Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 06:30:38
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.0
It is split up because morality itself is quite complex and can generate a discussion too long to be covered there.
Before we start the discussion, it might be useful to have some background information to save our time and energy to prevent unnecessary debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Quote
Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
I hope this topic can start a discussion which can eventually produce satisfactory answer to the question .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 06:35:46
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21892.msg245282#msg245282
or
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17732.msg370985#msg370985
I just don't want to jump in and hijack those topics.
There are also interesting debate between Youtubers arguing about objective morality.
and
Those videos may represent two positions in moral philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Realism_and_anti-realism
So they are actually discussing more about ethics :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Quote
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concern matters of value, and thus comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.[2]
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/11/2018 08:05:39
This immediately leads to a sampling question. "Turn the other cheek" would be considered normal and desirable in some peer groups, whilst "an eye for an eye" might be de rigeur for others. Both strategies have evolutionary validity: think rabbits, which outbreed their predators, and lions, where only the strongest male gets to breed.
Homo sapiens is an odd creature We breed too slowly to survive as prey, and are too weak to be predators, but a very complex collaboration allows us to farm and hunt all we need. That said, although we can see the value of large scale collaboration (like bees and ants) it takes a long time to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to participate, so the small "family" unit (including communes and kibbutzim) is a prerequisite of survival.
Thus we grow up with at least two loyalties, to the immediate family that supports us, and to the wider community that supports the family. No problem if we have infinite resources and unlimited choice, but the decisions we make in restricted circumstances are what defines our morality, and it is fairly clear from daily accounts of religious wars and magistrates' court proceedings that either there is no universal concept of right and wrong, or that it can be set aside for personal gain.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 08:11:21
We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.
I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:
Post by: Colin2B on 14/11/2018 09:41:04
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases.Probably not.
The example quoted by @alancalverd (eye for eye) shows the problem of trying to decide a universal ethic.
While some might go for the lesser evil, Alan is likely to go for population reduction and set the trolly on the 5.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 12:04:46
Without delving too deeply into the definition of morality or ethics, I think we can usefully approach the subject through "universal". The test is whether any person considered normal by his peers, would make the same choice or judgement as any other in a case requiring subjective evaluation.Thank you for spending your precious time to join this discussion. I realize that there are many theories on morality and ethics as described in Wikipedia links, and many of them are incompatible to each other. So far I haven't found a general consensus among modern philosopher on this topic. May be that's why we can find those mutual debunking videos from Youtubers who have similar world view and usually agree with each other on most other topics.
This immediately leads to a sampling question. "Turn the other cheek" would be considered normal and desirable in some peer groups, whilst "an eye for an eye" might be de rigeur for others. Both strategies have evolutionary validity: think rabbits, which outbreed their predators, and lions, where only the strongest male gets to breed.
Homo sapiens is an odd creature We breed too slowly to survive as prey, and are too weak to be predators, but a very complex collaboration allows us to farm and hunt all we need. That said, although we can see the value of large scale collaboration (like bees and ants) it takes a long time to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to participate, so the small "family" unit (including communes and kibbutzim) is a prerequisite of survival.
Thus we grow up with at least two loyalties, to the immediate family that supports us, and to the wider community that supports the family. No problem if we have infinite resources and unlimited choice, but the decisions we make in restricted circumstances are what defines our morality, and it is fairly clear from daily accounts of religious wars and magistrates' court proceedings that either there is no universal concept of right and wrong, or that it can be set aside for personal gain.
In this topic I'll try to figure out where are common grounds among those theories on morality and ethics, and where they start to diverge, and why.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 12:10:50
Probably not.The example quoted by @alancalverd (eye for eye) shows the problem of trying to decide a universal ethic.While some might go for the lesser evil, Alan is likely to go for population reduction and set the trolly on the 5.We won't find out if we don't even try, do we?
To resolve the problem with the dilemma, we need to be clear about the reason behind those decisions, and in what circumstances they are acceptable (or not).
Post by: Colin2B on 14/11/2018 12:22:05
We won't find out if we don't even try, do we?That depends what you are trying to find out. Your question is asking about a universal ethic/morality, but @alancalverd shows that it doesn’t exist.
Perhaps you are trying to devise a methodology to determine the ethic/morality that drives a particular individual or group in specific circumstances.
Post by: syhprum on 14/11/2018 12:53:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 12:57:41
Question of when and where can be more easily answered. A universal moral standard must be applicable anywhere and anytime.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 13:11:49
That depends what you are trying to find out. Your question is asking about a universal ethic/morality, but @alancalverd shows that it doesn’t exist.Perhaps you are trying to devise a methodology to determine the ethic/morality that drives a particular individual or group in specific circumstances.I think Alan's post only shows that morality can be subjective, limited by space and time (in answering standard questions of who, where and when), but doesn't show that it can't be collective. If some moral standards can be shown to be universally applicable, that will answer the question of the topic.
On the contrary, I try to find fundamental rules which drive us to diverse moral values that we have today. As analogy, in evolutionary biology, we have random mutation and natural selection that drive life to diversity of life forms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 13:14:01
I think the oft quoted saying an eye for an eye was meant to limit revenge not to encourage it.I think it is both ways. It can also be used to discourage the offense in the first place.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 13:23:39
To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.I find that in real life experiment, there are something significant not considered in the thought experiments. Those are uncertainty about the assertions in the narrative of the situation. Is it true that doing nothing will cause something bad to happen? (in the experiment in the video, not really). Is it true that our action will give us a more desired (or less undesired) result?
We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.
I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:
In one variation we might ask, what is the probability that the fat man's body can really stop the train? Or what's the probability that those five men can save themselves?
From this finding, we can conclude that one factor of moral subjectivity comes from Bayesian inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Post by: alancalverd on 14/11/2018 13:39:10
Intriguingly I find something in common between Jewish and Celtic law, where the individual is held liable without limit for his actions and the state exists to serve the citizen by prosecuting wrongs; in contrast to Roman law where the citizen exists to serve the state and is granted rights in exchange, and its latterday substitution of absolution and penitence for sacrifice.
Not that I have much time for faith. As Dawkins pointed out, the only common theme among religions is that each teaches you to despise all the others.
*"Hit me once - shame on you. Hit me twice - shame on me." - sounds sharper in Yiddish, but I 'm a bit rusty.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/11/2018 13:54:51
I think Alan's post only shows that morality can be subjective, but doesn't show that it can't be collective. If some moral standards can be shown to be universally applicable, that will answer the question of the topic.
I spend some time sitting on medical research ethics committees. The general guidance seems to boil down to whether the balance of risk and benefit has been fully evaluated and presented such that the famous "man on the Clapham omnibus" would be able to make an informed decision to participate. But in making that judgement, we are often aware that even his brother on the Brooklyn omnibus has a slightly different perspective, and we can only guess at what the average Tokyo commuter might consider acceptable.
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/11/2018 18:17:12
I am not attempting to diminish the importance of the question; but who knows what standard of morality might exist in other worlds in the greater universe?...perhaps the moral standard of some planet in a galaxy far, far away might be to destroy any life form existing on any other planet in the universe (kind of like destroying potentially dangerous alien life forms).
however, if "universal" is intended to reference morality on the planet Earth, then again (hopefully I am not belaboring the intent of the question) I am once again presuming that the word "morality" is to be applied to the human species...presupposing that other life forms on this planet do not have a moral compass (altho there appears to be some evidence of other animals being in possession of a type of morality applicable to their species.)
finally, if "universal" and "morality" is meant to apply to the human species of this planet, in my opinion there is no universal morality; due to the religious and cultural influences of each unique society. as extreme examples, it appears that in the Muslim religion, it is morally acceptable to kill individuals of any other religion unwilling to convert to Islam; while in some more passive religious groups, killing of any human being is forbidden.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 22:08:22
In this topic, I'm focusing on the search of similar values among different societies, because it is the requirement of something being universal. In your hypothetical case, destroying any life forms in other planet cannot be the universal moral standard, because it only applies when the lifeforms in that particular planet realize that there are other planets, and there exist other lifeforms there. Until then, this moral value has no guidance function, hence useless as moral standard.
...perhaps the moral standard of some planet in a galaxy far, far away might be to destroy any life form existing on any other planet in the universe (kind of like destroying potentially dangerous alien life forms).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 22:19:49
I think you posted this before I finished editing my post about Bayesian inference that causes subjectivity in real life judgment of moral actions. The next question is, are there residual subjective factors when bayesian inference is excluded from the equation?
I spend some time sitting on medical research ethics committees. The general guidance seems to boil down to whether the balance of risk and benefit has been fully evaluated and presented such that the famous "man on the Clapham omnibus" would be able to make an informed decision to participate. But in making that judgement, we are often aware that even his brother on the Brooklyn omnibus has a slightly different perspective, and we can only guess at what the average Tokyo commuter might consider acceptable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 23:03:57
I'll try to answer standard questions, starting with "What". In most theories, morality can be seen as a method to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad, proper and improper. It follows that to get to universal agreement on morality, we need first to agree on what is defined by the words right and wrong, good and bad, proper and improper. This inevitably lead us to the next question: who decides what's right and wrong, good and bad, proper and improper, and why?I'll refine the answer to what question later. Now I'll try address the who question.
Question of when and where can be more easily answered. A universal moral standard must be applicable anywhere and anytime.
Moral standard can only be imposed to agents/systems with capability of doing planned action. In other words, they must have some internal algorithm to determine how to react in certain circumstances. Something who can do purely reflective actions or reactions has no moral obligation.
That's why there are debates about ethics for autonomous systems with artificial intelligence.
Between reflective systems and complex systems with deep cognitive functions, there are a spectrum of cognitive capabilities. Hence there are various degrees of moral obligations for them. As an example from more familiar cases, we impose different level of moral obligations between human babies and adults.
This leads us to the next question, why?
Post by: David Cooper on 14/11/2018 23:47:11
What is absolute morality? The idea of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" captures most of it, but it's not quite right. "Always try your best to minimise harm (if that harm isn't cancelled out by the gains for the one who suffers it)" was one of my attempts to formulate the rule properly, and it does the job a lot better, but I'm not sure it's completely right. The correct solution is more of a method than a rule: it's to imagine that you are all the people (and indeed all the sentient beings) involved in a situation and to make yourself as happy as possible with the result of whatever action is determined to produce that maximum happiness. You must imagine that you will have to live each of their lives in turn, so if one of them kills one of the others, you will be both the killer and the one killed, but that killing will be the most moral action if it minimises your suffering and maximise your pleasure overall.
This is how intelligent machines will attempt to calculate what's moral in any situation, but they will often be incapable of accessing or crunching enough data in the time available to make ideal decisions - they can only ever do the best they can with what is available to them, playing the odds.
(This is a kind of utiliratrianism. The strongest objection I've seen to utilitarianism is the Mere Addition Paradox, but there's a major mathematical fault in that paradox and anyone rational should throw it in the bin where it belongs.)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/11/2018 05:21:22
Universal morality as in universally applied by people/aliens - no. Universal morality as in absolute morality - yes. There is an absolute morality, and most attempts at formulating moral rules are attempts to produce that underlying absolute morality. The reason we find so much in common between different attempts at formulating systems of moral rules is that they are all tapping into an underlying absolute morality which they are struggling to pin down precisely, but it is there.I realize that there are already diverse moral values followed by human on earth, even though we know that humanity is just a small portion of universe in terms of time and space. Finding out a moral standard which is applicable universally seems even more improbable.
What is absolute morality? The idea of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" captures most of it, but it's not quite right. "Always try your best to minimise harm (if that harm isn't cancelled out by the gains for the one who suffers it)" was one of my attempts to formulate the rule properly, and it does the job a lot better, but I'm not sure it's completely right. The correct solution is more of a method than a rule: it's to imagine that you are all the people (and indeed all the sentient beings) involved in a situation and to make yourself as happy as possible with the result of whatever action is determined to produce that maximum happiness. You must imagine that you will have to live each of their lives in turn, so if one of them kills one of the others, you will be both the killer and the one killed, but that killing will be the most moral action if it minimises your suffering and maximise your pleasure overall.
This is how intelligent machines will attempt to calculate what's moral in any situation, but they will often be incapable of accessing or crunching enough data in the time available to make ideal decisions - they can only ever do the best they can with what is available to them, playing the odds.
(This is a kind of utiliratrianism. The strongest objection I've seen to utilitarianism is the Mere Addition Paradox, but there's a major mathematical fault in that paradox and anyone rational should throw it in the bin where it belongs.)
For a starting point, we can shieve through known moral values applied in most cases, such as the golden rule you mentioned above. But we know that it has some exceptions, such as in sadomasochism. Hence we know that there are more fundamental reason why it works in most normal cases. We might also want to scrutinize other moral values known to humanity, find out their applicability and exceptions. From there we can conclude why they are sometimes applicable, and some other times aren't.
We must also try to think out of the box, open to new suggestions never offered by previous philosophers. Maybe we haven't had consensus on universal moral standard because it hasn't been discovered by previous thinkers.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/11/2018 07:58:11
It is fairly obvious that a "family" group (could be a biological family or a temporary unit like a ship's crew) will function better if its members can trust each other. The military understand this: selection for specialist duties includes checks for honesty and recognition that you are fighting for your mates first, your country second. So the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" (GHGN) metric is fairly easy to determine where N < 50, say.
Brexit provides a fine example of the breakdown of GHGN for very large N. There is no doubt that a customs union is good for business: whether you are an importer or an exporter, N is small and fewer rules and tariffs means more profit . But if the nation as a whole (N is large) imports more than it exports, increased business flow overall means more loss, hence devaluation and reduced public budgets. At its simplest, you could model a trading nation as consisting of just two businesses of roughly equal size and turnover Nimp ≈ Nexp. Good news for any sample of size ≤ 2N is bad news for the whole population if Nimp > Nexp by even a small amount, hence the interesting conundrum "EU good for British business, bad for Britain".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/11/2018 11:13:22
The most fundamental rule which is applicable universally must take highest priority, hence override other rules when they are in conflict. Those other rules can be thought of as shorthands to process information faster to get to a moral decision quickly.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/11/2018 11:42:41
Post by: guest4091 on 15/11/2018 18:32:21
Post by: David Cooper on 15/11/2018 21:25:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/11/2018 21:50:45
But there's your problem - there is no universally applicable rule! Witness the ecstatic joy of the Hitler Jugend, and the total misery they wrought on everyone, including, eventually, themselves.We cannot prove the nonexistence of something. But we can prove that something that is offered is absurd, paradoxical, superfluous or suboptimum to explain some phenomena or to achieve desired results.
The fact that there were many followers of those out of date moral rules can be taken as indication that there are underlying assumptions and reason behind them which were accepted by their followers. I'd like to find out what they are.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 00:39:29
Truth will never be decided by opinion polls.They are merely stepping stones to get closer to the truth. They rely on the assumption that the constituents are mostly rational.
Democracy is the most consequential version of this. If a democratic society fulfills the assumption, it will thrive. Otherwise it will be left behind by other societies that do fulfill it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 02:33:26
I did say the Golden Rule is faulty. That's why I came up with a better rule (the harm minimisation one) which removes the major problems with it, but I'm not sure it is perfect. What does appear to be perfect is the method of considering yourself to be all the people involved in a scenario. Let's apply it to the Trolley Problem. You are the person lying on one track which the trolley is not supposed to go down. In other lives, you are the ten people lying on another track which the trolley is scheduled to go down. In another life you are the person by the lever who has to make a decision. How many of yourself do you want to kill/save in this situation? Should you save the ten idiot versions of yourself who have lain down on a track which the trolley is scheduled to go down, or should you save the lesser idiot version of yourself who has lain down on the other track in the stupid assumption that the trolley won't go that way? It's a calculation that needs a lot of guessing unless you have access to a lot of information about the eleven people in question so that you can work out whether it's better to die ten times as mega-morons or once as a standard moron, but it's still a judgement that can be made on the basis of self-interest. All scenarios can be converted into calculations about self-interest on the basis that you are all of the players. This doesn't make the calculations easy, but it does provide a means for producing the best answer from the available information.If we propose minimizing harm as a fundamental moral rule, we need to agree first on its definition. If it's about inflicting pain, then giving painkiller should solve the problem, which is not the case.
If it's about causing death, then death penalty and euthanasia are in direct violation.
Hence there must be a more fundamental reason why this proposed rule works in most cases, but still have some exceptions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 10:25:28
That model/simulation is basically a piece of information which requires resources like storage medium and processing system to keep its existence. Nowadays, it's often called meme.
Just like any other memes, a universal moral standard, if it exists, will compete for resources to keep it's own existence. And the resource for memes are agents or systems with planning capability. Agents or systems with good planning capabilities are conscient beings.
Hence, keeping the existence of conscient beings is one of the most fundamental moral rules, if not the most.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 12:41:52
Imagine a rule that actively seeks to destroy conscient beings. It's basically a meme that's self destruct by destroying its own medium. Or conscient beings that don't follow the rule to actively keep their existence (or their copies) will likely be outcompeted by those who do, or struck by random events and cease to exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/11/2018 16:09:42
Quote
Every hour you continue to exist is of the greatest help to the B.E.F. Government has therefore decided you must continue to fight. Have greatest possible admiration for your splendid stand. Evacuation will not (repeat not) take place, and craft required for above purposes are to return to Dover. Verity and Windsor to cover Commander Mine-sweeping and his retirement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 22:41:25
The Trolley Problem should never be dismissed as an academic exercise. Churchill's decision not to evacuate the Calais garrison in 1940 is a classic case of balancing the certain death of a few against the possible survival of many by delaying the German advance on Dunkirk. Imagine sending this signal:I'll cover that into more detail when answering how question.QuoteEvery hour you continue to exist is of the greatest help to the B.E.F. Government has therefore decided you must continue to fight. Have greatest possible admiration for your splendid stand. Evacuation will not (repeat not) take place, and craft required for above purposes are to return to Dover. Verity and Windsor to cover Commander Mine-sweeping and his retirement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 22:53:57
To answer why keeping the existence of conscient beings is a fundamental moral rule, we can use a method called reductio ad absurdum to its alternative.Alternatively, imagine that there are rules more fundamental than preservation of conscient beings. To make sure that those rules are followed, it requires that there exist conscient beings. That makes the preservation of conscient beings a prerequisite rule, and takes higher priority.
