Comments on: FDR Controversy Part 5: Response to The Promise and Failure of UPB http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/11/fdr-controversy-part-5-response-to-the-promise-and-failure-of-upb/ One mind as an universe of ideas. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:16:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Exploring the Freedomain Radio controversy (Part 0) http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/11/fdr-controversy-part-5-response-to-the-promise-and-failure-of-upb/comment-page-1/#comment-1121 Exploring the Freedomain Radio controversy (Part 0) Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:00:08 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=294#comment-1121 [...] FDR Controversy Part 5: Response to The Promise and Failure of UPB [...] [...] FDR Controversy Part 5: Response to The Promise and Failure of UPB [...]

]]> By: Danny Shahar http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/11/fdr-controversy-part-5-response-to-the-promise-and-failure-of-upb/comment-page-1/#comment-783 Danny Shahar Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:15:16 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=294#comment-783 Hey; just saw this. Figured it would be worth pointing out that Luke's observation doesn't create any problems for my critique, since I don't in any way attempt to reject the notion that certain behaviors can be universally preferable. Luke, if you see this and want to talk about my critique, please feel free to leave a comment on my blog and we can chat. Memeverse, take care! Hey; just saw this. Figured it would be worth pointing out that Luke’s observation doesn’t create any problems for my critique, since I don’t in any way attempt to reject the notion that certain behaviors can be universally preferable. Luke, if you see this and want to talk about my critique, please feel free to leave a comment on my blog and we can chat. Memeverse, take care!

]]> By: admin http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/11/fdr-controversy-part-5-response-to-the-promise-and-failure-of-upb/comment-page-1/#comment-748 admin Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:41:09 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=294#comment-748 Thanks. From what I understand so far UPB does seem like an observational theory of something that happens universally similarly to the theory that all alive people have beating hearts. You can't disprove such theories without actually depending on what they're stating. But as said in the article I need to look into it further to make further judgments. My general verdict so far would be that it's probably a very useful theory for around 99% of the cases. The remaining 1% is what the controversy is about. :) Cheers Thanks.

From what I understand so far UPB does seem like an observational theory of something that happens universally similarly to the theory that all alive people have beating hearts. You can’t disprove such theories without actually depending on what they’re stating.

But as said in the article I need to look into it further to make further judgments. My general verdict so far would be that it’s probably a very useful theory for around 99% of the cases. The remaining 1% is what the controversy is about. :)

Cheers

]]> By: Luke http://www.memeverse.com/2009/07/11/fdr-controversy-part-5-response-to-the-promise-and-failure-of-upb/comment-page-1/#comment-746 Luke Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:11:45 +0000 http://www.memeverse.com/?p=294#comment-746 So, according to Shahar; Stefan's UPB framework is 'invalid' (unproven) according to an objective criteria of reason, logic and truth... presumably. So, it's preferable (not preferred!) that Stefan be correct, but unless it's just Shahar's opinion (i.e. he's making stuff up); it must be *universally* preferable, that ALL people submit their theories/ideas to an objective standard of universal truth. In other words, there is a 'preferable' position Stefan *could* take which Shahar *requires* of him in order to be *correct*. He is correcting Stefan... to a universal standard of truth... :o Oh dear, this is UPB! Shahar is using UPB again! Doh! Process: "There is no such thing as ethics; do whatever you like. Accordingly, you must correct your behaviour or you are... WRONG!" :D Oh the endless tomfoolery! This is why so many academics love to waffle on and on and on without stopping to breathe and just THINK for a moment about what they're actually doing and saying. I thought your article was well written, balanced and very informative by the way. Nice job all round. So, according to Shahar; Stefan’s UPB framework is ‘invalid’ (unproven) according to an objective criteria of reason, logic and truth… presumably. So, it’s preferable (not preferred!) that Stefan be correct, but unless it’s just Shahar’s opinion (i.e. he’s making stuff up); it must be *universally* preferable, that ALL people submit their theories/ideas to an objective standard of universal truth. In other words, there is a ‘preferable’ position Stefan *could* take which Shahar *requires* of him in order to be *correct*. He is correcting Stefan… to a universal standard of truth… :o

Oh dear, this is UPB! Shahar is using UPB again! Doh!

Process: “There is no such thing as ethics; do whatever you like. Accordingly, you must correct your behaviour or you are… WRONG!” :D Oh the endless tomfoolery! This is why so many academics love to waffle on and on and on without stopping to breathe and just THINK for a moment about what they’re actually doing and saying.

I thought your article was well written, balanced and very informative by the way. Nice job all round.

]]>