hamdani yusuf and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.
Not all psychopaths end up as criminal.
Many successful surgeons are known to have psychopathic traits at various degrees.
Nothing to do with morals, just the everyday business of politics.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 16:22:49Science started as a branch of philosophy, namely natural philosophy.That statement is symptomatic of the arrogance of philosophers. Philosophy has never been anything more than intellectual masturbation and has nothing to do with scientific investigation.
Science started as a branch of philosophy, namely natural philosophy.
Not quite a psychopath, but a man who can set empathy aside and take calculated risks on the basis of pure science and the desire to save lives.
Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo preceded Newton. The problem is that the word "science" didn't appear until the 18th century, although scientific method can be traced back to 3000 BC.
Despite the publication ban, Galileo published his Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences (Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, intorno a due nuove scienze) in 1638 in Holland, outside the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.
Whatever happened in the past will become memory for present and future conscious beings. Whatever we are doing now are becoming events in the past. If our actions have no effect whatsoever to future conscious beings, they will be meaningless. It could happen if we go extinct and the conscious beings exist in the future emerge/evolve independently from our lineage. Whatever the future conscious beings might be, they are extremely unlikely to appear suddenly out of nowhere in a single shot. It's much more probable that they will emerge as products of evolutionary process through natural selection in many generations. The process will be continued by artificial selection. The variations of their characteristics will shift from mainly provided by random mutation to a more directed intentional changes.
Directed intentional changes means that before implementation, the changes would be simulated first in a virtual environment. It can be someone's brain or many types of computers, or some experimental setup. Only changes wich are expected to bring intended consequences and minimum unwanted side effects will then be implemented. Otherwise they would be discarded.
We can't change conditions of the past. So we shouldn't waste our time and other resources trying to do that. Present condition will become the past in a moment. Hence we should direct our efforts and allocate resources to improve our conditions in the future. The conscious beings exist in the future could include the continuation of our ego, our direct descendants, or something else that we create. They are basically modified duplicates of ourselves, better suited for future conditions. So if our actions now don't align with the goal of improving the well being of future conscious beings, those actions will be considered as wasteful, hence must be hindered.
Morality talks about the good and bad things from the perspective of conscious beings
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 06:06:30Morality talks about the good and bad things from the perspective of conscious beingsNo, just from the perspective of homo sapiens. Even if you could define conscious, we have very little idea of what any other species thinks.
About which you know nothing - even the concept is meaningless.
The universe contains a lot of stuff that is not known for being "aware", which seems to be the essence of consciousness. Ergo I cannot ascribe a meaning to universal consciousness.
Ability to feel empathy requires a conscious agent to model a situation from the perspective of other agents with similar characteristics to itself. For some complex organisms, it is an innate ability. Most simple organisms doesn't have it.Most organisms don't have the ability to model surrounding situations from the perspective of other conscious entities significantly different than themselves. It takes computational resources which might cost too much for surviving in the wild. So it's understandable that it doesn't develop naturally.
The goal of moral rules with predetermined reward and punishment system is to tip the balance of reward function in the conscious agents algorithms so that they would still positively contribute to the system as a whole even if they act selfishly.
That doesn't sound very "moral". You seem to be suggesting this:1. Reward people, if they do what "the system" wants2. Punish people, if they don't do what "the system" wants.
This leads to the obvious question : who, or what, is "the system"?
To which, there seem to be only two answers, according to your theory:1. The system is ruled by Darwinian Natural Selection, which is ruthless and has no morals2. The system is ruled by a human Dictator, who is ruthless and has no moralsBoth of these answers don't seem very nice. So perhaps your theory is wrong?