Imagine a rule that actively seeks to destroy conscient beings. It's basically a meme that's self destruct by destroying its own medium. Or conscient beings that don't follow the rule to actively keep their existence (or their copies) will likely be outcompeted by those who do, or struck by random events and cease to exist.
It's similar to a chess game, which says that your goal is to capture opponent's king. But you need to make sure that your king isn't captured first.
Post by: David Cooper on 16/11/2018 23:13:38
If we propose minimizing harm as a fundamental moral rule, we need to agree first on its definition.
Do you understand what harms you? You are, I assume, a sentient being with feelings, some of which are unpleasant, and the experience of those unpleasant ones is classed as suffering. If I do something that causes you to suffer, that is doing you harm. If you have done harm to me first, I can justify harming you in return, and by doing so, I might discourage you from harming me again. The result will be that both of us will be harmed less because we realise that harming the other, the other harms us in return, and that an attempt to kill the other would be risky as the other person could anticipate that attempt and pre-empt it in a lethal way. Also, we have friends who will seek to kill a killer of any member of the group by an outsider, so killing anyone is unsafe as there will be many people motivated to hunt you down and kill you in return. Morality comes out of self-interest - we maximise our quality of life by not harming each other, or at least keeping it to a minimum. I might annoy you by making a lot of noise while building my shelter, but when yours rots away and you have to build a new one, you'll be the one making a lot of noise, so we tolerate that kind of disturbance. Where morality becomes more universal is when we have the wit to recognise that it's okay for John to annoy Jack by building a house too, but that we should defend Jack from John when John seeks to steal material for his house by taking it off Jack's house. We include everyone in the system and treat them all as equally important. If we want this to be managed by intelligent machines (and we clearly do want that), then they need to make the same kind of judgements, weighing up the distribution of harm and minimising the kinds of harm that shouldn't be tolerated, so they will let us annoy each other by making a noise and competing for the same resources, but they won't let us hit each other over the head with clubs unless we're levelling the score against someone who has harmed someone unfairly.
I don't understand why so many people who want to discuss morality have difficulty understanding what harm is, but maybe they're incapable of suffering and just don't get the point of morality as a result.
Quote
If it's about inflicting pain, then giving painkiller should solve the problem, which is not the case.
There are more ways to upset people than pain. If you lock someone up in a cage and give them painkillers and drugs to make them feel happy, they're still going to be dissatisfied with the fact that you've stolen their life from them, and billions of others will be upset about what you've done too, scared that you'll do it to them next. Anyone who thinks drugging people makes everything fine should lead by example and do it to themselves instead.
Quote
If it's about causing death, then death penalty and euthanasia are in direct violation.
There are occasions when killing people is moral where it reduces suffering and there isn't sufficient pleasure available to the people being killed to cancel out that suffering, or where killing them prevents them from causing unnecessary suffering to others.
Quote
Hence there must be a more fundamental reason why this proposed rule works in most cases, but still have some exceptions.
Does it have any exceptions? Show me one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/11/2018 23:48:22
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
Post by: evan_au on 17/11/2018 00:34:35
Quote from: hamdani yusuf
Hence, keeping the existence of conscient beings is one of the most fundamental moral rules, if not the most.There seems to be some debate about which are conscient (conscious?) beings to which this moral rule applies...
- Some apply it to just members of their own family or tribe
- Others apply it to just members of their own country or religion
- Thinking more broadly, are elephants conscious, or dolphins? How should we treat them?
- What about our pet dog or cat?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 02:16:52
Does it have any exceptions? Show me one.Imagine a genius who want to minimize suffering by creating a virus that makes people sterile. He prevents sufferings from countless number of people from the next generation.
Or the virus makes people don't want to have kids.
Or replace the virus with a meme.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 02:37:28
In my previous post answering what question I said that there are spectrum of consciousness. There are multidimensional level of consciousness. In the data processing capabilities alone, there are depth and breadth of the neural networks, also processing speed and data storage capacity. Also data validity/robustness and error correction capability. In input/output system, there could be various level of accuracy and precision. Those levels apply generally wether or not they're organic/biological systems.Quote from: hamdani yusufHence, keeping the existence of conscient beings is one of the most fundamental moral rules, if not the most.There seems to be some debate about which are conscient (conscious?) beings to which this moral rule applies...
- Some apply it to just members of their own family or tribe
- Others apply it to just members of their own country or religion
- Thinking more broadly, are elephants conscious, or dolphins? How should we treat them?
- What about our pet dog or cat?
The universal rule should concern about the existence of consciousness in the eventual results, which is required by the timelessness of the rule.
I'll addres your other questions while refining my answer to the how question. There I will show how all known moral values are driven by deepest desire to follow the universal moral standard. The diversity comes from Bayesian inference held by the authors of those rules, based on their knowledge at the time they are being conceived.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 06:08:54
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:In the opening of this topic I've said that it's a spin-off from my previous post titled universal utopia, which shown that consciousness is a product of natural process. The evolution of consciousness is a continuation/extention of biological evolution, which in turn a continuation of chemical and physical evolution. There I've said that creating copies is one important strategies to preserve a system's existence. It increases the chance of a system to survive random events in the environment. But it also requires more resources, which must be shared with other strategies to achieve goals effectively and efficiently.
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 10:49:50
Apparently, spending all available resources for creating copies is not the best strategy to achieve the goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 12:17:17
There also should be a mechanism to eradicate or suppress lethal or detrimental memes. The memes for this particular purpose is the moral rules.
Post by: David Cooper on 17/11/2018 20:25:40
Does it have any exceptions? Show me one.Imagine a genius who want to minimize suffering by creating a virus that makes people sterile. He prevents sufferings from countless number of people from the next generation.
Or the virus makes people don't want to have kids.
Or replace the virus with a meme.
That is not a genius, but a selfish bastard who wants less enjoyment for others and more for himself (because he will feel happier if they don't exist). The reality is that people overwhelmingly enjoy existing, and the minority who don't enjoy it (usually because of difficult circumstances) live in the hope of better times to come. There is no valid excuse for eliminating them. They generally want to have children and can be deeply depressed if they are unable to do so. Modifying people not to want to have children is a monumental assault unless they willingly agree to it. You cannot simply convert an immoral action into a moral one by partially killing someone (by changing them to be less than they were before). If you kill someone, they don't mind being dead once their dead, but that's not an argument that painless murder is acceptable. Modifying people by force not to care about loss of capability is immoral in the extreme (except in extreme cases where it isn't, such as where a population needs to be reduced for environmental reasons, and even then it would need to be a case where some people need to stop breeding altogether in order to keep within sustainable limits - in such a case, you would have to do this to the people of lowest quality, and those should ideally be the ones with the lowest moral standards - there are a lot of rape-and-pillage genes which could do with eradication).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2018 21:31:03
There must be a reason why people want to reproduce, to feel joy and happiness, avoid pain, but also willing to conserve resources, make sacrifices, be altruistic, feeling empathy, eradicate unwanted things, create laws, etc. They seem to be unrelated scattered pieces of puzzle. Here I want to assemble them into one big picture using a universal moral standard.
That is not a genius, but a selfish bastard who wants less enjoyment for others and more for himself (because he will feel happier if they don't exist). The reality is that people overwhelmingly enjoy existing, and the minority who don't enjoy it (usually because of difficult circumstances) live in the hope of better times to come. There is no valid excuse for eliminating them. They generally want to have children and can be deeply depressed if they are unable to do so. Modifying people not to want to have children is a monumental assault unless they willingly agree to it. You cannot simply convert an immoral action into a moral one by partially killing someone (by changing them to be less than they were before). If you kill someone, they don't mind being dead once their dead, but that's not an argument that painless murder is acceptable. Modifying people by force not to care about loss of capability is immoral in the extreme (except in extreme cases where it isn't, such as where a population needs to be reduced for environmental reasons, and even then it would need to be a case where some people need to stop breeding altogether in order to keep within sustainable limits - in such a case, you would have to do this to the people of lowest quality, and those should ideally be the ones with the lowest moral standards - there are a lot of rape-and-pillage genes which could do with eradication).
Post by: guest45734 on 17/11/2018 21:54:19
There must be a reason why people want to reproduce, to feel joy and happiness, avoid pain, but also willing to conserve resources, make sacrifices, be altruistic, feeling empathy, eradicate unwanted things, create laws, etc. They seem to be unrelated scattered pieces of puzzle. Here I want to assemble them into one big picture using a universal moral standard.
This sounds like basic animal instincts without laws or religion, both of which evolve. It may be at some point in the future science becomes religion, and the laws protect all animals equally. This would of course involve irradicating all religious belief and accepting that all life forms were equal and food for the other. ?????
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2018 00:31:57
Science is a useful tool to achieve universal goals by improving accuracy and precision of models of reality, hence conscious being can make better plans and reduce unexpected results.There must be a reason why people want to reproduce, to feel joy and happiness, avoid pain, but also willing to conserve resources, make sacrifices, be altruistic, feeling empathy, eradicate unwanted things, create laws, etc. They seem to be unrelated scattered pieces of puzzle. Here I want to assemble them into one big picture using a universal moral standard.
This sounds like basic animal instincts without laws or religion, both of which evolve. It may be at some point in the future science becomes religion, and the laws protect all animals equally. This would of course involve irradicating all religious belief and accepting that all life forms were equal and food for the other. ?????
Religious belief will still exist in history books as a reminder for future generations about gullibility of their predecessors.
Some form of life have better chance to survive than the others, hence resources should be distributed wisely to maximize chance for the survival of conscious beings.
The risk of common mode failure prevents us to focus on only one form of consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2018 00:51:09
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:Now I'll try to explain each of those strategies. For choosing robust media, biological evolution has provide brainy organisms. As far as I know, human species is the most successful one. In conjunction with other strategies, human developed written language, books, computer with various physical media such as magnetic and optical disks, also solid state memories.
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
For multilayer protection, there have been skull, clothes, caves, tents, houses, bunker, boat, submarine, spaceships, ISS. Constitution, laws, morality, standards, and even religion are also some forms of this strategy, especially protecting consciousness from conscious beings themselves.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2018 01:00:04
Those colonies can also play a role in diversity strategy, as an extension of human colonies on earth. This strategy protects existence of consciousness from natural disasters such as asteroid impact, flood, hurricane, earthquake, volcano, avalanche, drought, famine, disease.
If you know other useful strategies that I might have overlooked, please share them here.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2018 09:28:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2018 07:13:34
Quote
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:Let's start with the most basic version, with following assumptions:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?
1. There's no uncertainty about the statements describing the situation.
2. The outcome solely depends on the choice made by the subject. Nothing else can interfere the course of the events.
3. All of those six people have equal positive contributions to the society.
4. The switching action requires negligible amount of resources.
Here the math shows that you should pull the lever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2018 17:52:11
4. If the switching consumes a lot of resources which could be used to save even more people.
3. If the five people have negative impact on the society, eg. terrorists.
2. If you have a way to stop the trolley, or to tell those people to get away from the track.
1. If there's a significant uncertainty about the cause and effect relationship describing the situation, or about the assessment of the other assumptions.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/11/2018 22:03:03
The moral decision itself isn't hard - it's crunching the data to try to get the best outcome when there are lots of unknown factors that can make it close to random luck whether the less damaging outcome occurs, and if there's enough trickery involved, the best calculation could be guaranteed to result in the worse outcome simply because all the available data has been carefully selected to mislead the person (or machine) making the decision.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2018 22:30:16
It all comes down to how you handle the data to be as right as you can be for the available information. Add another fact and the answer can change - it can switch every time another piece of information is provided. Some of the information is prior knowledge of previous situations and the kinds of guesses that might be appropriate as a substitute for hard information. For example, if the only previous case involved a terrorist tying five old people to one line and a child to the other, that could affect the calculations a bit. Might it be a copycat terrorist? Was the previous case widely publicised or was it kept quiet? If the former, then the terrorist this time might have tied five children to one line and one old person to the other, hoping that the person by the lever will think, "I'm not falling for that trick - it'll be five old people and one child again, so I'll save the child," thereby leading to five children being killed.That's right. That's why we need moral rules in the first place, and we need a moral standard that we all can agree on. And we need to educate people about that, as young as possible to minimize damage they could do and maximize their contribution to the society.
The moral decision itself isn't hard - it's crunching the data to try to get the best outcome when there are lots of unknown factors that can make it close to random luck whether the less damaging outcome occurs, and if there's enough trickery involved, the best calculation could be guaranteed to result in the worse outcome simply because all the available data has been carefully selected to mislead the person (or machine) making the decision.
We also need to educate people about how the world works through science. This can prevent moral people from doing immoral actions. For example, human sacrifice of the Aztecs.
Trickery by other conscious beings is not the only thing that can mislead a conscious being to make decisions with unintended results. It can also come from false understanding of reality. Some alternative medicines based on pseudoscience are the examples.
Post by: jimbobghost on 19/11/2018 22:41:45
i concieve of, and establish my own morality...i am a one man ruling class; and my morality benefits myself and any others i choose to protect.
all others concept of morality can kiss my ass.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2018 00:48:59
1. The old people will die soon anyway, while the child still have a long life to go.
2. Social and physical enviroment is conducive to raise children.
3. The child can be raised well so he/she can contribute positively to the society.
Again, if those assumptions can be proven false, the preference may change.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2018 00:52:32
morality is a standard established by a ruling class; primarily to benefit themselves.Your moral rule cannot be a universal standard. Because they're limited in time and space. It doesn't apply when and where you don't have influence, such us before you born, after you die, or in other countries.
i concieve of, and establish my own morality...i am a one man ruling class; and my morality benefits myself and any others i choose to protect.
all others concept of morality can kiss my ass.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2018 04:46:54
IMO the respondents change their decision due to following assumptions:
1. The relative is known to have positive value for them, while the five people are stranger with unknown values. They might even be dangerous.
2. The loss of their relative will make them sad, which might hinder them to contribute positively to the society.
From the examples above I want to show that to prevent dispute or confusion in the decision making of moral cases, we need to state explicitly all the assumptions being made, including (especially) the hidden ones.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2018 05:18:34
A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives?
Here are explicit assumptions:
1. The transplant surgeon is brilliant, which means he/she can perform the operation with (almost) 100% success rate.
2. The five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ.
3. There are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations in the time limit before they die.
4. Traveler's organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients.
5. The traveler is a stranger, so if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
Here are the implicit assumptions:
1. Apart from the failing organs, all of those people have the same life expectancy.
2. Each of them can make equal positive contribution to the society. Of course if each of them has equally negative contribution, the decision might be changed.
Let's assume that there are no uncertainty about all of those assumptions. At a glance, it seems to be obvious that the doctor should kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives.
In the study, people are less likely to choose the sacrifice, compared to the trolley problem. The author thinks that it 's due to involvement. But there's also another possible reason. I think it's likely that the respondents aren't convinced by the assumptions, especially about the success rate of th operation, which is unrealistic.
But we need to be open minded to seek for the existence of better options and don't fall into false dilemma ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma ).
For example, instead of killing the healthy traveler, the doctor could just kill one of the patients. This can reduce possibility of loss due to the risk operation's success rate. This also conserve resource since the doctor only need to perform transplantation 4 times instead of five, with the same end result, which is one dead person and 5 living ones. Most importantly, no one ends up worse than if the doctor do nothing instead. The sacrificed patient would lose 4 organs, but he/she is gonna be dead anyway.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2018 05:37:25
The universal rule should concern about the existence of consciousness in the eventual results, which is required by the timelessness of the rule.Since universal moral standard concerns about long term results, it would take a lot of factor to calculate, which might not make it practical. Bad results might come before the decision is made due to long duration of the calculation, and the factors influencing the calculation might have change before the calculation is complete.
Hence we need to create shortcut, rule of thumb, or hash table to deal with frequently occurring situations. They must be reasonably easy to calculate and work in most cases. Their applications should align with the spirit of universal moral standard. This comparison might be made retrospectively when the decision has already been made before the calculation based on universal moral standard is finished. When they are in conflict, some exception should be made to the application of those shortcut rules.
For analogy, in chess game we have "Chess piece relative value".
Quote
In chess, the chess piece relative value system conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges. These values help determine how valuable a piece is strategically. They play no formal role in the game but are useful to players and are also used in computer chess to help the computer evaluate positions..
Calculations of the value of pieces provide only a rough idea of the state of play. The exact piece values will depend on the game situation, and can differ considerably from those given here. In some positions, a well-placed piece might be much more valuable than indicated by heuristics, while a badly placed piece may be completely trapped and, thus, almost worthless.
Valuations almost always assign the value 1 point to pawns (typically as the average value of a pawn in the starting position). Computer programs often represent the values of pieces and positions in terms of 'centipawns' (cp), where 100 cp = 1 pawn, which allows strategic features of the position, worth less than a single pawn, to be evaluated without requiring fractions.
Edward Lasker said "It is difficult to compare the relative value of different pieces, as so much depends on the peculiarities of the position...". Nevertheless, he said that bishops and knights (minor pieces) were equal, rooks are worth a minor piece plus one or two pawns, and a queen is worth three minor pieces or two rooks (Lasker 1915:11).
In real chess game, we often see exceptions to this rule. A queen might be exchanged for a pawn to get better position to eventually win the game.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/11/2018 19:54:54
The preference to save child over old people is based on following assumptions:
1. The old people will die soon anyway, while the child still have a long life to go.
2. Social and physical enviroment is conducive to raise children.
3. The child can be raised well so he/she can contribute positively to the society.
Again, if those assumptions can be proven false, the preference may change.
Most old people tied to the track would choose to save the child if they had any say in the matter, unless they knew that the child is a bully/thug/vandal. They are well placed to judge the value of what's left of their lives compared with the child's potential future, but they also recognise that they're still more valuable than any bad child who will spend a lifetime doing harm to others.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/11/2018 20:13:10
I'll show another variation of trolley problem, where the one sacrificed for the five was a relative or romantic partner. Survey data shows that respondents are much less likely to be willing to sacrifice their life.
People who are emotionally attached to some of the individuals involved in a situation of that kind cannot be expected to make impartial moral judgements, or if they can, they can't be expected to apply them impartially - it is not wrong for someone to save someone they care about at the expense of more valuable people, but it is heroic if they don't. It's possible in many such situations that they'd be so tortured by making the "right" decision due to the loss that their own trauma would be bigger than that of all the relatives and friends of the other victims if the "wrong" decision was made, which could make the "wrong" decision potentially right. Fortunately though, the intelligent machines that we want to be making moral decisions will not have such biases and will not be traumatised at making rational decisions, so they will make be able to make correct decisions in all cases.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/11/2018 21:17:02
Let's assume that there are no uncertainty about all of those assumptions. At a glance, it seems to be obvious that the doctor should kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives.
