Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Excellent question, and highly illuminating of right and wrong.
There are no universal rules of checkers. There are a number of variations on the game, and these variations have changed throughout history. These variations are based on shifting preferences and priorities.
Just like right and wrong.
They only exist as human constructs, and their construction varies depending on individual and group perceptions of utility over geography and time. Some find this dissatisfying, as they ache for right and wrong to be universal and objective. But personal desires have no bearing on reality.
I agree, but personal desires do have a bearing as part of the facts one has to consider to consider the ideas of right and wrong.
You asked for a complete tangent from what I was talking about, of course most rules for checkers (specifically) are made-up, but they are made up based on a reality and certain set of facts (a game has to be back and forth, a game has to have a way to win, a game must follow laws of nature, a game must be entertaining, etc).
I was talking about "rules" in a wider sense.
A game has to be back and forth isn't a checkers rule, is it?
All of the above..."must be entertaining" and so forth...are you postulating those as pre-existing forces which were discovered? How can the concept of entertaining human beings exist in a situation where there have never been any human beings?
Look, you have to have a neighbor before you can even contemplate "loving your neighbor." Neighborly love isn't a force, it is a concept.
Love is a chemical reaction. Then if we keep looking down (smaller) it is the interactions between two or more areas in an energy gradient. But since we can't get down that far we will just stop at field gradients. levels and columns ... ladies, columns and levels. If we want absolutes, I like mine with OJ and a splash of seven
All of the above..."must be entertaining" and so forth...are you postulating those as pre-existing forces which were discovered? How can the concept of entertaining human beings exist in a situation where there have never been any human beings?
Look, you have to have a neighbor before you can even contemplate "loving your neighbor." Neighborly love isn't a force, it is a concept.
Again, tangent about forces this time. Realities and facts don't have to be "forces."
Where there are no human beings being thought of or involved, facts about human beings don't really come into question.
"love your neighbor" is a made-up rule because of pre-existing human nature and needs, it fits into societal desires, societies are better/good at shutting down individuals, thus individuals must conform to societies or live in anarchy with each other (meaning they would still fall pray to each other and outside societies, if they are in true free anarchy).
Thus, there were pre-existing facts and realities that people have to work with to come up with what is good to do for some set of reasons vs. what is bad to do for another set of reasons. Most people are selfish and manipulatable, so indoctrinating them into some beliefs about their selfish best interest helps you make sure they don't constantly fight each other for influence and power, etc (and thus crippling the power of the society).
I have a theory.... ...which I may have mentioned before. And it is the clue to the basics of man -made morality, and also social conventions, humour, religion, art, dance, music and just about every damn' thing we as a species have all done and all done a bit differently. It is basic evolved social behaviour. In a way you can call evolution the 'God' that made us as we are. And we can say it's all evolution's fault and much good may it do us.
Just as mathematics, logic, language and the calendar are human inventions, but based on real practicalities, playing games are (surely) based on evolved instincts, though what they are is too speculative for me to even make suggestions. *Koff*puppyplay*Koff*.
Given a practical or rather evolved instinctive inclination and behaviour, our problem solving ability plus curiosity developed more sophisticated strategy games than just popping up from behind rocks and shouting "Boo!". And like mathematics, logic, grammar, the calendar and law, in descending order from the ones where the rules Worked to those where we had to devise rules we all had to agree (or locally at least) in order to make it work, game rules had to be devised and agreed to make it work. We are all familiar with the kid who revises the rules as you go along in order to allow her to win (My niece at 6 ) which gives a clue as to what's going on.
Clearly these rules did not exist before we invented them, any more than the sense of right or wrong existed before we appeared on the scene. There was evolved behaviour that allowed one species to survive by eating the other, and what was good for one wasn't for the other. So good is what's good for us and what is bad is bad for us.
Our ability to reason allows us to do what the other higher animal thinkers can only do as an evolved pack or family group survival - instinct: think about how the others feel. It has taken us long enough to extend that empathy to animals and not so far back that we didn't even care about the feelings of slaves or serfs.
When we claim "something" it is not based on gaps. It is based only on what we do have. The standard model and PT to be exact. It's ok not to agree, but saying it's based on "gaps" is false.
