in reduced costs or injuries, why not mandate it for the self-centered idiots among us? We all end up paying for it anyway.

Your fixing the wrong end of this equation. If we eliminated using tax dollars to cover health care, then there would be no right for the government to interfere in decisions that risk harm only to yourself, not others.



And thats a very important point. The government has, not only a right, but an OBLIGATION to pass and enforce laws that stop people from harming other people. This means making it illegal to drive while intoxicated makes PERFECT sense. It also makes sense to require that drivers be belted in. We know that a seat belted driver maintains control of his car longer than an unbuckled one, thereby protecting others. However, requiring that adult motorcyclist wear a helmet is a case of the government stepping out of line. If someone wants to be stupid and risk their own life, it should be none of the governments business. Consider what happens if we allow the government to keep passing laws to protect idiots. Overeating kills FAR more people than a lack of motorcycle helmets does. If it is the governments job to protect stupid people from themselves, then they should CERTAINLY pass laws that require everyone be weighed once a month and giving them food vouchers based on the result. It WOULD save lives. Lots of lives. But I don't want to live under a government like that.

shaktazuki wrote:You never know the intent of any person, with the sole exception of yourself, therefore your whole inductive chain is nonexistent.

While technically correct, this is basically solipsist philosophy. You can not KNOW anything except for your own self awareness. Everything else is based on assumption and belief. Used that way, the word "Know" becomes virtually useless. So we make the assumption that our senses are actually telling something about an external reality, and that our reason is a good tool for studying and interacting with that external reality. Under those assumptions, the definition of "know" becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt". This definition is actually useful.

Bettina wrote:living with our ears covered, our mouths closed, and our eyes shut, gave strength to that very type of evil.

Very true! And with regard to nonforceful action I think we would be in close agreement on how it applies. I think it's important for me to advise adults that they should wear a motorcycle helmet. I think it's an obligation that I recommend community service and charitable giving to others.



BUT, I only feel force should be used to stop people from harming others, not to stop them from harming themselves.

Bettina wrote:Instead of the other me.... which was the last thing Kilarin saw walking toward him when he fell out of his mortar damaged ship.

Scary, but not quite as Scary as the burqa!

Kilarin wrote:

shaktazuki wrote:You never know the intent of any person, with the sole exception of yourself, therefore your whole inductive chain is nonexistent.

While technically correct, this is basically solipsist philosophy. You can not KNOW anything except for your own self awareness. Everything else is based on assumption and belief. Used that way, the word "Know" becomes virtually useless. So we make the assumption that our senses are actually telling something about an external reality, and that our reason is a good tool for studying and interacting with that external reality. Under those assumptions, the definition of "know" becomes "beyond a reasonable doubt". This definition is actually useful.

1. Referring to something as solipsism does not replace actual refutation. Solipsism is not a discredited position; it happens to track very well with the nature of reality.

2. I disagree that calling faith, belief, and assumptions "knowledge" is actually useful. Yours is the position of arrogance, literally: ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

shaktazuki wrote:Referring to something as solipsism does not replace actual refutation. Solipsism is not a discredited position; it happens to track very well with the nature of reality.

But I didn't even attempt to refute your position. It's not possible. Solipsism is internally consistent. It's just not USEFUL. If you don't believe in external reality, then there is no point having a discussion. If one of us doesn't exist, why should the other bother trying to convince them of anything?

shaktazuki wrote:I disagree that calling faith, belief, and assumptions "knowledge" is actually useful. Yours is the position of arrogance, literally: ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

No, it's the position of usefulness and utility. Under your definition, NOTHING can be "known" except for your own internal states. You can't "Know" that the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is 9.8m/s^2. You can't "Know" that the earth is round. And you can't even "Know" that I exist.

I am NOT arguing that this isn't true, because it IS true. All "Knowledge" outside of the knowledge of our own self-evident self-awareness is based on assumption. But, once you have made those assumptions, it is reasonable speak as if they were true. That's almost the definition of "assumption".

In geometry, we do not "prove" what points and lines are. They can NOT be proved. They are postulates. Geometry and math are based on logical axioms (self-evident truths) AND non-logical axioms (non self-evident truths). They are assumptions. And it's important to acknowledge that they are assumptions. You can't PROVE that a+b=b+a. It's an assumption that is part of the foundation upon which the rest of your proofs rest.

BUT once you have made these very necessary assumptions, it would be SILLY and USELESS to insist that geometrical and mathematical "proofs" are not really proofs because they are based on postulates and assumptions at the very foundation. It's TRUE, but it's not USEFUL. The reason you MADE those postulates and assumptions was so that they could be used to PROVE other things.

So, if you are a solipsist, you do NOT assume that external reality exists, and this entire argument is pointless. If you HAVE made the same postulates that the rest of us have (well, other than MD-1118) :

1:That external reality exists
2:That our senses in some way reflect that external reality and can be used to explore it.
3:That our reason is a valid valuable tool in analyzing external reality.

If you have made these same assumptions, Then lets go ahead and actually ASSUME them. From that point on we can "Know" things based on our senses and reason.

Kilarin wrote:Solipsism is internally consistent. It's just not USEFUL. If you don't believe in external reality, then there is no point having a discussion. If one of us doesn't exist, why should the other bother trying to convince them of anything?

Exactly. Back to the original reason for this tangent: if intent is unknowable, then how could we even have this conversation?

Kilarin said "I only feel force should be used to stop people from harming others, not to stop them from harming themselves.", but if I can't know what he meant by that (his intent), how could I possibly respond appropriately? Maybe he meant it literally, maybe it was a joke, maybe the words mean something entirely different to him, maybe I'm just dreaming all of this, maybe he's a monkey typing randomly at a keyboard somewhere...

The point is, I have to make reasonable assumptions about meaning and intent in order to even have this conversation. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I misunderstand... but it's better than working from the perspective that I can't know anything at all.

Kilarin wrote:(referring to the axiomatic nature of mathematics) The reason you MADE those postulates and assumptions was so that they could be used to PROVE other things.

Only if you're an applied mathematician, K.

For many mathematicians, the reason we use certain axioms is not because they're self-evident or fit scientific observation. We use axioms that are interesting, or produce interesting or beautiful results. In fact, non-Euclidean geometries were developed by mathematicians who wanted to see what happened when the 'classic' axioms were changed... it wasn't until later that those "strange" geometries were applied to things like General Relativity.