No it doesn't - it is immediately obvious that one of the ill people can be sacrificed instead. However, you can introduce more information to rule that out - the healthy traveller's organs are compatible with all the others, but none of the others are compatible with each other. We now have a restored dilemma in which killing one person saves more. (This ignores organ rejection and decline - most transplanted hearts will fail within a decade, for example, but let's imagine that there's no such problem.
One of the important factors here is that no one wants to live in a world where they could be killed in such a way to save the lives of ill people (who wouldn't want to be saved in such a way either) - it's bad enough that you could die in accidents caused by factors outside of anyone's control, but you don't want to live in fear that you'll be selected for death to mend other people who may be to blame for their own medical problem or who may have bad genes which really shouldn't be passed on. You also don't want the fact that you've been careful to stay as healthy as possible to turn you into a preferred donor either - that could drive people to live unhealthy lives as it might be safer to risk being someone who needs a transplant than to be a good organ donor. However, if people's own morality is taken into account, it would serve someone right if they were used in this way if they've spent their life abusing others. As with all other moral issues, you have to identify as many factors as possible and then weight them appropriately so that the best outcome is more likely to be produced. A lot of the data needed to make ideal decisions isn't available yet though - it would take a lot of studying to find out how people feel in such situations and afterwards so that the total amount of harm can be counted up.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/11/2018 21:28:51
Since universal moral standard concerns about long term results, it would take a lot of factor to calculate, which might not make it practical. Bad results might come before the decision is made due to long duration of the calculation, and the factors influencing the calculation might have change before the calculation is complete.
Hence we need to create shortcut, rule of thumb, or hash table to deal with frequently occurring situations. They must be reasonably easy to calculate and work in most cases.
That's correct. When machines calculate the best course of action, they will apply all the most important factors in order of importance, getting better answers after each factor has been factored in, so when it reaches the point where they have to act, they'll do the best they can in the time available. It's harder for people to process the data in that way, but they will still have to make rapid decisions in many cases and will likely make a lot of bad decisions. If a set of simple rules can improve their performance, those rules should be used even if they're far from ideal. Different individuals should maybe have their own set of rules designed for them by intelligent machines, modifying them over time as they gain in experience, and as their mental powers decline too. AGI (the artificial general intelligence in future machines) will be able to design all those rules for individual people, so it isn't something we need to do directly - the important task for us is to make sure AGI is able to calculate morality correctly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2018 11:39:59
Thanks for contributing to this discussion. I agree with most of your post above, so I'll try to identify where we split opinions. It's likely that we took different assumptions.Let's assume that there are no uncertainty about all of those assumptions. At a glance, it seems to be obvious that the doctor should kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives.
No it doesn't - it is immediately obvious that one of the ill people can be sacrificed instead. However, you can introduce more information to rule that out - the healthy traveller's organs are compatible with all the others, but none of the others are compatible with each other. We now have a restored dilemma in which killing one person saves more. (This ignores organ rejection and decline - most transplanted hearts will fail within a decade, for example, but let's imagine that there's no such problem.
One of the important factors here is that no one wants to live in a world where they could be killed in such a way to save the lives of ill people (who wouldn't want to be saved in such a way either) - it's bad enough that you could die in accidents caused by factors outside of anyone's control, but you don't want to live in fear that you'll be selected for death to mend other people who may be to blame for their own medical problem or who may have bad genes which really shouldn't be passed on. You also don't want the fact that you've been careful to stay as healthy as possible to turn you into a preferred donor either - that could drive people to live unhealthy lives as it might be safer to risk being someone who needs a transplant than to be a good organ donor. However, if people's own morality is taken into account, it would serve someone right if they were used in this way if they've spent their life abusing others. As with all other moral issues, you have to identify as many factors as possible and then weight them appropriately so that the best outcome is more likely to be produced. A lot of the data needed to make ideal decisions isn't available yet though - it would take a lot of studying to find out how people feel in such situations and afterwards so that the total amount of harm can be counted up.
That's why I opened the statements you quoted by removing uncertainty of the assumptions, and started the second sentence with "at a glance". Of course the decision might change when the assumptions are changed.
Apparently you reject the equality of life expectancy.
I admit that when proposing to sacrifice the ill people, I omitted the possibility that none of them is compatible with each other. That's because I considered that organ rejections are caused by immune system due to mismatched gene. Hence I made a hidden assumption that since the traveler's organs are compatible with all of those ill people, their organs are compatible with each other. The proposed plan is preferred because no one ends up worse than no action.
I only wanted to emphasize that we should be open minded and try to think out of the box to get the best results with minimum negative impact. Perhaps with future technology of 3D printed organs we would no longer have to deal with this kind of dilemma any more.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2018 12:22:05
Since universal moral standard concerns about long term results, it would take a lot of factor to calculate, which might not make it practical. Bad results might come before the decision is made due to long duration of the calculation, and the factors influencing the calculation might have change before the calculation is complete. Hence we need to create shortcut, rule of thumb, or hash table to deal with frequently occurring situations. They must be reasonably easy to calculate and work in most cases. Their applications should align with the spirit of universal moral standard. This comparison might be made retrospectively when the decision has already been made before the calculation based on universal moral standard is finished. When they are in conflict, some exception should be made to the application of those shortcut rules.Biological evolution has provide us with a basic and simple shortcut rule, which is to avoid pain. This can be done through reflex which is very fast since it doesn't involve central nervous system. A little bit more complex rules are our instinct to seek for pleasure and to avoid suffering. I think hedonism and utilitarian are confusing the tool with the goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/11/2018 19:08:25
Post by: David Cooper on 21/11/2018 20:15:17
Biological evolution has provide us with a basic and simple shortcut rule, which is to avoid pain. This can be done through reflex which is very fast since it doesn't involve central nervous system. A little bit more complex rules are our instinct to seek for pleasure and to avoid suffering. I think hedonism and utilitarian are confusing the tool with the goal.
I can't follow that. What's the tool there and what's the goal?
Post by: David Cooper on 21/11/2018 20:23:02
The mathematical resolution of the simplest trlley problem assumes that your universal moral standard is to maximise the number of live humans. Since this will inevitably lead to the starvation of our descendants, it is a questionable basis for ethics.
The assumption is that saving more people is better. That's quite different from saying that there should be more and more people until everyone starves. For your objection to be relevant, you'd have to set the trolley problem in a place where people are starving and a cull would be a good idea, but you'd want that cull to take out the most immoral people rather than people who have likely been tied to a track by the most immoral person. So, you minimise the number of people killed by the trolley, then you count how many people still need to be culled and you take out that number of the most immoral ones.
The only place I've heard the idea that we should maximise the number of live humans even if that leads to them all being right on the edge of starvation is with the Mere Addition Paradox, but that paradox contains a major mathematical error which renders it a pile of nonsense.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2018 06:06:07
The mathematical resolution of the simplest trlley problem assumes that your universal moral standard is to maximise the number of live humans. Since this will inevitably lead to the starvation of our descendants, it is a questionable basis for ethics.A lot of disputes may arise if we don't agree with the scope of the subject of discussion. I've stated that universal moral standard is not limited as narrow as the existence of human beings, as long as there are conscious beings. It should have been in place before modern human exist, and it should still be in place when human has evolved into other species. as long as there exist conscious beings.
Universal moral standard concerned with the result in the long run, which means it covers an extended time scale.
If we have 10 billion people living happily in 1 generation but then go extinct in the next generation, it doesn't fulfill the goal of universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2018 08:01:56
The goal is what is preferred in the long run. The rules used as the shortcut is the tool.Biological evolution has provide us with a basic and simple shortcut rule, which is to avoid pain. This can be done through reflex which is very fast since it doesn't involve central nervous system. A little bit more complex rules are our instinct to seek for pleasure and to avoid suffering. I think hedonism and utilitarian are confusing the tool with the goal.
I can't follow that. What's the tool there and what's the goal?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2018 08:37:41
The consequence of "saving more people" as an ethical axiom is visible in a developed society where the National Health Service and HM Prison Service are forced by the courts to expend resources extending the lives of people who want to die, and in less developed countries where public health and tradition have increased the population to the point that it cannot be sustained by an inherently marginal agriculture.
"Do as you would be done by" looks like a more generally applicable motto, but the fact that it can't be applied to the trolley problem suggests that there may not be a single universal moral standard. And here's where my thinking became suddenly heretical and digressive:
In the absence of a universal principle, we often choose an arbitrary standard. "The man on the Clapham omnibus" serves for many legal questions but some people revert to a single figure and ask "what would Jesus do?" Sitting here, my first thought was "well, he wouldn't eat pork" (I've been refereeing a medical experiment that involves eating a standard fatty meal)...and then (apropos lemmings, I suppose) I wondered about the Gadarene swine. Who was herding pigs in Israel?
Anyway, returning to the relative value question, I had a fine example of this in my days in Civil Defence. An enthusiastic young lecturer from the Home Office was explaining post-nuclear-strike policy to our village command. The obvious priority, he said, was to feed and protect the elderly, pregnant women, and children. My boss, who had actually led his artillery regiment in conflict, said that with at least 60% of the population dead or dying and an imminent threat of invasion, his priority was to feed and protect men aged 16 - 60 who could dig graves and fight. "With any luck, we will survive to make children and pensioners later, but the converse is impossible".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2018 13:18:02
No matter what the species or timescale, if maximisation of the number of living organisms is the prime objective and it has the unfettered capacity to maximise, it will eventually run out of food or poison itself with its own excrement. Never mind humans, you can observe the endpoint with lemmings and yeast (which is why wine never exceeds 20% alcohol).I think you might want to revisit my answer to the what, who, when, where, why, and how questions about morality in post #9, #18, #29, #30, #33,#35, #39, #40, #41, #45 - $48.
Post by: David Cooper on 22/11/2018 19:55:43
The goal is what is preferred in the long run. The rules used as the shortcut is the tool.Biological evolution has provide us with a basic and simple shortcut rule, which is to avoid pain. This can be done through reflex which is very fast since it doesn't involve central nervous system. A little bit more complex rules are our instinct to seek for pleasure and to avoid suffering. I think hedonism and utilitarian are confusing the tool with the goal.
I can't follow that. What's the tool there and what's the goal?
So when you say utilitarianism is is confusing the tool with the goal, how is it confusing a shortcut with what's preferred in the long run? Where's the incompatibility between the two?
Post by: David Cooper on 22/11/2018 20:20:16
No matter what the species or timescale, if maximisation of the number of living organisms is the prime objective and it has the unfettered capacity to maximise, it will eventually run out of food or poison itself with its own excrement. Never mind humans, you can observe the endpoint with lemmings and yeast (which is why wine never exceeds 20% alcohol).
If you've got things set up properly, everything works in cycles: composting toilets convert the worst kind of waste into beautiful soil for growing new food in - it all works fine so long as the sun's putting energy in. That kind of requirement has to govern the maximising of the population so that you don't get to a point where everyone drowns in sewage. It's about reaching a maximum stable population so that you don't end up like animals where they go through repeated population crashes as the food supply fluctuates. Of course, maximising a stable population isn't idea either if that reduces quality of life due to lack of other resources which can be essential for well-being, such as living in a pleasant environment rather than all being crammed together in filthy towns.
Quote
"Do as you would be done by" looks like a more generally applicable motto, but the fact that it can't be applied to the trolley problem suggests that there may not be a single universal moral standard. And here's where my thinking became suddenly heretical and digressive:
Who says it can't be applied to the trolley problem? Of course it can. If you're one of the people tied to the track, you want the person to make the trolley go the other way, and if you're the one by the lever, you want to make the trolley go the other way for the person tied to the track. You can either let down one person or five, so your moral duty is to let down one rather than five.
Quote
In the absence of a universal principle, we often choose an arbitrary standard. "The man on the Clapham omnibus" serves for many legal questions but some people revert to a single figure and ask "what would Jesus do?" Sitting here, my first thought was "well, he wouldn't eat pork" (I've been refereeing a medical experiment that involves eating a standard fatty meal)...and then (apropos lemmings, I suppose) I wondered about the Gadarene swine. Who was herding pigs in Israel?
The problem we have is not in finding the universal principle, but in getting stupid people to recognise that they should be accepting it. Many people only respect authority as they're incapable of thinking for themselves, but we have lots of fake authorities. That messes everything up, and it causes all manner of conflicts and other abuses. Religions and faulty ideologies are the main barrier to progress.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/11/2018 10:32:33
To answer your question, I need first to continue my assertion about progress of increasing complexity of shortcut rules provided by biological evolution. With increasing complexity, more factors can be included in the calculation to generate actionable output. More complex rules can accommodate more steps into the future and at some point, they appear as planned actions.The goal is what is preferred in the long run. The rules used as the shortcut is the tool.Biological evolution has provide us with a basic and simple shortcut rule, which is to avoid pain. This can be done through reflex which is very fast since it doesn't involve central nervous system. A little bit more complex rules are our instinct to seek for pleasure and to avoid suffering. I think hedonism and utilitarian are confusing the tool with the goal.
I can't follow that. What's the tool there and what's the goal?
So when you say utilitarianism is is confusing the tool with the goal, how is it confusing a shortcut with what's preferred in the long run? Where's the incompatibility between the two?
We can put some milestones in the continuum of complexity of shortcut rules. The next step from instinct is emotion. Emotion includes anticipation of near future events. We can feel sad/happy/fear/angry before events which potentially cause pleasure/pain actually happens.
Post by: jimbobghost on 28/11/2018 01:13:29
I hoped to find an answer to the question.
unfortunately, I must answer the problem with a simple conclusion:
no, there is no "universal moral standard".
there can never be a "universal moral standard" until every sentient species in the universe agrees upon the standard of the combined species.
sorry.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/11/2018 20:45:12
unfortunately, I must answer the problem with a simple conclusion:
no, there is no "universal moral standard".
there can never be a "universal moral standard" until every sentient species in the universe agrees upon the standard of the combined species.
They don't need to agree on it - correct morality can be imposed on them regardless, and will be. If you have to live the life of a human, a dog, an alien and a cat, and if all four of these animals cross paths in some way, their interactions can be guided by a simple method. How should you as the human treat the others? How should you as the alien treat the others? As the dog and the cat, you won't have the wit to work out how to treat the others morally, but as the human and alien, you can. An AGI system can work out what's best for the dog and the cat to do too, so it can intervene to protect them from each other, just as the human and alien can intervene. Because you are to imagine living all four lives, you don't want the alien to enslave the human because you will gain less from that as an alien than you lose as the human. You don't want the dog to kill and eat the cat either for the same reason, and it doesn't matter that they can't understand morality.
Post by: jimbobghost on 28/11/2018 21:04:02
as always, your wisdom is awesome.
pardon me if I inject a bit of humor here:
what do you have against eating pussies?
Post by: David Cooper on 29/11/2018 19:28:08
what do you have against eating pussies?
Roof rabbits (cats) certainly have their place in times of war when food's short, but if someone fancies a bit of ***** (edit: crikey - it doesn't like the singular of pussies!) at other times, they really need to identify the owner and enter careful negotiations with them.
(Test: beaver...)
Post by: jimbobghost on 29/11/2018 21:33:09
I have been impressed with the latitude allowed herein.
Post by: Colin2B on 29/11/2018 22:49:23
[(edit: crikey - it doesn't like the singular of pussies!)*****
Ha! You’re right!! It must be something built into the SMF system.
Post by: ATMD on 01/12/2018 23:21:51
I believe in the laws of karma.
Post by: jimbobghost on 01/12/2018 23:24:30
I do not...why do they keep following me? :)
Post by: ATMD on 01/12/2018 23:33:42
"I believe in the laws of karma."
I do not...why do they keep following me? :)
Hahaha
Post by: ATMD on 02/12/2018 00:29:33
The "golden rule" is subject to sampling error.
It is fairly obvious that a "family" group (could be a biological family or a temporary unit like a ship's crew) will function better if its members can trust each other. The military understand this: selection for specialist duties includes checks for honesty and recognition that you are fighting for your mates first, your country second. So the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" (GHGN) metric is fairly easy to determine where N < 50, say.
Brexit provides a fine example of the breakdown of GHGN for very large N. There is no doubt that a customs union is good for business: whether you are an importer or an exporter, N is small and fewer rules and tariffs means more profit . But if the nation as a whole (N is large) imports more than it exports, increased business flow overall means more loss, hence devaluation and reduced public budgets. At its simplest, you could model a trading nation as consisting of just two businesses of roughly equal size and turnover Nimp ≈ Nexp. Good news for any sample of size ≤ 2N is bad news for the whole population if Nimp > Nexp by even a small amount, hence the interesting conundrum "EU good for British business, bad for Britain".
I see nothing wrong with the Golden Rule. A business operates on profit making rather than morality, if it does not profit, it ceases to be a business over time. It is for everyone's best interest that a business can continue to serve its customers. Otherwise, where are the customers going to get their goods and services? Customers have to be willing to give profits to businesses as incentive to keep them operating.
Premise 1: As a seller I want to maximize profit.
Premise 2: As a buyer, I want to minimize the seller's profit (pay the lowest price).
Let's look at the Golden Rule when applied to business.
If we follow this rule to its full extent, the seller would want to give as much discount to the buyer as possible (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the buyer). Conversely, the buyer would not ask for a single discount (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the seller)
When the golden rule is applied, both of these actions cancel themselves out.
In the sampling error illustration, the nation exporting to Britain receives the surplus profits. Yes Britain incurs a trade deficit, but this trade deficit is exactly offset by the trade surplus of the other country. There is no change in the system, simply an aggregate flow of money from Britain to the exporting nation. The trade deficit is comparable to the profit that we as buyers are willing to give sellers so that they would continue to operate and provide us the goods and services that we need.
Post by: jimbobghost on 02/12/2018 02:31:29
how do you see a socialists view of the Golden Rule? do you think it is variance to that of a capitalist?