Sometimes claiming "gaps' is an attempt to diminish "observation" just because. Like looking at a sun set and claiming, "nothing special, just another sun set. In a way, that is correct, but do I enjoy looking at just another object as we spin.
I'm not interested in diminishing any viewpoint, it's just that the standard model does not, in fact, explain much in the question of first cause. Much like arguing thermodynamics proves the universe had to be created, the standard model breaks down and cannot account for other observations, such as dark matter and rapid expansion from the big bang.
So while it may be that we could learn more and discover the SM actually was right, and some of our other theories were missing something....it is not widely accepted that the SM is overly relevant to explaining pre-big bang origins itself. And given that....it is just speculating about the gaps we have.
I'm not interested in diminishing any viewpoint, it's just that the standard model does not, in fact, explain much in the question of first cause. Much like arguing thermodynamics proves the universe had to be created, the standard model breaks down and cannot account for other observations, such as dark matter and rapid expansion from the big bang.
So while it may be that we could learn more and discover the SM actually was right, and some of our other theories were missing something....it is not widely accepted that the SM is overly relevant to explaining pre-big bang origins itself. And given that....it is just speculating about the gaps we have.
I am not dealing with first cause. That is not point right now. We don't know enough to even claim "something" or "nothing". In fact, do to the standard model, we have never seen "nothing". All I would say if we were talking about first cause is "I don't know what it was but we are here now and lets just use what we have."
Are you ok with that? I am only talking about what we see around us now and only going back as far as the standard model will allow. And, what predictions it can make now. If you are ok with that we can move forward. If not, what is the question?
I am not dealing with first cause. That is not point right now. We don't know enough to even claim "something" or "nothing". In fact, do to the standard model, we have never seen "nothing". All I would say if we were talking about first cause is "I don't know what it was but we are here now and lets just use what we have."
Are you ok with that? I am only talking about what we see around us now and only going back as far as the standard model will allow. And, what predictions it can make now. If you are ok with that we can move forward. If not, what is the question?
First cause origins was the point being made by Trans, and that I was responding to, though.
You don't need my agreement, but of course I'm ok with your position on first cause. I don't mind speculation either, as I'm willing to speculate myself, but I feel it's important to note when I'm speculating vs when I'm conveying something I understand as fact (or widely accepted consensus).
First cause origins was the point being made by Trans, and that I was responding to, though.
You don't need my agreement, but of course I'm ok with your position on first cause. I don't mind speculation either, as I'm willing to speculate myself, but I feel it's important to note when I'm speculating vs when I'm conveying something I understand as fact (or widely accepted consensus).
Oh, ok. When you said that I (you didn't point me out but it's me) am predicting "something" over "nothing" it is based on gaps I thought meant right now. Many "theist" , although I by definition I am not a theist, are predicting "something" over "nothing" using only what we do know. When terms like "mystery" or "we don't know" come up we put them into the "I don't know pile" and move back to "what we have pile.". and contue on with forming a conclusion. ... LOL, you can rip me; hard; with a that pun there.
Again, tangent about forces this time. Realities and facts don't have to be "forces."
Where there are no human beings being thought of or involved, facts about human beings don't really come into question.
"love your neighbor" is a made-up rule because of pre-existing human nature and needs, it fits into societal desires, societies are better/good at shutting down individuals, thus individuals must conform to societies or live in anarchy with each other (meaning they would still fall pray to each other and outside societies, if they are in true free anarchy).
Thus, there were pre-existing facts and realities that people have to work with to come up with what is good to do for some set of reasons vs. what is bad to do for another set of reasons. Most people are selfish and manipulatable, so indoctrinating them into some beliefs about their selfish best interest helps you make sure they don't constantly fight each other for influence and power, etc (and thus crippling the power of the society).
What do you mean "thus?" Typically "thus" is preceded by reasons why what follows "thus" is true. What you write before "thus" above are two paragraphs which support my position....they are "made up rules."
Did you not understand that this was what you were doing?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...which I may have mentioned before. And it is the clue to the basics of man -made morality, and also social conventions, humour, religion, art, dance, music and just about every damn' thing we as a species have all done and all done a bit differently. It is basic evolved social behaviour. In a way you can call evolution the 'God' that made us as we are. And we can say it's all evolution's fault and much good may it do us. 
) which gives a clue as to what's going on. 