Post by: ATMD on 02/12/2018 03:15:07
In a hypothetical world, a capitalist can be an absolutely moral person who respects the golden rule. He does not cheat, lie, or engage in dubious practices to take advantage of his customers. He asks a certain amount of profit to continue operating, and does not get greedy by cutting corners to get more profit. The consumer, out of his own interest, wants to support the capitalist by giving him exactly the profit that he asks for, so that the capitalist would continue providing the goods and services that he needs. The capitalist, by asking for a profit, is not breaking the Golden Rule at all. Profit gives him motivation and incentive to work hard. Without it, no goods or services are produced, both the capitalist and the consumer loses out. Profit creates a win-win situation, and the golden rule is respected.
This is of course easy to say, but extremely difficult to practice. In our world we almost equate capitalism with greed for money and power. The capitalist wants to earn more and more, never being satisfied with what he's got. His business ethics are out of his own self-interest rather than based on the golden rule. It is good for business when it has a reputation for being honest and engages in best practices. Customer complaints and lawsuits are bad for business. Profit making becomes number one priority, and the golden rule is nowhere in the equation.
Post by: jimbobghost on 02/12/2018 03:22:38
but you did not give the socialist's view of the golden rule...it seems to me it would be different.
Post by: ATMD on 02/12/2018 03:53:16
an excellent view of the golden rule from the capitalist's view.
but you did not give the socialist's view of the golden rule...it seems to me it would be different.
You are absolutely right. Of course it is different, socialism completely embraces the golden rule. I think it is much more difficult to defend capitalism in the name of the golden rule. Socialism stresses more on equality of distribution of resources, something that capitalism does not care about. Socialism ensures that even the weak and the poor are taken care of, capitalism stresses on competition and survival of the fittest.
Post by: jimbobghost on 02/12/2018 18:49:16
thank you for your well stated comments.
i do not wish to push your patience with a follow up question...but because this topic involves morality, may i ask:
in a just world, in which morality (of the "good" kind) serves the greater of the people; and socialism follows more of a philosopy of "Due unto others" (IOW those with the most should share evenly with those with the least)...how is it that the richest (i.e. capitalist) countries are thriving, while socialist societies around the world are finding their people fleeing to find help from the wealthiest capitalist societies?
might it be that God's morality dictates that the poor should serve the wealthy?
Post by: David Cooper on 02/12/2018 22:17:47
Post by: jimbobghost on 02/12/2018 22:49:40
David,
your wit and wisdom are noted :)
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2018 23:52:23
There has been a lot of confusion here between socialism and a command economy - by no means synonymous. The essence of socialism is "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". Provided that your tax system is fair and not a disincentive, and your benefit system meets all and only basic needs, you can rely on most people's desire for acquisition and comfort to propel a very pleasant and sustainable society, as in Scandinavia.
Things go wrong when the state dictates rather than provides. Committees are fairly good at responding to demand, but not at predicting it, nor at innovating solutions or changing direction when things go wrong. The best disasters occur when the product must be presented to the dictator on a fixed date - prototype planes fall out of the sky and unripe corn is harvested to meet the command target, where in a less centralised society a test pilot or farmer can say "let's give it another week" and the shareholders realise that a duff product won't sell in a free market. Common sense (usually) prevails in our constitutional monarchy, where the "official opening date" is rarely set before the actual service commences.
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 00:16:00
Alan,
difinitely sounds superior to our normal processes in the USA.
here, leaders pronounce accomplishments long before they are possible, i.e. "we will build a wall" or "i will drain the swamp", or "we will send a man to the moon", or "we will rebuild Europe".
even our private companies are prone to such declarations "there will be a new model of Tesla", or "GE will show greater profitability".
sigh...such are the weaknesses of dreamers.
Post by: ATMD on 03/12/2018 23:02:40
ATMD,
thank you for your well stated comments.
i do not wish to push your patience with a follow up question...but because this topic involves morality, may i ask:
in a just world, in which morality (of the "good" kind) serves the greater of the people; and socialism follows more of a philosopy of "Due unto others" (IOW those with the most should share evenly with those with the least)...how is it that the richest (i.e. capitalist) countries are thriving, while socialist societies around the world are finding their people fleeing to find help from the wealthiest capitalist societies?
might it be that God's morality dictates that the poor should serve the wealthy?
There is currently no true socialist country in existence though, I wish there were some to show us at least how it would fare economically. The "socialist" countries that are economically poor are pure dictatorships, the complete opposite of socialist values.
Like Alancalverd mentioned, the Scandinavian countries and Finland (not a Scandinavian country but a socialist country to a high degree) are quite well off economically, and they rank among the highest in terms of human welfare.
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 23:11:03
however, potentially the most successful form of governance in small countries might be a benevolent dictatorship.
Post by: ATMD on 03/12/2018 23:16:51
"God's morality" dictates whatever you want it to dictate. That is the reason for inventing gods.
According to many theological doctrines, God's morality is absolute, it is not subjective. It is based on love, honesty, compassion and all the "good" values etc. It is the complete opposite of murdering, lying, stealing etc.
Post by: jimbobghost on 03/12/2018 23:31:55
my major concern is that the religious doctrines handed down to modern day people were written originally by superstitious people and modified/altered over time; so that to my thinking they are pretty much unreliable as a guide.
Post by: ATMD on 03/12/2018 23:45:40
if religious belief gives someone comfort, I am happy for them.
my major concern is that the religious doctrines handed down to modern day people were written originally by superstitious people and modified/altered over time; so that to my thinking they are pretty much unreliable as a guide.
You are right again, religious doctrine (such as the bible) is not an evidence of God nor a reliable guide. It is unfortunate that our current understanding of God is based on the knowledge from institutional doctrines. With such understanding, it is no wonder that the belief in God is seen as an act of ignorance or gullibility.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/12/2018 20:55:13
Post by: jimbobghost on 07/12/2018 03:56:56
the migrants now stranded at the southern USA border came from socialist countries. they saw the failures of the system, and might establish rules that overcome it's weaknesses.
should the international community (perhaps as presently identifiable as the UN) deed a land area somewhere on the globe for the settlement of these migrants; there would be the opportunity for them to establish a new order of Socialism.
such a new order would be free of former corrupt leaders, and perhaps then be able to prove that socialism is a workable form of governance. perhaps Marx was right...what say people; should we give socialism just one more chance to prove it's viability?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2018 07:02:57
Golden rule relies on the assumption that both parties are rational agents with compatible preferences. It doesn't work when the assumption isn't fulfilled, such as one sided love.The "golden rule" is subject to sampling error.
It is fairly obvious that a "family" group (could be a biological family or a temporary unit like a ship's crew) will function better if its members can trust each other. The military understand this: selection for specialist duties includes checks for honesty and recognition that you are fighting for your mates first, your country second. So the "greatest happiness for the greatest number" (GHGN) metric is fairly easy to determine where N < 50, say.
Brexit provides a fine example of the breakdown of GHGN for very large N. There is no doubt that a customs union is good for business: whether you are an importer or an exporter, N is small and fewer rules and tariffs means more profit . But if the nation as a whole (N is large) imports more than it exports, increased business flow overall means more loss, hence devaluation and reduced public budgets. At its simplest, you could model a trading nation as consisting of just two businesses of roughly equal size and turnover Nimp ≈ Nexp. Good news for any sample of size ≤ 2N is bad news for the whole population if Nimp > Nexp by even a small amount, hence the interesting conundrum "EU good for British business, bad for Britain".
I see nothing wrong with the Golden Rule. A business operates on profit making rather than morality, if it does not profit, it ceases to be a business over time. It is for everyone's best interest that a business can continue to serve its customers. Otherwise, where are the customers going to get their goods and services? Customers have to be willing to give profits to businesses as incentive to keep them operating.
Premise 1: As a seller I want to maximize profit.
Premise 2: As a buyer, I want to minimize the seller's profit (pay the lowest price).
Let's look at the Golden Rule when applied to business.
If we follow this rule to its full extent, the seller would want to give as much discount to the buyer as possible (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the buyer). Conversely, the buyer would not ask for a single discount (because that would be what he would have wanted if he were the seller)
When the golden rule is applied, both of these actions cancel themselves out.
In the sampling error illustration, the nation exporting to Britain receives the surplus profits. Yes Britain incurs a trade deficit, but this trade deficit is exactly offset by the trade surplus of the other country. There is no change in the system, simply an aggregate flow of money from Britain to the exporting nation. The trade deficit is comparable to the profit that we as buyers are willing to give sellers so that they would continue to operate and provide us the goods and services that we need.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2018 07:09:17
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2018 07:49:06
This is quite different from socialist states where essential public services and primary industries are tax-funded or part-owned by the government. It would be difficult to class any part of Scandinavia or indeed most of western Europe as non-viable: trains run cheaply, on time, and nobody is bankrupted by medical bills; but if you have an urge to make handbags or space rockets, or grow exotic mushrooms, you can sell shares in your dream and have a go at anything you like.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2018 08:17:58
We can put some milestones in the continuum of complexity of shortcut rules. The next step from instinct is emotion. Emotion includes anticipation of near future events. We can feel sad/happy/fear/angry before events which potentially cause pleasure/pain actually happens.The next steps from emotion are thoughtful actions, which require the systems to simulate their environments in their internal memory, and then choose the action based on the most preferred calculated result. More complex systems allow for more reliable results due to better precision and accuracy of the models in their memory, incorporating more factors, wider range in space and time. They can plan their actions to get best result further into the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2018 14:40:29
Moral rules themselves are strategies to protect conscient beings from destructive actions by other conscient beings. It's part of multilayer protection strategy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2018 15:24:07
The progress of increasing complexity can be seen in development of human from fetus into an adult. Fetuses only have reflex. Babies have developed instincts. Toddlers may have shown emotions. Little kids can have planned actions for the results a few days ahead. Older kids can make longer term plans, perhaps into the next few years. Adult humans can have plan for the next decades. Wise men may have plans for the next centuries or millennia.We can put some milestones in the continuum of complexity of shortcut rules. The next step from instinct is emotion. Emotion includes anticipation of near future events. We can feel sad/happy/fear/angry before events which potentially cause pleasure/pain actually happens.The next steps from emotion are thoughtful actions, which require the systems to simulate their environments in their internal memory, and then choose the action based on the most preferred calculated result. More complex systems allow for more reliable results due to better precision and accuracy of the models in their memory, incorporating more factors, wider range in space and time. They can plan their actions to get best result further into the future.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/12/2018 20:26:00
the migrants now stranded at the southern USA border came from socialist countries. they saw the failures of the system, and might establish rules that overcome it's weaknesses.
They actually come from countries which were run for many decades by fascist dictatorships propped up by the US, and it's only in recent times that some of them have experimented with socialism, but the leaders of those experiments were seriously unhinged opponents of the old regimes who sought to take things to another extreme out of hatred for the previous rulers. Worse though, they've been up against more political interference in the form of a counter-productive war on drugs which has put so many guns in the hands of gangs that the police aren't in control of anything - all they do is spend their time avoiding being gunned down. That has led to the chaos from which refugees are fleeing, and none of them are experts in responsible socialism.
Post by: jimbobghost on 07/12/2018 20:41:21
David,
perhaps they might avail themselves of the guidance of such notable socialists as George Soros, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and the wide range of politically knowledgeable actors in Hollywood who have frequently voiced their views.
Post by: ATMD on 08/12/2018 11:26:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2018 12:13:39
I love George Carlin, he is considered as one of the best comedians of all timeI agree. Though some of his materials are considered too dark for pc culture people.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2018 12:20:57
morality tests such as trolley problem is used to sort priorities of moral rules based on which action leads to the more preferable conditions.Unfortunately though that most social experiments involving trolley problem or its variants don't produce scientifically objective conclusion on which option is considered morally correct. They merely mention which one is chosen by most respondents, which may give different result when asked to different population samples at different time. It's also unclear which moral values are represented by each option.
Moral rules themselves are strategies to protect conscient beings from destructive actions by other conscient beings. It's part of multilayer protection strategy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2018 21:39:49
Moral rules can't be applied to fetuses or babies, since they lack of thoughtful action capability. Any damages caused by their action/inaction are not their fault.The progress of increasing complexity can be seen in development of human from fetus into an adult. Fetuses only have reflex. Babies have developed instincts. Toddlers may have shown emotions. Little kids can have planned actions for the results a few days ahead. Older kids can make longer term plans, perhaps into the next few years. Adult humans can have plan for the next decades. Wise men may have plans for the next centuries or millennia.We can put some milestones in the continuum of complexity of shortcut rules. The next step from instinct is emotion. Emotion includes anticipation of near future events. We can feel sad/happy/fear/angry before events which potentially cause pleasure/pain actually happens.The next steps from emotion are thoughtful actions, which require the systems to simulate their environments in their internal memory, and then choose the action based on the most preferred calculated result. More complex systems allow for more reliable results due to better precision and accuracy of the models in their memory, incorporating more factors, wider range in space and time. They can plan their actions to get best result further into the future.
An extremely simplified moral rules might be applied to toddlers, although they are usually meant to protect themselves or perhaps their younger siblings. Damages due to their actions are not considered to be their fault. Instead they are under responsibility of their carer who created a situation that lead to those damages.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2018 23:20:16
Some cultures even deviced make up stories to make them obey the make up rules, based on more primitive reward and punishment system related to emotion and instinct.
Some examples are ghost stories to prevent kids from going to dangerous places, fairy tales, santa clause that give rewards to well behaved kids.
Reward and punishment system applied by parents to their kids are extension of internal rewards and punishment system already incorporated in kids' nervous system, which is pain and pleasure. They can increase the chance for survival of the kids. The extension can increase the scope of calculation of cause and effects for the benefits of the kids beyond their current capabilities to process information.
This external system requires external agents to implement it by observing kids' behavior and actively giving rewards and punishment consistently according to some simple rules that have been setup and communicated to the kids. Since parents can't observe kids behavior all the time, some fictional characters might be made up to make kids feel like in continuous surveillance and behave accordingly despite their parents' absence.
Some society leaders observed that those fictional characters still works even for adults, especially the less sophisticated ones. More intelligent people may play along just to avoid troubles. Religions and cults may arise from that.
Post by: jimbobghost on 14/12/2018 17:29:20
I have long held that religions and cults are synonymous. religious beliefs start out as "cults", and if they survive condemnation and persecution, eventually are accepted as "religions".
belief that a man could rise from the dead, getting "clear" by paying large sums, or receiving knowledge from scrolls readable only with magic spectacles, were at the beginning of their creation, considered cults.
now, many accept them as true religions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2018 11:04:18
"Religions and cults may arise from that."This video shows the difference between cult and religion with some examples.
I have long held that religions and cults are synonymous. religious beliefs start out as "cults", and if they survive condemnation and persecution, eventually are accepted as "religions".
belief that a man could rise from the dead, getting "clear" by paying large sums, or receiving knowledge from scrolls readable only with magic spectacles, were at the beginning of their creation, considered cults.
now, many accept them as true religions.
Spoiler: show
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2019 21:09:25
I'd like to share this entertaining take on moral rules. I hope you enjoy this. George Carlin - 10 CommandmentsCarlin's first commandment about honesty works most of the time, but it has limiting conditions. We should not be honest when communicating with someone doing immoral things, such as a mass shooter asking about people's hiding places, or how to fix a jamming gun. This means that there are moral rules with higher priority than honesty.
Apart from the exception above, there must be some positive value of honesty to make it widely accepted as a moral guidance.
Similar limit also applies to the second commandment about not to kill someone. Most people agree that there are exceptions to this rule, but disagreements still arise on what moral rules with higher priority are followed to make those exceptions. Frequently debated exceptions to killing someone are death penalty, euthanasia, abortion, war, self defense, public safety. Trolley problems as discussed in previous posts are also related to this rule.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2019 06:59:26
Apart from the exception above, there must be some positive value of honesty to make it widely accepted as a moral guidance.In normal situations, being honest is the simplest way of communication. Dishonesty requires additional steps of information process.
Basically, dishonesty is an active effort to make someone to acquire false information, hence making false assumptions, which in turn making them to get different result than their expectation, in favor of the dishonest people. Honest communication can make useful information to be shared among society members, hence helping them to make plans and carry out actions to achieve their goals. Dishonesty can cancel out that advantage, may even turn the communication into a disadvantage compared to no communication at all.
Dishonesty can be revealed through investigations, but they require resources in the form of time and efforts. Hence at least, honesty can save resource to be used in other means to achieve collective goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2019 11:18:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2019 08:37:39
life is preferred to death, health is preferred to sickness, and happiness is preferred to sufferingSome questions naturally raises from those foundations of well being. Is there a priority among them? Which one has the highest priority? which is the lowest? how to determine that (what is the rule/criteria)? Is there any exception to that rule?
What if those foundations are compared against other moral rules currently applied in societies, such as golden rule, honesty, life preservation, justice, equality, fairness, kindness, love, altruism, utilitarianism, humanitarianism, loyalty, obedience, patriotism, nationalism, purity, etc. in dilemmatic situation like the trolley problem? How to determine that a rule can be justifiably violated in order to follow higher priority rules (again, what is the rule/criteria)? Is the preference constant, or it depends on other factors?
Can that criteria be used to evaluate other preferable behaviors which are more rarely related to moral values, such as discipline, diligence, carefulness, consistency, simplicity, courage, curiosity, creativity, cleverness, rationalism, empiricism, skepticism, enthusiasm, open mindedness, civility, politeness, empathy, sensitivity, tolerance, diversity, democracy, etc.?
Post by: David Cooper on 10/01/2019 18:44:26
Thought experiments cut through the waffle, showing which rules fall flat and which remain in play. Once some rules have been rejected in this way, they shouldn't keep being brought back in - they've been debunked already and shouldn't be left on the table.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2019 21:55:30
The best way to explore morality is through thought experiments. Create a scenario and then apply moral rules to it to see if they produce outcomes that feel right (because there are no better alternatives). If they obviously fail that test, they're almost always wrong, but you'll be comparing them with some internalised method of judgement whose rules you don't consciously understand, so what feels right could be wrong. Correct morality depends on thinking the scenario through from the point of view of all the players involved in it in order to be fair to all, and if we consciously use that as our way of calculating morality as well as doing this subconsciously (where we generate a feel for what's right), the two things should be the same and will always match up.Exactly. That's what I'll try to do next in this topic. I'll demonstrate how the universal moral rule that I've proposed previously can be used to answer the questions above.
Thought experiments cut through the waffle, showing which rules fall flat and which remain in play. Once some rules have been rejected in this way, they shouldn't keep being brought back in - they've been debunked already and shouldn't be left on the table.
Hence, instead of using gut feeling, which is subjective, we'll use an objective method.
We can use chess or go games as a comparison for life of conscious beings. Even though the rules and end goals are relatively simple, the practical strategy is extremely complex. The calculation for best strategy in real life is even harder due to its characteristic as non-zero sum game, imperfect information, and involve randomness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/01/2019 21:54:39
If we don't know the ultimate goal, it will be more like getting lost in a foggy forest on relatively flat terrain. We might take a long way in the wrong direction, or make same mistakes several times before we can finally get out, and it will be much less efficient journey.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2019 11:55:28
1. There exists law of causality. Otherwise everything happens randomly, hence there's no point in making plans or responding to anything. In making a plan, a goal must be set, and some rules must be defined to respond to expected situations while executing it, so the goal can be achieved effectively.
2. Moral rules only apply to conscious beings. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being is one of the highest priority moral rules, if not the highest. If someone can propose another moral rule with even higher priority, it is necessary to have at least one conscious being to follow it. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being gets back as the highest priority.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2019 21:59:51
If we follow their logic consistently, the best strategy would include killing babies before they have the ability to make sins, which will make them live happily in heaven for eternity. For religions which acknowledge inherited sins, the killing must be delayed until they are baptised. The killer can then seek for forgiveness.
Fortunately, evolutionary processes have given us instincts to survive. So the scenarios above don't get very far into the mainstream.
Post by: Hadrian on 12/01/2019 22:09:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2019 22:43:40
To me it is a human construct and therefore even if two people agree on some moral issue or other, how each of them see it going to be different. So I think putting a word like universal beside morality etc. is failing to understand what it is in the first place.If you limit the applicability of the moral rules to human only, then of course putting the word universal makes it an oxymoron. Besides, you also have to define the boundaries of humanity itself, which separate human and non-human. Is a homo sapien fetus considered as human? What about other homo species such as Neanderthal and Denisovans? What about their hybrids with homo sapiens like many of us non-African people? What about future descendants of human who colonize Mars and evolve until their DNA no longer compatible with present human?
I have mentioned in the early posts of this topic that disagreements can arise even when all parties agree on the ultimate goal and universal standard. This is due to uncertainty of the future and imperfect information to calculate the best strategy to achieve the goal, which force us to rely on bayesian inference.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 09:24:51
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 10:09:16
They can be seen as stepping stones or scaffoldings to give us a chance to exist. Perhaps our successors will see us the same way.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 10:37:25
Learning from human experience has advantages by discarding most of ineffective moves, hence the calculation to get best strategy can be done efficiently. But there is a drawback: it can miss some moves that don't seem to give advantages until far into the next steps of the game, beyond the calculation capability of human brains.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 15:38:05
I'll recap my assertion into following points:3. We should evaluate action/decision based on their effect to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal. Due to imperfect information that we have and uncertainty of the far future, we may not be able to finish complete calculation in time. That's why we need rule of thumb, shortcut or simplified calculation to speed up the result while mostly produce correct answers. Hence the calculation output will take the form of probability or likelyhood.
1. There exists law of causality. Otherwise everything happens randomly, hence there's no point in making plans or responding to anything. In making a plan, a goal must be set, and some rules must be defined to respond to expected situations while executing it, so the goal can be achieved effectively.
2. Moral rules only apply to conscious beings. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being is one of the highest priority moral rules, if not the highest. If someone can propose another moral rule with even higher priority, it is necessary to have at least one conscious being to follow it. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being gets back as the highest priority.
4. The moral calculation should be done using scientific method, which is objective, reliable, and self correcting when new information is available. Good intentions when done in the wrong way will give us unintended results.
Post by: David Cooper on 13/01/2019 20:44:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 22:18:08
There is no special form of morality for humans - morality, when done correctly, is universal, applying to animals, aliens and to all sentient things. Any attempt to define morality which excludes some sentient things because they don't fit the rules of that system is wrong, as is any attempt that has a bias towards humans.That's what I'm trying to prove here. Thanks for your contributions in this discussion. Critical thinkers like you are what I need to help me build a convincing argumentation by pointing out errors, uncover my blind spots, proposing possible alternatives and providing valuable new information.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2019 22:50:36
Post by: alancalverd on 14/01/2019 18:30:00
It's [homo sapiens] currently the only known form of conscious being who is self sustainable.
I thin you are using a very narrow definition of conscious and a very broad definition of self-sustainable. We survive by collaboration and exploitation, and nobody on these boards has ever, to my knowledge, offered a useful definition of "conscious" that excluded any other species of plant or animal.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/01/2019 19:02:50
...nobody on these boards has ever, to my knowledge, offered a useful definition of "conscious" that excluded any other species of plant or animal.
The key thing that matters is sentience, and it isn't certain that plants aren't sentient, or even that rocks aren't - sentience may be a property of all matter, so we should consider them in our system of morality. It's unlikely that we need to worry about the feelings of most matter too much though as it's extremely unlikely that we're doing anything to push it towards greater suffering, so we should worry most about things with brains where mechanisms are likely in place to generate feelings that can lead to suffering if they're triggered in unhelpful ways. We inherited mechanisms involving pain from simpler animals, and it's likely that these mechanisms are in place all the way down to tiny worms - if worms could manage without pain, the odds are that we would never have changed over to a system with extra, unnecessary complexity involving pain. Our default position should be to assume that anything with a brain might be able to suffer, and that things with no brain (like plants) probably don't suffer from being chopped up for the pot.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2019 01:37:10
You're right. It turns out very hard to point out what makes human so special among other life forms which grant them higher priority if morality rules. But still, most people will argue that if a stranger human being and any other life forms are on each side of trolley problem's track, they will choose to save the human. Choosing otherwise will make them branded as immoral.It's [homo sapiens] currently the only known form of conscious being who is self sustainable.
I thin you are using a very narrow definition of conscious and a very broad definition of self-sustainable. We survive by collaboration and exploitation, and nobody on these boards has ever, to my knowledge, offered a useful definition of "conscious" that excluded any other species of plant or animal.
I've tried to describe the continuum of consciousness in post #74 and #104 based on complexity of rules can be followed by a system. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg561788#msg561788
We can compare consciousness among systems by their capability to make plans on time scale.
Continuum of consciousness spans from zero such as in rocks to infinity such as in Laplace's Demon.
Consciousness can even vary within a single individual, from when they were fetus, baby, kids, adult, elderly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2019 11:36:31
Post by: David Cooper on 15/01/2019 20:16:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2019 21:54:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2019 22:27:14
What happens if aliens turn up and apply our moral standards to us with the roles reversed? If we complain about their insistence that they matter and that we don't, they'll just tell us that we're primitive animals because we were stupid enough to consider ourselves to be superior to them, whereas if we hadn't made that mistake, they'd have recognised us as their equals. Getting morality wrong is to sign your own death warrant.High level of consciousness is manifested in the form of wisdom, which includes avoiding unnecessary risks. We should avoid mutual destruction, such as what we felt during cold war.
If the aliens really have high conscious level, they should know the answer to how question to achieve universal ultimate goal. One of them is embracing diversity to avoid common mode of failure. It requires collaboration among various beings, including other intelligent beings.
Humanity itself is a product of collaboration with gut bacteria. All multicellular organisms are product of endosymbiosis. The collaboration will include non-biological system to maximize the probability to achieve the goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2019 23:32:53
Forming packs is nothing unusual. Termites and bees have a hugely structured society that plans ahead. Ants even farm other animals. Warfare between packs is usually rational (wolves defend their hunting territory against other packs) and occasionally irrational (marauding bands of male chimpanzees attack other families for no apparent reason) but only humans kill each other at long range because they think that their chosen enemy worships a different god - or none at all.
The extent to which humans will exert themselves to make poisons like tobacco or methamphetamine, to climb ice-covered rocks, or to jump out of aeroplanes, is unparalleled. The best definition of intelligence is "constructive laziness", and it's a surprisingly rare commodity, whereas its opposite is abundant and even revered as "art" or "philosophy".
Quote
But still, most people will argue that if a stranger human being and any other life forms are on each side of trolley problem's track, they will choose to save the human. Choosing otherwise will make them branded as immoral.The default is to give strangers the benefit of the doubt and, like every other animal, to give preference to our own species in the absence of any other information. But given the choice between Donald Trump and a chicken, I'd save the chicken every time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 03:32:31
What makes humans special is other humans. From the point of view of every other species (except dogs) we are either food, competition for food, or predators. Nothing special. Even dogs have an equivocal attitude: one or two familiar dogs may help you hunt or protect you, but "dog eats baby" is an everyday headline and a hungry pack will happily kill an adult.Forming packs is nothing unusual. Termites and bees have a hugely structured society that plans ahead. Ants even farm other animals. Warfare between packs is usually rational (wolves defend their hunting territory against other packs) and occasionally irrational (marauding bands of male chimpanzees attack other families for no apparent reason) but only humans kill each other at long range because they think that their chosen enemy worships a different god - or none at all.The extent to which humans will exert themselves to make poisons like tobacco or methamphetamine, to climb ice-covered rocks, or to jump out of aeroplanes, is unparalleled. The best definition of intelligence is "constructive laziness", and it's a surprisingly rare commodity, whereas its opposite is abundant and even revered as "art" or "philosophy".Humanity can be seen as successor of our ancestors. If we trace back far enough, they won't be recognized as human. Similarly, our far future successors may not be recognized as human. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings. The gap with the next group is quite significant.
Self preservation is one of important shortcut rule of morality. Due to the advantage of collaboration, the coverage can be expanded to include other beings having the same (or at least, compatible) goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 04:30:00
The default is to give strangers the benefit of the doubt and, like every other animal, to give preference to our own species in the absence of any other information. But given the choice between Donald Trump and a chicken, I'd save the chicken every time.As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings. Hence, preservation of human is inline with the universal moral rule.
More number of human individuals can increase the probability of the achievement of ultimate goal through redundancy, and in lesser extent, diversity as its side effect. But due to economic law of diminishing marginal utility, at some point, increasing the number of human individuals are no longer beneficial to the overall achievement of ultimate goal. In some cases, it can even be beneficial to lower the threshold of death penalty.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2019 08:34:30
As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.Far from it.
If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.
If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.
If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.
The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2019 12:16:19
. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings.
Please define consciousness.If humans represent the highest level of it, then consciousness appears to be defined by a tendency to self-harm, genocide, irrational belief, or the deliberate destruction of food to support market prices.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 21:15:05
So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.Far from it.
If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.
If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.
If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.
The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.
How do you define what's better or worst morally then?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2019 21:31:26
I've mentioned that consciousness is multidimensional. We can make comparison among conscious beings by how far ahead they can make plans or prepare their actions. Other key performance indicators are information processing speed, memory capacity and reliablility, which determine how well their mind represents reality, which in turn determine the success probability of their goal achievements. Their ability to filter incoming information is also important to prevent them from making false assumptions which lead to bad decisions and unexpected results.. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings.
Please define consciousness.If humans represent the highest level of it, then consciousness appears to be defined by a tendency to self-harm, genocide, irrational belief, or the deliberate destruction of food to support market prices.
Humans who destroy their environment don't think very far ahead, hence their consciousness level isn't much higher than other species. Intelligence of smart animals are often compared to that of human children at certain age.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2019 21:56:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2019 11:04:14
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/09/2019 02:41:25
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/09/2019 08:20:48
Post by: David Cooper on 07/09/2019 18:51:39
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2019 23:03:06
You cut both wires at the same time and discover that the rules stated as certainties are actually impossible.In electronic, you can design the priority between those triggers. In RS flip flop, Reset command is dominant, while in SR flip flop, it's the set command. They are called bistable multivibrator.
If you know the configuration used in the bomb, you can be certain what would happen when they are both triggered simultaneously.
Post by: syhprum on 09/09/2019 11:48:37
There are two possibilities the timer is supplying a signal to the detonator that stops it detonating or when the time runs out sends a signal to the detonator to make it explode if you stop the timer you can check which it is.
there is a worrying possibility wires powering the counter also power the don't detonate signal generator so try and find an alternative way to stop the counter !
If the timer is mechanical you could try zapping it with a CO2 fire extinguisher if one is handy , best of luck.
If I was building this device I would incorporate a small battery in the detonator box and make the signal from the timer "don't explode" and use the other wire to prime the device.
You would only have to provide a don't explode signal from the timer and cut the signal from the timer.
I am assuming only DC signals are used if one used AC signals and frequency sensitive detectors it would be a whole new ball game
Post by: David Cooper on 09/09/2019 18:45:45
Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?
The decision will depend on other information. Is the bomb on the top floor or the ground floor? Are there any other people in the building? If this is an office block and it's empty at night, no one sane would snip either wire when they can just run out of there in the two minutes that are available.
However, let's assume the higher floors of the building are full of people who can't possibly get out in two minutes (or even be warned within two minutes), that the bomb is on the ground floor, and the the building will collapse as soon as it blows. There is nothing immoral about not risking your own death in order to have a 50:50 chance of saving lots of other people, so you are entitled to run out of there and let it blow. If AGI is making the decision though, it could lock you in with the bomb so that you don't have a choice - that would be its moral decision. You would then cut one of the wires, randomly selected.
There are some other factors though. If the person who has to run or cut a wire is more valuable to humanity than the sum total worth of all the other people in the building, AGI will not lock him/her in the room, but will order him/her to get out of there and let the building blow. If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.
Post by: Halc on 09/09/2019 19:05:58
Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?
If this topic is about universal morals, then the bomb question has not nearly enough information. Why mess with a device that has a clear purpose? It has not been stated that there is a goal to preserve the building. Maybe the bomb was put there by a demolition crew who was paid to take it down.
Suppose the building is full of puppies. It is a universal law that it is bad to damage something cute, correct? If so, you've already begged your answer. If not, how am I to know what to do with the bomb even if it has a simple 'off' switch available? The universe seems to provide no input for the situation at hand.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/09/2019 10:36:43
Why not try and find the wires powering the timer if that was put out of action a more detailed examination could be made.In this thread I don't want to go too deep into technical details. I think it's adequate to describe cause and effect relationships in the situation to determine which action to take to get the most desired possible result.
There are two possibilities the timer is supplying a signal to the detonator that stops it detonating or when the time runs out sends a signal to the detonator to make it explode if you stop the timer you can check which it is.
there is a worrying possibility wires powering the counter also power the don't detonate signal generator so try and find an alternative way to stop the counter !
If the timer is mechanical you could try zapping it with a CO2 fire extinguisher if one is handy , best of luck.
If I was building this device I would incorporate a small battery in the detonator box and make the signal from the timer "don't explode" and use the other wire to prime the device.
You would only have to provide a don't explode signal from the timer and cut the signal from the timer.
I am assuming only DC signals are used if one used AC signals and frequency sensitive detectors it would be a whole new ball game
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/09/2019 11:11:15
If this topic is about universal morals, then the bomb question has not nearly enough information. Why mess with a device that has a clear purpose? It has not been stated that there is a goal to preserve the building. Maybe the bomb was put there by a demolition crew who was paid to take it down.Yes it is about universal morals. And yes, the situation was designed to show that moral judgement is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
Suppose the building is full of puppies. It is a universal law that it is bad to damage something cute, correct? If so, you've already begged your answer. If not, how am I to know what to do with the bomb even if it has a simple 'off' switch available? The universe seems to provide no input for the situation at hand.
Unfortunately, cuteness is not a universal value. Something cute to someone might be not cute for someone else.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/09/2019 11:22:11
However, let's assume the higher floors of the building are full of people who can't possibly get out in two minutes (or even be warned within two minutes), that the bomb is on the ground floor, and the the building will collapse as soon as it blows. There is nothing immoral about not risking your own death in order to have a 50:50 chance of saving lots of other people, so you are entitled to run out of there and let it blow. If AGI is making the decision though, it could lock you in with the bomb so that you don't have a choice - that would be its moral decision. You would then cut one of the wires, randomly selected.To determine what's the universally most moral action in a particular situation, we need first to determine what's the universal goal we want to achieve, and then calculate and compare the expected results we would get by taking available actions. We should take actions expected to get us closest to the universal goal.
There are some other factors though. If the person who has to run or cut a wire is more valuable to humanity than the sum total worth of all the other people in the building, AGI will not lock him/her in the room, but will order him/her to get out of there and let the building blow. If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.
Someone might have good intention when making a moral decision, but their decision may produce undesired result if it's based on false information, such as swapped wire of the time bomb.
Post by: syhprum on 10/09/2019 19:38:16
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 02:09:59
I was brung up as a technician and find designing bombs more interesting than pondering moral questionsI hope I can entertain you in another thread.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 02:31:21
Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.Let's say that you are the one who built the bomb, hence you know for certain that the premises above are true. Suppose you you designed the detonator as SR flipflop, so when both wires are cut, the bomb will explode immediately. As pointed out by David and Halc, to determine moral judgement for each option, we need to have information about further consequences brought by them. This thread will explore how they can be assessed if all required information is available.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?
Here is some possible scenarios which can bring you to above situation.
- You are hired by a building contractor to destroy an old building so they can build a new one. You just get the date/month wrong, perhaps you and your client used the different format.
- You are a national secret service agent ordered to destroy their enemy's headquarter. You are discovered by enemy guard when you tried to sneak out.
- You are a mercenary hired by a terrorist organization to destroy their enemy's economic center. You are waiting to get payment confirmation.
- You are a voluntary member of a terrorist organization to destroy their enemy's economic center. You are willing to die to execute the job.
Post by: Halc on 11/09/2019 04:15:17
Yes it is about universal morals. And yes, the situation was designed to show that moral judgement is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.Agree with all of this. Suppose we have full knowledge of the situation. We have the uncertainty if you want it, like an even chance that cutting a wire will halt or blow the bomb.
Unfortunately, cuteness is not a universal value. Something cute to someone might be not cute for someone else.
What we don't have is the worth of what we're saving. The universe places no worth on anything. Maybe the building is full of 50 people that would die, or maybe 50 spiders. Are humans worth more than spiders? To humans, sure, but to the universe?
To determine what's the universally most moral action in a particular situation, we need first to determine what's the universal goal we want to achieve, and then calculate and compare the expected results we would get by taking available actions. We should take actions expected to get us closest to the universal goal.Agree with this if a universal goal can be found, but I don't think there are objective goals. I absolutely agree that the goals should be considered first. What's good for one goal is not so good for others. The Catholic church's stance on birth control for example seems designed to bring about the demise of humanity in the shortest possible time. They don't seem to consider long term goals at all, or are counting on forcing God's hand, like that's ever worked.
Quote
Someone might have good intention when making a moral decision, but their decision may produce undesired result if it's based on false information, such as swapped wire of the time bomb.That part seems irrelevant since it cannot be helped. A person cannot be faulted for having good intentions and attempting what seemed best. It seems irrelevant twice because if he chooses to cut no wire, everybody in the building still dies, so the wrong choice just takes out our hero, but nobody else that wasn't already doomed. I think he'd not forgive himself if he didn't try, but only if attempting the disarming was the right thing to do in the first place, and we haven't determined that.
Here is some possible scenarios which can bring you to above situation.In all 4 of these cases, you're taking your orders from your employer. You have a goal, and it isn't a universal one. You do your job. If you work for someone you find immoral, then you know you're helping them do immoral acts. Most terrorists/soldiers don't consider their acts immoral.
- You are hired by a building contractor to destroy an old building so they can build a new one. You just get the date/month wrong, perhaps you and your client used the different format.
- You are a national secret service agent ordered to destroy their enemy's headquarter. You are discovered by enemy guard when you tried to sneak out.
- You are a mercenary hired by a terrorist organization to destroy their enemy's economic center. You are waiting to get payment confirmation.
- You are a voluntary member of a terrorist organization to destroy their enemy's economic center. You are willing to die to execute the job.
Alan (post 2) brought up morals coming from your peers, and all the above are examples of that.
I think we need some examples where your chosen peer group has nothing to say, and you're actually faced with wanting to do the right thing and not what some group to which you belong wants you to do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 06:53:16
I think it can enhance our understanding about morality to enrich our discussion about universal morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 07:05:15
If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.You assumed that the decision maker has the information that Nazis are bad and decide that the universe would be better off without them. Could you show how we could arrive to that conclusion?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 07:31:12
Agree with this if a universal goal can be found, but I don't think there are objective goals. I absolutely agree that the goals should be considered first. What's good for one goal is not so good for others.That's what this thread was started for in the first place. I have tried to find one by simply answering basic questions about morality (what, who, where, when, why, how) in my previous posts.
Perhaps the term objective morality is a bit oxymoron because the word objective implies independence from point of view, while morality can only apply to conscious beings who has exceeded certain consciousness level or mental capacity.
An event can be evaluated as objectively true or false even when the subject has no mental capacity, for example when some comets hit Jupiter. An action can not be judged to be morally wrong when the subject doesn't have the adequate mental capacity to differentiate between right and wrong things (which means they can simulate their available actions and estimate and compare the expected results/consequences, then choose the action which gives most desired expected result) for example when a malaria ridden mosquito bites a human toddler. You can pee and show your genital in public without being judged as immoral if you are a baby.
That's why I prefer the term universal instead of objective, which means that the ultimate goal we should use to evaluate morality is restricted to the point of view of conscious beings, but still applicable for any conscious beings that might exist in the universe. This restriction give us a reason to reject nihilism, which can make us struggle to answer the question "why don't you just kill yourself if you think that nothing really matters?"
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 12:24:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2019 13:47:44
That's why I prefer the term universal instead of objective, which means that the ultimate goal we should use to evaluate morality is restricted to the point of view of conscious beings, but still applicable for any conscious beings that might exist in the universe. This restriction give us a reason to reject nihilism, which can make us struggle to answer the question "why don't you just kill yourself if you think that nothing really matters?"A universal terminal goal must be something extremely important, that any conscious beings with sufficient information should try to achieve that, to the extend that they are willing to sacrifice any other goals conceivable. For a starter, we can compare a proposed terminal goal with another thing that we usually placed at high priority, such as our own life. Are there something more important than our own life?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/09/2019 19:28:57
If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.You assumed that the decision maker has the information that Nazis are bad and decide that the universe would be better off without them. Could you show how we could arrive to that conclusion?
Nazis are people who approve of killing others who are of an "impure race". Such people are so highly immoral that it is arguably immoral not to kill them: tolerating them leads to a lot of good people being killed. That's a hard one to weigh up though without a lot of careful checking and statistical analysis, and of course, the Nazis could claim that they were trying to do exactly the same thing by killing people they regarded as dangerous bigots. This is not something that people are fit to judge: it needs to be investigated by AGI which can crunch all the available data instead of small subsets of it which may be greatly biased.
Morality is completely resolved though: we know how it works. Blowing up a building with 1 good person in it will do magnitudes more harm than blowing up a building with a billion spiders in it. To work out what's moral, all you have to do is reduce a multi-participant system to a single-participant system, and then it's all just a harm:benefit calculation. Let's have two buildings: one with a billion spiders in it and one with one good person in it. Both of them will blow up unless we choose which one to sacrifice and press a button to select that. We treat this system in such a way that we imagine there is only one participant in it who will have to live the lives of all the participants in turn, so he will be the one that experiences all the suffering involved. He is not only the person in one building and the billion spiders in the other, but he is all the spiders on the planet and all the people. If we choose to blow up the building with the spiders in it, none of the other spiders on the planet care at all, and the ones that were fried hardly even noticed. They had no idea how long they could have lived, and they would have died anyway in ways that would likely have involved more suffering, not least because spiders "eat" each other (by paralysing them and then sucking them dry). If we choose to blow up the building with the person in it instead, there's no great gain from saving all those spiders, but we'll have a lot of devastated people about who knew and cared about that person who was blown up instead. Our single participant in this system would experience all that suffering because he will live the lives of all of them, and living longer lives as a billion spiders isn't much compensation.
Post by: Halc on 12/09/2019 04:53:06
Perhaps the term objective morality is a bit oxymoron because the word objective implies independence from point of view, while morality can only apply to conscious beings who has exceeded certain consciousness level or mental capacity.Then I don't know what you're asking in this topic if not for a standard that is independent of any particular point of view.
As for conscious beings, I'm not sure how you define that, or how its relevant. The usual definition is 'just like me', meaning it isn't immoral to mistreat the aliens when they show up because they're not just like us.
An example of moral beings (without requirement of having consciousness or mental capacity) is the individual cells of any creature's body, which work selflessly as a team for the benefit of the group. There isn't a code that even begins to resemble the usual 10 commandments, but it does resemble the whole 'love thy brother like thyself' going on. Humans, for all their supposed intelligence, cannot see beyond themselves and work for a greater goal, or even name the goal for that matter. I'm just saying that if the aliens come, they'll notice that fact before they notice all our toys.
Quote
An action can not be judged to be morally wrong when the subject doesn't have the adequate mental capacity to differentiate between right and wrong thingsSo the subject doesn't know if what it's doing is right or wrong. Does this epistemological distinction matter? If some action is wrong, then doing that action is wrong, period, regardless of whether the thing doing it knows it's wrong or not.
What does wrong mean, anyway? Suppose I do something wrong, but don't know it. What does it mean that I've done a wrong thing? Sure, if there is some kind of consequence to be laid on me due to the action, then there's a distinction. I take the wrong turn in the maze and don't get the cheese. That makes turning left immoral, but only if there's a cheese one way and not the other? Just trying to get a bit of clarity on 'right/wrong/ought-to'.
Quote
You can pee and show your genital in public without being judged as immoral if you are a baby.Showing genitals is not a peer-group specific thing? Seems unlikely given the 99% majority of beings that are unconcerned with it, and even humans decorate just about anything with plant genitals (flowers). Sorry to jump on this, but I find it an unlikely candidate for a universal rule.
Quote
That's why I prefer the term universal instead of objective, which means that the ultimate goal we should use to evaluate morality is restricted to the point of view of conscious beings, but still applicable for any conscious beings that might exist in the universe.Is a self-driving car conscious? It certainly has better awareness than a human, and carries moral responsibility for its occupants, and makes real decisions based on such values. But the values are programmed in (not even learned like some AI systems), and are not drawn from 'the universe'.
Quote
This restriction give us a reason to reject nihilism, which can make us struggle to answer the question "why don't you just kill yourself if you think that nothing really matters?"A nihilist doesn't deny that things matter, just that they don't matter universally. My life definitely matters to me and mine and those with whom I interact. But I don't think the universe gives a hoot about my existence. Not sure if that makes me a nihilist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/09/2019 06:36:40
Quote
noun
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
synonyms: negativity, cynicism, pessimism; More
PHILOSOPHY
extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence.
HISTORICAL
the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party c. 1900 which found nothing to approve of in the established social order.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 02:22:34
Nazis are people who approve of killing others who are of an "impure race". Such people are so highly immoral that it is arguably immoral not to kill them: tolerating them leads to a lot of good people being killed. That's a hard one to weigh up though without a lot of careful checking and statistical analysis, and of course, the Nazis could claim that they were trying to do exactly the same thing by killing people they regarded as dangerous bigots. This is not something that people are fit to judge: it needs to be investigated by AGI which can crunch all the available data instead of small subsets of it which may be greatly biased.If a conscious being who has perfect knowledge of the relevant circumstances, including the understanding of universal terminal goal and moral standards, every immoral actions and behaviors can be identified as misinformation which leads to misplaced priorities. This means that the immoral actors choose actions which consequently deter the efforts to achieve universal terminal goal. Let's try to identify which priorities are misplaced by following immoral actions:
- holocaust
- Joshua genocide
- Serbian genocide
- Polpot genocide
- Aztec human sacrifice
- 9/11
- Mumbai attack
- Ted Bundy rape and murder
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 04:11:29
Morality is completely resolved though: we know how it works. Blowing up a building with 1 good person in it will do magnitudes more harm than blowing up a building with a billion spiders in it. To work out what's moral, all you have to do is reduce a multi-participant system to a single-participant system, and then it's all just a harm:benefit calculation. Let's have two buildings: one with a billion spiders in it and one with one good person in it. Both of them will blow up unless we choose which one to sacrifice and press a button to select that. We treat this system in such a way that we imagine there is only one participant in it who will have to live the lives of all the participants in turn, so he will be the one that experiences all the suffering involved. He is not only the person in one building and the billion spiders in the other, but he is all the spiders on the planet and all the people. If we choose to blow up the building with the spiders in it, none of the other spiders on the planet care at all, and the ones that were fried hardly even noticed. They had no idea how long they could have lived, and they would have died anyway in ways that would likely have involved more suffering, not least because spiders "eat" each other (by paralysing them and then sucking them dry). If we choose to blow up the building with the person in it instead, there's no great gain from saving all those spiders, but we'll have a lot of devastated people about who knew and cared about that person who was blown up instead. Our single participant in this system would experience all that suffering because he will live the lives of all of them, and living longer lives as a billion spiders isn't much compensation.I know from my Twitter feed that many people are willing to sacrifice trophy hunter to save their prey. They cheered when a matador was gored by the bull.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 04:13:31
That's David's quote, not mine. I would not have said that.I used quote selected command from action button. I didn't realize that it gives the wrong quotation.
I've fixed it manually.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 04:24:46
Then I don't know what you're asking in this topic if not for a standard that is independent of any particular point of view.As I said in the post, I restricted the use of moral rules to conscious being. You can not judge some action as immoral from the point of view of viruses, for instance.
As for conscious beings, I'm not sure how you define that, or how its relevant. The usual definition is 'just like me', meaning it isn't immoral to mistreat the aliens when they show up because they're not just like us.
Here is what I said in my post following the statement that you quoted:
Quote
That's why I prefer the term universal instead of objective, which means that the ultimate goal we should use to evaluate morality is restricted to the point of view of conscious beings, but still applicable for any conscious beings that might exist in the universe. This restriction give us a reason to reject nihilism, which can make us struggle to answer the question "why don't you just kill yourself if you think that nothing really matters?"
Without a universal terminal goal, we cannot set up universal moral rules. This will lead us to moral relativism. In its most extreme form, you cannot judge any action as immoral, because they are always right, at least from the stand point of the actor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 05:18:38
As for conscious beings, I'm not sure how you define that, or how its relevant. The usual definition is 'just like me', meaning it isn't immoral to mistreat the aliens when they show up because they're not just like us.I have answered that question here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg559662#msg559662
I think that your mentioned definition is not as usual as you think.
Quote
An example of moral beings (without requirement of having consciousness or mental capacity) is the individual cells of any creature's body, which work selflessly as a team for the benefit of the group. There isn't a code that even begins to resemble the usual 10 commandments, but it does resemble the whole 'love thy brother like thyself' going on. Humans, for all their supposed intelligence, cannot see beyond themselves and work for a greater goal, or even name the goal for that matter. I'm just saying that if the aliens come, they'll notice that fact before they notice all our toys.IMO, they are just automaton which lack the capability to estimate the consequence of their action. They act/react that way just because it helps them to survive, or at least doesn't lead them to extinction. They don't follow moral rules, hence they are not moral actions.
Our philosophers have tried to answer the questions of the greater goal and moral rules that try to help achieve that. I have proposed my answer in previous post here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg565365#msg565365
Quote
I'll recap my assertion into following points:
1. There exists law of causality. Otherwise everything happens randomly, hence there's no point in making plans or responding to anything. In making a plan, a goal must be set, and some rules must be defined to respond to expected situations while executing it, so the goal can be achieved effectively.
2. Moral rules only apply to conscious beings. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being is one of the highest priority moral rules, if not the highest. If someone can propose another moral rule with even higher priority, it is necessary to have at least one conscious being to follow it. Hence keeping the existence of conscious being gets back as the highest priority.
3. We should evaluate action/decision based on their effect to the fulfillment of the ultimate goal. Due to imperfect information that we have and uncertainty of the far future, we may not be able to finish complete calculation in time. That's why we need rule of thumb, shortcut or simplified calculation to speed up the result while mostly produce correct answers. Hence the calculation output will take the form of probability or likelyhood.
4. The moral calculation should be done using scientific method, which is objective, reliable, and self correcting when new information is available. Good intentions when done in the wrong way will give us unintended results.
Post by: Halc on 17/09/2019 05:33:03
If a virus does something against a universal moral code, then it has done something wrong, even if it lacks the ability to know about it. Consciousness seems to play no role. A frog for instance seems conscious of water and flies and such, but like the virus, it probably has little perception of universal right and wrong. The addition of consciousness seems not to helped it with this perception.Quote from: HalcAs for conscious beings, I'm not sure how you define that, or how its relevant.As I said in the post, I restricted the use of moral rules to conscious being. You can not judge some action as immoral from the point of view of viruses, for instance.
So they end up doing wrong things. So what? It seems to concern neither the frog nor the virus that they have done so.
Quote
Without a universal terminal goal, we cannot set up universal moral rules.Sounds reasonable.
Quote
This will lead us to moral relativism. In its most extreme form, you cannot judge any action as immoral, because they are always right, at least from the stand point of the actor.I beg to differ. I've done things I know are not right, even from my own standpoint. I feel free to judge myself and my peers, but not according to universal rules, because I am not aware of any, just as I am not aware of any universal terminal goals.
Post by: Halc on 17/09/2019 06:15:29
You define it there as a spectrum (and I agree with that), but above you make it a binary thing where some critical threshold needs to be crossed. Where is that threshold? Just above a virus? No? Just humans? If so, how then is your definition not the usual one I mentioned?As for conscious beings, I'm not sure how you define that. The usual definition is 'just like me'...
I have answered that question [in post 38]. I think that your mentioned definition is not as usual as you think.
Quote
IMO, [cells of a body] are just automaton which lack the capability to estimate the consequence of their action.The consequence of immoral action is impairment/death of the group, so I think they're quite aware of the moral code, the need to work as a team. Yes, they're automatons, as is any physical construct. I'm just a more complex one than a cell, but one far less in tune to any terminal goals of the larger group. I'm far less moral than are my cells.
Quote
They act/react that way just because it helps them to survive.What are moral rules except rules that help the survival rate of the group that defines the morals? That's not universal, that's morals of the group. Cells follow morals of the body and not anything larger than that.
They don't follow moral rules, hence they are not moral actions.
I'm not trying to be contradictory, just trying to illustrate the lack of difference between a human and anything else, and the complete lack of a code that comes from anywhere else except the group with which you relate. Yes, I'm a relativist, in far more ways that just moral relativism.
A pretty good rule that applies, well, at least to things kind of like us, seems to go along the lines of: Being true to your kind trumps being true to yourself. But even that falls apart as a universal rule. There are things that don't have 'kind'. The rule only seems to fit well with K-strategists, not R-strategists. That doesn't bode well for a hypothesis of a universal standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 09:01:41
I beg to differ. I've done things I know are not right, even from my own standpoint. I feel free to judge myself and my peers, but not according to universal rules, because I am not aware of any, just as I am not aware of any universal terminal goals.How do you judge if an action is morally right or wrong? what is your highest priority? is there something more important than your own life that you are willing to sacrifice for it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 11:04:13
You define it there as a spectrum (and I agree with that), but above you make it a binary thing where some critical threshold needs to be crossed. Where is that threshold? Just above a virus? No? Just humans? If so, how then is your definition not the usual one I mentioned?Not all moral rules have the same level of complexity. Some moral rules are simple enough to be followed by kids. We can't expect a moral agent to follow moral rules whose complexities are beyond their capability to comprehend.
As I mentioned before, humans can have different level of consciousness. Even a single individual can have various level of consciousness between life stages, from baby, kid, adult, and elderly. Brain damage can also alter their consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2019 11:47:56
What are moral rules except rules that help the survival rate of the group that defines the morals? That's not universal, that's morals of the group. Cells follow morals of the body and not anything larger than that.Have you tried to expand the group that defines the moral rules? Can you find a moral rule that's applicable for all human being? I have proposed to expand the group to all conscious beings if we want to find universal moral rules. I also have excluded non-conscious beings from the group that defines moral rules so that they don't fall back to just "anything goes".
I'm not trying to be contradictory, just trying to illustrate the lack of difference between a human and anything else, and the complete lack of a code that comes from anywhere else except the group with which you relate. Yes, I'm a relativist, in far more ways that just moral relativism.
As I mentioned early, consciousness appear as spectrum, from 0 as in rocks up to infinity as in Laplace's demon. Historically, highest consious beings have been increasing with time. I regard humanity, as well as their ancestors (apes, mammals, vertebrates, eucaryotes), as scaffoldings to build higher level of consciousness. It just happens that until recently, humanity have highest conciousness among other life forms. Who know how humans will evolve into in distance future. But universal moral rules should still apply to them.
By being relativist, do you think that perpetrators of 9/11 are moral in their own respect because they follow moral rules of their group? what about human sacrifice by the Aztecs? holocaust by Nazi? slavery by the confederacy?human cannibalism by some cultures?
Post by: syhprum on 17/09/2019 20:05:25
If the army group who were dissatisfied with the way Hitler was conducting the war and wished to replace him had been prepared to make a similar sacrifice the war could well have come to a better conclusuion
Post by: Halc on 18/09/2019 00:37:13
How do you judge if an action is morally right or wrong?I've been taught them by parents, community, employer, etc.
Quote
Is there something more important than your own life that you are willing to sacrifice for it?Of course. I'm a parent for one thing.
Have you tried to expand the group that defines the moral rules?More than most do, yes.
Quote
Can you find a moral rule that's applicable for all human being?One that they'd all agree on, probably not. One that they should, yes. But it's still applicable only to humans or something sufficiently similar. I've tried to expand the group past the limited 'just humans'. There are higher goals than human goals. Interesting to explore them.
What if the ebola virus were as sentient as us? What would the moral code for such a species be like? Would it be wrong for them to infect and kill a creature? Only if it's a human? I read a book that included a sentient virus, and also a R-strategist intelligence and more. Much of the storytelling concerned the conflicts in the morals each group found obvious.
Quote
I have proposed to expand the group to all conscious beingsWhy the word 'being'? What distinguishes a being from a non-being? Sure, it seems pretty straight forward with the sample of one that we have (it's a being if you're related to it), but that falls apart once we discover a new thing on some planet and have to decide if its a being or not.
Quote
Historically, highest consious beings have been increasing with time.The Fermi paradox wouldn't be there if that were true. Yes, it appears nothing on earth has been as sentient as us. Can't say 'highest conscious', because we've no measure of that. There's plenty of species with larger brains or better senses, either of which arguably make them more conscious.
Quote
Who know how humans will evolve into in distance future.If we survive the holocene extinction event, who knows indeed. Intelligence is currently trending downward, but that may reverse if it once again carries an advantage.
Quote
By being relativist, do you think that perpetrators of 9/11 are moral in their own respect because they follow moral rules of their group?Yes, they considered their acts as the ultimate moral act, as did those that taught them it. They laid down their lives for this greater goal.
I am one of those people that question the teachings of my peers. Said teachings are contradictory with themselves, and seem to actually be designed to maximize suffering in the long run. As I said, few consider long term goals.
Quote
what about human sacrifice by the Aztecs? holocaust by Nazi? slavery by the confederacy?human cannibalism by some cultures?I am not very familiar with the teachings of all these cultures, but one culture oppressing some other culture has been in the moral teachings of most groups I can think of, especially the religious ones. My mother witnessed the holocaust and current votes for it happening again. It only looks ugly in hindsight, and only if you lose. Notice everyone vilifies Hitler, but Lenin and Stalin get honored tombs, despite killing far more jews and others they felt were undesirables. Translation: It is immoral to lose.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2019 04:15:50
Why the word 'being'? What distinguishes a being from a non-being? Sure, it seems pretty straight forward with the sample of one that we have (it's a being if you're related to it), but that falls apart once we discover a new thing on some planet and have to decide if its a being or not.You can use other words such as 'things' if you'd like to. The main criteria is that they exist in objective reality, which can be verified by other intelligent things, not just in imagination. Hence if you discover a new thing on some planet, you can be sure that it is a thing, whether or not it is intelligent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2019 04:17:59
I've been taught them by parents, community, employer, etc.How do you resolve when some of their teachings are contradictory to each other?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2019 06:16:19
What if the ebola virus were as sentient as us? What would the moral code for such a species be like? Would it be wrong for them to infect and kill a creature? Only if it's a human? I read a book that included a sentient virus, and also a R-strategist intelligence and more. Much of the storytelling concerned the conflicts in the morals each group found obvious.I've said that consciousness is multidimensional. But one of the most important factor is capability to make plans for the future. This requires the agents to make simulation of objective reality in their mind, which means they have body parts dedicated to make arrangement in such a way to represent their environment, including other agents. Agents with self awareness have the capability to conceive representation of themselves in their mind.
Hence there would be some minimum amount of memory required to do that. If someday it can be demonstrated that some viruses can reach that level of complexity, than be it. It is in line with diversity strategy, which is meant to prevent common mode failure. But if they show the tendency to destroy other consious agents, especially with higher level of consciousness, they must be fought back. If possible, we must try to eliminate the destructive tendency only. Otherwise, the virus' life can be seen as collateral damage. Similar strategy should apply when dealing with other groups with destructive tendencies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2019 07:18:10
So the subject doesn't know if what it's doing is right or wrong. Does this epistemological distinction matter? If some action is wrong, then doing that action is wrong, period, regardless of whether the thing doing it knows it's wrong or not.Actions with bad consequences are wrong. Actions known to have bad consequences, but are done anyway, are immoral.
What does wrong mean, anyway? Suppose I do something wrong, but don't know it. What does it mean that I've done a wrong thing? Sure, if there is some kind of consequence to be laid on me due to the action, then there's a distinction. I take the wrong turn in the maze and don't get the cheese. That makes turning left immoral, but only if there's a cheese one way and not the other? Just trying to get a bit of clarity on 'right/wrong/ought-to'.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2019 10:33:35
I am not very familiar with the teachings of all these cultures, but one culture oppressing some other culture has been in the moral teachings of most groups I can think of, especially the religious ones. My mother witnessed the holocaust and current votes for it happening again. It only looks ugly in hindsight, and only if you lose. Notice everyone vilifies Hitler, but Lenin and Stalin get honored tombs, despite killing far more jews and other undesirables. Translation: It is immoral to lose.Morality is indeed would look clearer when viewed as retrospection. But it is possible to make moral judgment in advance, providing that we have the sufficient amount of information, so we can make prediction what would happen if an action is done with sufficient accuracy and precision. A Laplace demon level conscious being can judge moral actions universally.
Immoral actions might be more tolerable by closer in-kind groups. But as increasing integration, communication and globalization, zeitgeist movement, people learn to see from out-group point of view. Hence even immoral actions by the winner might be tolerable now, they might not be tolerable anymore in the future. Just look at slavery, patriarchy, apartheid, torture, etc.
Post by: Halc on 18/09/2019 12:33:23
You can use other words such as 'things' if you'd like to.I think 'agent' is a good work. A rock has no particular agency. It needs the ability to make a choice and act on it. A slave arguably has no agency. If it does exactly as it is instructed, its moral responsibility rests on the instructor, not on the slave.
Quote
How do you resolve when some of their teachings are contradictory to each other?By concluding that morals are not universal. For one, a higher goal takes priority over a lower one when they indicate contradictory choices to be made. Even simple devices work that way.
Quote
Actions with bad consequences are wrong. Actions known to have bad consequences, but are done anyway, are immoral.In the case above, the high priority goal makes one choose an action that violates the lower priority goal, hence an action that is bad (for a greater good). Your statement above asserts that such actions are immoral. For instance, I injure a child (bad consequence) as a surgeon to prevent that child from dying of appendicitis. Your statement at face value says this is an immoral action. Better to do nothing and let the child die (worse consequence, but not due to explicit action on your part) leaving you morally intact, except doing nothing is also a choice. Maybe get a different surgeon to do the immoral thing of saving this kid's life.
Post by: Halc on 18/09/2019 13:29:56
If someday it can be demonstrated that some viruses can reach that level of complexity, than be it.I'm not asserting that this is the case (although some use the facilities of the infected host, as does rabies). You're missing the point of the question. Suppose a species has all these facilities, and knows that it is effectively a parasitical pestilence. Should that knowledge affect its choices, taking priority over its inherent nature?
Quote
But if they show the tendency to destroy other consious agents, especially with higher level of consciousness, they must be fought back.So if aliens with higher consciousness (as you put it) come down to Earth, they would not be immoral for them to harvest humans for food or perform painful procedures on us because we're not as conscious as they are. There's no shortage of fictional stories that depict this scenario, except somehow the aliens are portrayed as evil. You would perhaps differ, given the above statement. If they're higher on the ladder of consciousness, then it isn't wrong for them to do to us as they wish.
Post by: Halc on 18/09/2019 14:24:33
Actions with bad consequences are wrong.Yes, by definition, actions with a bad consequences are wrong. How in any way is this relevant to the discussion? If a consequence is deemed bad only by some group, then it is wrong only relative to that group. If it is bad period, then it's universal, but you've made no argument for that case with the statement here. I'm trying to get the discussion on track.
The point of the thread seems to be to argue why an action might be bad in all cases, and there has been little to back up this position. The examples all seem to have had counter-examples. All the examples of evil have been losers, never something that your people are doing right now, like say employing sweatshop child labor for the clothes you wear. It's almost impossible to avoid since so much is produced via various methods that a typical person would find inhumane, and hard to see since you're paying somebody else to do (and conceal from you) the actual act. At least that is an example of something done by the winner.
You also need to decide if consciousness is relevant in a continuous or binary way. If relative, then it isn't immoral for an adult to harm a child since you've said a child (or an elderly person) has a lower level of consciousness than the adult. If it's a threshold thing (do what you want to anything below the threshold, but not above it), then it needs a definition. A human crosses the threshold at some point, and until he does, it isn't immoral to do bad things to him.
For instance, a human embryo obviously has far less consciousness than does a pig, so eating pork is more wrong than abortion by this level-of-consciousness argument, be it a spectrum thing or binary threshold.
Similarly, it's OK to kill a person under anesthesia because they're not conscious at the time, and will not suffer for it. These are some of the reasons the whole 'conscious' argument seems to fall apart.
Post by: syhprum on 18/09/2019 17:09:05
" despite killing far more jews and other undesirables." I certainly agree that the number of Jews that died as a result of the actions of Lenin and Stalin was as great as the number whose deaths were caused by Hitler and the NAZI regime but you seem to have labelled them as "undesirables" I think an edit might be appropriate
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/09/2019 03:26:48
By concluding that morals are not universal. For one, a higher goal takes priority over a lower one when they indicate contradictory choices to be made. Even simple devices work that way.How do you determine wchich priority is the higher one? Have you found the highest one?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/09/2019 04:14:35
In the case above, the high priority goal makes one choose an action that violates the lower priority goal, hence an action that is bad (for a greater good). Your statement above asserts that such actions are immoral. For instance, I injure a child (bad consequence) as a surgeon to prevent that child from dying of appendicitis. Your statement at face value says this is an immoral action. Better to do nothing and let the child die (worse consequence, but not due to explicit action on your part) leaving you morally intact, except doing nothing is also a choice. Maybe get a different surgeon to do the immoral thing of saving this kid's life.I have said in my previous posts that universal morality is based on eventual result. Some actions are morally better than others, and we should not fall into false dichotomy. You perform a surgery to the child is morally better then letting them die. It would be morally better if you could perform the medical procedure which does not injure the child.
Post by: Halc on 19/09/2019 04:36:08
How do you determine wchich priority is the higher one?Your reply below seems to assume an obvious priority, but I love putting assumptions to the test.
You perform a surgery to the child is morally better then letting them die.While I agree, how do you know this is true? I can argue that it is better to let the kid die if there is a higher goal to breed humans resistant to appendix infections, like the Nepalese have done. I can think of other goals as well that lead to that decision. There seems to be no guidance at all from some universal moral code. I don't think there is one of course.
I personally have died 3.5 times, or at least would have were it not for the intervention of modern medicine. My wife would have survived until the birth of our first child. The human race is quite a wreck since we no longer allow defects to be eliminated, and we're not nearly as 'finished' as most species that have had time to perfect themselves to their niche.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/09/2019 18:13:35
As for a universal moral code, I've already provided it several times in this thread without anyone appearing to notice. Morality is mathematics applied to harm management and it's all about calculating the harm:benefit balance. It only applies to sentient things, but it applies to all of them, fleas and intelligent aliens all included. It's easy to understand the harm:benefit balance calculations for a single-participant system, and a multi-participant system can be reduced to a single-participant system just by considering all the sentient participants in it to be the same individual living all those lives in turn. The entirety of morality is right there.
Post by: Halc on 19/09/2019 19:48:45
We'll be able to correct defects by gene editing in the future, so there's no need for any approach like eugenics to improve the species.Gene editing is currently considered very unethical, but then not as much as the passive eugenics I suggested, so point taken.
Quote
As for a universal moral code, I've already provided it several times in this thread without anyone appearing to notice. Morality is mathematics applied to harm management and it's all about calculating the harm:benefit balance.OK, that's at least an attempt to word things in some universal manner.
Is there a way to compute harm without being relative to a peer group? Humans seem to be causing a lot more harm than benefit, with an estimated genocide of 80% of the species on the planet in the holocene extinction event. Any harm to a species like that would probably be viewed as a total benefit by all these other species.
On the flip side of that, there is precedent to what humans are doing: a prior extinction event caused by one new species, and all the complexity of life we know today is descended from that new species, or from those that managed to adapt to the new poisoned environment.
Quote
It only applies to sentient things, but it applies to all of them, fleas and intelligent aliens all included.You list a flea as sentient, which is a refreshing contrast to the usual 'just like me' definition. Why? Perhaps since it has a rudimentary mechanism to make choices. That's why I've used the word 'agent' in prior posts. A rock is not considered an agent of choice. A tree might be, but it gets difficult to justify it. How about a self-driving car? It meets the definition of slave. Does a true slave carry any moral responsibility? I almost say no.
Does the species need to consider the harm done to the environment/other species, or only harm done to its own kind? What if it has no concept of 'species' or 'kind', or possibly not even 'individual' or 'agent'?
Quote
It's easy to understand the harm:benefit balance calculations for a single-participant system, and a multi-participant system can be reduced to a single-participant system just by considering all the sentient participants in it to be the same individual living all those lives in turn. The entirety of morality is right there.I haven't read the entire thread. How has been the response to this. It's a good attempt. It's just that harm seems subjective. What good for X is not necessarily good for Y, so its measure seems context dependent.
Post by: David Cooper on 19/09/2019 21:21:13
Is there a way to compute harm without being relative to a peer group? Humans seem to be causing a lot more harm than benefit, with an estimated genocide of 80% of the species on the planet in the holocene extinction event. Any harm to a species like that would probably be viewed as a total benefit by all these other species
Apply the method. Imagine that you are all the sentient things in the system (having to live all those lives in turn), so all the harm that you do to other things in any of those lives is suffering that you will experience in full. When it comes to simple sentient things, you can kill them humanely without causing suffering and they don't have any friends to miss them, but you may be depriving them of pleasure that they would have had if they'd been allowed to go on existing. If left to go on existing though, they may cause a lot of suffering to other sentient things, and they may themselves die in a horrible way, such as being paralysed by a spider's bite and then being sucked dry slowly. These are important factors in determining their worth and how expendable they are. We don't know how pleasant or horrid it is to be all those bugs and creepy crawlies, but maybe science will find ways to measure that some day.
Survival of a species isn't a moral issue. Some people worry about the ethics of eliminating parasitic things which cause a lot of harm, but they really should be eradicated without any such worry. Parasitic things are accidentally immoral - the pleasure they might get from existing is heavily outweighed by the suffering they cause. People are arguably parasitic too in ways that cause more suffering than is justifiable, but there are different types of people: there are some who are happy to abuse other sentiences, and there are some who aren't. The former group should perhaps be wiped out, but the latter group should not be dragged along for the ride.
We have never been able to do the sums properly to work out what's right and wrong in terms of how we as a species use the land to grow our food. There are too many things to consider and it's easy to collect lots of evidence that biases things in one particular direction. AGI will change that as it will be able to crunch all the data correctly to full depth, though it won't know for certain how much pleasure or suffering each sentient thing actually experiences. It doesn't need to get it completely right though - it is sufficient for it to the best calculations that can practically be done, and the best evidence that it has to go on is the evidence from humans who can talk about how they feel. That can then be extended to other species which look as if they have the same kind of feelings, and for simpler things like bugs it can make reasonable guesses based on the kinds of events that are taking place. Most bugs are disposable items which produce large numbers of offspring, most of which come to a bad end fairly quickly, and there's little that we do that changes the amount of suffering they experience. It's the more advanced creatures that need more protecting, and that's largely because they are wired to grieve and to fear for the well-being of others, so their suffering is multiplied. Their ability to understand what's happening to them if they're about to be killed is also something that amplifies their suffering, so it's clear that intelligence does make sentient things that have it more worthy of protection than those that don't.
There are some simpler cases that are easier to call. If you depend on shooting rabbits to feed your family, those rabbits are breeding like rabbits and will starve if they become too numerous. When you kill one, you have food. The rabbit was killed humanely (hopefully) and although it is now deprived of the pleasure it would have had out of going on existing, there is now room for another rabbit to take its place without overpopulation issues, and that rabbit will have the pleasure of existing instead. This is a balanced ecosystem. Predators help to reduce suffering by taking out the old and the weak and by preventing starvation through overpopulation, so the sentiences that exist in this balanced system have a better time than the rabbits which multiply until they're all living on the edge of starvation with many of them dying after suffering for a long time. It turns out that having humans shoot and eat them makes life better for the rabbits. We need to analyse the whole world that way though to see the places where we're getting it wrong.
Quote
A rock is not considered an agent of choice. A tree might be, but it gets difficult to justify it. How about a self-driving car? It meets the definition of slave. Does a true slave carry any moral responsibility? I almost say no.
A rock, tree or self-driving car is not a sentience. Having sentient slaves is abusive if the way they're being used causes suffering that isn't compensated by adequate pleasure, but the lack of freedom itself is so damaging as to make it hard to balance that up enough to compensate them.
Quote
Does the species need to consider the harm done to the environment/other species, or only harm done to its own kind? What if it has no concept of 'species' or 'kind', or possibly not even 'individual' or 'agent'?
We don't need to care about species, but about individual sentiences.
Quote
QuoteIt's easy to understand the harm:benefit balance calculations for a single-participant system, and a multi-participant system can be reduced to a single-participant system just by considering all the sentient participants in it to be the same individual living all those lives in turn. The entirety of morality is right there.I haven't read the entire thread. How has been the response to this. It's a good attempt. It's just that harm seems subjective. What good for X is not necessarily good for Y, so its measure seems context dependent.
There has been no response to it. It just goes in one ear/eye and out the other. As for harm seeming subjective, it could vary considerably not just across species, but within a species: there's no way (currently) of measuring how much less or more any individual suffers or enjoys the same things as another individual - they could have radically different experiences from identical external events and all we can do for calculating morality is assume they're the same unless we have evidence to suggest otherwise. Some people can't feel pain, so we know that an attempt to torture them will not lead to the same amount of suffering as it would for a normal person. That doesn't mean morality isn't something that can be calculated and applied though - we may not have a guarantee that what is calculated is absolutely right, but we can guarantee that the calculation is the best one that can be made for the available information, and a world where we apply that to all things will be better than a world where we don't. AGI will build up a database of knowlege of harm (and pleasure), putting the most likely values to the feelings that are generated by different experiences for different species and where possible for different individuals. The more it studies the world, the more accurate that data will be.
To put yourself in the position of an AGI system trying to impose morality on things, imagine that you have arrived on an alien planet where the local intelligent lifeforms ask you to become their ruler. You don't know how they feel because you aren't one of them, but they tell you that they like and dislike, and you gradually build up a picture of how things are. You notice that they sometimes look as if they're in ecstasy, but they tell you that they hate the feeling that they experience at those times. You see the same look about lesser species which can't talk, and you realise the they are likely suffering too when that happens to them. You do the best job you can, and that alien world ends up with less suffering and more happiness on it as a result of your imposition of computational morality on it. It is not an impossible task, and while the results may not be the best that could be achieved if you had access to inaccessible knowledge, they will be the best that can be achieved with the available knowledge. To go against the available knowledge in the hope of hitting absolute perfection by luck would more likely take things further away from that perfection instead of getting closer to it. Our job is to get as close to it as it can be calculated from the available evidence, and to do anything less than that is immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2019 10:57:16
Yes, by definition, actions with a bad consequences are wrong. How in any way is this relevant to the discussion? If a consequence is deemed bad only by some group, then it is wrong only relative to that group. If it is bad period, then it's universal, but you've made no argument for that case with the statement here. I'm trying to get the discussion on track.I tried to make distinction between wrong and immoral. If you take only the first half of the statements, it is no surprise that it doesn't look relevant to the discussion.
As I stated in the beginning of this thread, here I wanted to discuss about the existence of universal moral standard. Hence we need to expand the group who contemplates the standard as far as possible to include as many groups as possible. But the expansion is restricted by consiousness level of the group members, because only consious beings can follow moral rules. Otherwise, it would be immoral for human to eat animal as well as vegetables, since this action is bad for the them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2019 12:54:34
Your question above has been answered by David. I just want to add that actions are valued by their effectiveness and efficiency. Actions are considered effective if they can achieve the goal, and more efficient if they use less resources.How do you determine wchich priority is the higher one?Your reply below seems to assume an obvious priority, but I love putting assumptions to the test.You perform a surgery to the child is morally better then letting them die.While I agree, how do you know this is true? I can argue that it is better to let the kid die if there is a higher goal to breed humans resistant to appendix infections, like the Nepalese have done. I can think of other goals as well that lead to that decision. There seems to be no guidance at all from some universal moral code. I don't think there is one of course.
I personally have died 3.5 times, or at least would have were it not for the intervention of modern medicine. My wife would have survived until the birth of our first child. The human race is quite a wreck since we no longer allow defects to be eliminated, and we're not nearly as 'finished' as most species that have had time to perfect themselves to their niche.
Improvements for human species are not limited to genetic. Epigenetic options are available as well. They are not even limited to biological or organic method. Electronics and nanotechnology also have promising prospect.
Given the above information, eugenics is no longer among best options because it's very inefficient. The inefficiency is more dramatic if we also count the resistances and conflicts that it causes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2019 13:15:14
The point of the thread seems to be to argue why an action might be bad in all cases, and there has been little to back up this position. The examples all seem to have had counter-examples. All the examples of evil have been losers, never something that your people are doing right now, like say employing sweatshop child labor for the clothes you wear. It's almost impossible to avoid since so much is produced via various methods that a typical person would find inhumane, and hard to see since you're paying somebody else to do (and conceal from you) the actual act. At least that is an example of something done by the winner.I guess I can't expect anyone newly joined this discussion to follow all the conversations from the start. As the title might suggest, this thread is meant to look for a universal standard to evaluate moral actions in as diverse situations as possible. I want to answer why an action can be considered moral in some situations but immoral/less moral in other situations.
Winners can also do something considered immoral. At least I have mentioned Joshua. I might also include some actions by Genghis Khan. Those examples are shown just because I thought most people agreed upon their immoralities.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2019 13:28:27
You also need to decide if consciousness is relevant in a continuous or binary way. If relative, then it isn't immoral for an adult to harm a child since you've said a child (or an elderly person) has a lower level of consciousness than the adult. If it's a threshold thing (do what you want to anything below the threshold, but not above it), then it needs a definition. A human crosses the threshold at some point, and until he does, it isn't immoral to do bad things to him.I have said several times already, that universal morality is evaluated from the eventual result, with complete relevant information available. Otherwise, we must deal with probability based on available information.
For instance, a human embryo obviously has far less consciousness than does a pig, so eating pork is more wrong than abortion by this level-of-consciousness argument, be it a spectrum thing or binary threshold.
Similarly, it's OK to kill a person under anesthesia because they're not conscious at the time, and will not suffer for it. These are some of the reasons the whole 'conscious' argument seems to fall apart.
The child now is expected to be adult in the future, while the adult is expected to be old and eventually die. That's when no other information is given to describe the situation at hand. Hence, harming the child is immoral by universal moral standard. This expectation argument also answer your later objection.
When a human being is brain dead or heavily injured, and there is nothing can be done by current available technology to save him, or trying to save him cost so much that it may harm more living people, then letting him dead is not immoral. Such situation is not rare. There are many mass casualty incidents or natural disasters that lead to that.
Post by: David Cooper on 20/09/2019 19:11:10
But the expansion is restricted by consiousness level of the group members, because only consious beings can follow moral rules. Otherwise, it would be immoral for human to eat animal as well as vegetables, since this action is bad for the them.
Morality applies to all sentiences and it should be applied by all intelligences that are capable of calculating it. Many humans are not good at calculating it, and some are little better at it than other animals, but their inadequacy doesn't make it right to kill and eat them. It might be just as bad to torture a fly as to torture a human because it isn't about intelligence, but sentience: the pain may feel the same to both. It's all about how much suffering is involved. If you're comparing the killing of a fly versus the killing of a human though, there's inordinately more suffering caused by the latter due to all the other people who are upset by that, and by the loss of potential life.
Here's a simple illustration of the last point. If you are to live the life of a fly and then the life of a human and know that one of them will be killed early in such a way that if the fly dies early it will be killed 10% of the way through its expected life, while if the human dies early he will be killed 90% of the way through its expected life, would you prefer the fly to be the one that dies early or the human? That last 10% of the human's life may not be his best years, but they're probably inordinately more valuable than the 90% of the fly's expected life, so it's an easy choice even before you factor in all the upset that would be caused to other people who care about the human if he is killed before his time. That is what makes humans so much more valuable than "lesser" animals: those lesser animals aren't lesser in terms of the worth of the sentience within them because it may be exactly the same as the sentience in a human, but the opportunities available to the sentience in each is dependent on the hardware that it is installed in. The human is simply better hardware for sentience to be in than the fly.
If we were to make the same comparison with a human and a bird, it becomes more difficult to call. The lost 90% of the bird's life could in many cases be much more valuable than the lost 10% of the human's life, particularly if it's a wild bird. Should a lonely old man shoot birds for food or just die now and let the birds go on living? That's a tough dilemma. If he's just eating chickens that have been grown for food, that's an easier choice: once he's dead, there will be no more chickens in his yard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/09/2019 00:12:07
Morality applies to all sentiences and it should be applied by all intelligences that are capable of calculating it. Many humans are not good at calculating it, and some are little better at it than other animals, but their inadequacy doesn't make it right to kill and eat them. It might be just as bad to torture a fly as to torture a human because it isn't about intelligence, but sentience: the pain may feel the same to both. It's all about how much suffering is involved. If you're comparing the killing of a fly versus the killing of a human though, there's inordinately more suffering caused by the latter due to all the other people who are upset by that, and by the loss of potential life.When someone suggests that you should follow a rule X, a natural response would be: what is the expected consequence if we follow x, why is it good for you? What if we ignore it, why is it bad?
Following a universal moral rule as I suggested here will increase the probability of conscious beings to survive. This is good because the surviving conscious beings will have the chance to take actions to stay survive, make progress, and explore other possibilities of rules.
Ignoring or violating it reduces the chance of conscious beings to survive. Extinction of all conscious beings is bad because it stops the exploration of other possibilities. It would then rely on chance for nature to restart the evolution of conscious beings from the beginning. It would be an obvious waste of time, which is one of the most important resources for any conscious beings.
Evaluation of moral action is based on eventual result, not just immediate consequence. For example, killing every plants can eventually leads to extinction of macroscopic animals, including human. Hence it is morally worse than directly killing one individual human being.
Getting pleasure and happines while avoiding pain and suffering are instrumental goal. Evaluation of universal moral rules should be based on terminal goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2019 09:38:02
https://www.ownerteamconsult.com/effective-process-safety-management/
Quote
The three strategies used during detailed design to prevent, control or mitigate hazards are:
Passive strategy: Minimise the hazard via process and equipment design features that reduce hazard frequency or consequence;
Active strategy: Engineering controls and process automation to detect and correct process deviations; and
Procedural strategy:Administrative controls to prevent incidents or minimise the effects of an incident.
The passive strategy uses fundamental natural laws (physical/chemical) to achieve the goal. The basic rules are simple, they are even obeyed by non-conscious things. Some examples are substance selection, sizing of equipments, intrinsically safe equipment. But designing equipment, vessels, pipelines to withstand all possible scenario at all time is costly, and often not economically feasible.
Engineering controls utilizes engineering/artificial rules, which are derived from natural laws optimized for achieving specific target effectively and efficiently. Some examples are rupture disc, pressure relief valve, process interlocks, PID controls. The rules are more complex than in passive strategy, due to conditional activation. If a certain condition is met, do something. For example, if the system pressure exceed some threshold (below the design pressure of the equipment), open the relieve valve, or stop the feed pump. We can say that the agents following the rules are somewhat conscious, because they are responsive to their environment. The complexity level among them may vary from simple on-off states to PID controller, multivariable control, fuzzy logic, and artificial neural networks.
In the old days when engineering controls are not sophisticated enough, higher complexity tasks must be done by humans, such as executing sequence in a recipe, flying airplanes, driving cars. Because humans are so complex, they are prone to make mistakes. To reduce the chance of human errors, administrative controls are needed. They are rules to be obeyed by humans as consious agents.
Due to technological advancement, complexity level of engineering controls increases to even exceeding the performance of human operators in some areas.
Soon enough, they can outperform humans in jobs closely related to the problems of morality, such as lawyers, juries, even judges. They might someday outperform lawmakers, which means that they can produce a set of rules to serve an intention without violating/contradicting more fundamental rules with less resources (e.g. money, energy, time). But to do so we would need to define those fundamental rules, which I tried to explore here.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2019 11:12:48
So if aliens with higher consciousness (as you put it) come down to Earth, they would not be immoral for them to harvest humans for food or perform painful procedures on us because we're not as conscious as they are. There's no shortage of fictional stories that depict this scenario, except somehow the aliens are portrayed as evil. You would perhaps differ, given the above statement. If they're higher on the ladder of consciousness, then it isn't wrong for them to do to us as they wish.Any aliens with the ability to perform interstellar travel are very unlikely to develop the required technology as an individual. They are most likely a product of a society, which have their own struggles in the past, competitions and conflicts among themselves. They might experienced devastating wars, famines, and natural disasters. They might also have developed weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and chemical weapons. They must have survived all of those, otherwise they won't be here in the first place. They must have developed their own moral rules, and might have even figured out the universal morality by expanding the scope and applicability of their rules. They might have their own version of PETA or vegan activists, and genetically modified bacteria to produce their food, or even better, 3D printed their food using nanotechnology. They might have modified their own bodies so that they don't depend on external biological systems just to survive.
Harvesting consious beings for food is a grossly inefficient process, hence it's very unlikely to be done by highly intelligent organisms, not to mention the risk of resistance and conflict that may harm themselves.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2019 07:30:44
Evaluation of moral action is based on eventual result, not just immediate consequence. For example, killing every plants can eventually leads to extinction of macroscopic animals, including human. Hence it is morally worse than directly killing one individual human being.Here is another example to emphasize the need to evaluate morality from eventual result, rather than direct consequences. Most of us agree that the sun is not a conscious being. But it would be immoral to turn the sun into blackhole just for fun, while knowing that this action will lead to death of all currently known conscious being.
We can also learn about decision making from chess. Suppose you are in the middle stage of a chess game. There is only two legal moves available for you, the first is sacrificing your pawn, while the other is sacrificing you queen. In most cases, losing a queen puts you in more disadvantage position than losing a pawn. But if you are a really good player, and you can calculate accurately that sacrificing the queen will eventually give you victory, then it is regarded as a good move. On the other hand, if the end of the game hasn't been clear to you, then sacrificing the pawn is the better move.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2019 10:08:44
- the case is evaluated retrospectively by a perfect artificial intelligence, hence no room for uncertainty of cause and effect regarding the actions or inactions.
- a train is moving in high speed on the left track.
- a lever can be used to switch the train to the right track.
- if the train goes to the left track, every person on the left track will be killed. Likewise for the right track.
- all the people involved are average persons who have positive contribution to the society. No preferences for any one person over the others.
The table below shows possible combination of how many persons on the left and right tracks, ranging from 0 to 5.
The left column in the table below shows how many persons are on the left track, while the top row shows how many persons are on the right track.
\ 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 o o o o o o
1 x o o o o o
2 x ? o o o o
3 x ? ? o o o
4 x ? ? ? o o
5 x ? ? ? ? o
When there are 0 person on the left track, moral persons must leave the lever as it is, no matter how many persons on the right track. This is indicated by letter o in every cell next to number 0 on the left column.
When there are 0 person on the right track, moral persons must switch the lever if there are at least 1 person on the left track. This is indicated by letter x in every cell below the number 0 on the top row, except when there is 0 person on the left track.
When there are non-zero persons on each track and more persons on the right track than the left track, moral persons must leave the lever as it is to reduce casualty. This is indicated by letter o in every cell on the top right side of diagonal cells.
When there are the same number of persons on the left and right tracks, moral persons should leave the lever to conserve resource (energy to switch the track) and avoid being accused of playing god. This is indicated by letter o in every diagonal cell.
When there are non-zero persons on each track and more persons on the left track, the answer might vary (based on previous studies). If you choose to do nothing in these situations, effectively it shows how much you value your action of switching the lever, in the unit of difference of person number between the left and right track. This is indicated by question marks in every cell on the bottom left side of diagonal cells.
Post by: Halc on 24/09/2019 20:02:42
A rock, tree or self-driving car is not a sentience.There is a lot to discuss in your long post, but this one stood out. Why is a flea a sentience but an AI car not one? Surely the car is entrusted with moral decisions that nobody would ever entrust to a flea. The only thing the flea has that the car doesn't is that you and the flea share a common ancestor, and even that doesn't explain why 'tree' is on the other side of the line. The car is a reasonable example of an alien, something with which you don't share an ancestry, and right off you assert that it isn't a sentience, seemingly because it isn't just like you.
OK, the car is not a life form, but the alien might also not be, and still be a higher sentience. Maybe, depending on how one defines 'life' and 'sentience'. I had composed more of a reply, but we'll be speaking past each other without some common terms defined.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2019 23:58:33
Post by: Harryobr on 25/09/2019 11:53:46
Post by: Harryobr on 25/09/2019 12:00:44
Post by: David Cooper on 25/09/2019 19:27:04
Why is a flea a sentience but an AI car not one? Surely the car is entrusted with moral decisions that nobody would ever entrust to a flea. The only thing the flea has that the car doesn't is that you and the flea share a common ancestor, and even that doesn't explain why 'tree' is on the other side of the line. The car is a reasonable example of an alien, something with which you don't share an ancestry, and right off you assert that it isn't a sentience, seemingly because it isn't just like you.
First, let's start with a rock. A rock may be sentient in that every fundamental particle in it may be sentient. Can we torture the rock? We could maybe throw it into a lava lake to torture it with high heat, but there's a lot of rock in that state all the time deep in the Earth. Maybe it's all in agony all the time. We should maybe throw all material into a black hole as that might stop the suffering by slowing its functionality to a halt. Maybe that's the best way to end all the extreme suffering that might for all we know be going on in the universe wherever there is matter.
The self-driving car may be sentient in the same way as the rock. Every particle in us could be sentient in the same way too, and most of it could be in extreme agony all the time without us knowing - we can't measure how it feels. The only sentient thing that we think we can measure is somewhere in our own brain. We have an information system in there which generates data that makes assertions about what that sentience is feeling. We don't know what evidence that information system is using when it makes its measurements, but it looks impossible for its assertions about sentience to be competent - it should not have any way of measuring feelings and knowing that they are feelings. It should be unable to tell whether they are pleasant feelings or unpleasant ones. Its assertions about feelings cannot be trusted to be anything more than fiction. However, we must also err on the side of caution and consider the possibility that the assertions may somehow be true. We will find out for certain when we can trace back the assertions about feelings in the brain to see how that data was put together and what evidence it was based on. In doing that, we might find some magical quantum mechanism which does the job.
Let's just assume though that in humans there really is sentience there. We can assume that it is also present in other species because there's no reason why it should suddenly appear just for us to do the same job as needs to be done in other animals. Sentience will be in all animals down to a very simple level. It will most likely be in most creatures that have a brain and a response to damage with any kind of response that makes it look as if it might be in pain. Worms (the bigger ones) almost certainly have it, and I expect that flies have it too. A flea may be at the extreme simplicity end of things, but it may still have feelings. If intelligent aliens also report the existence of sentience, then a wide range of simpler species related to them will doubtless have it too. A need to be able to enjoy things and to suffer does not magically need to emerge just because the brain has become a general intelligence capable of turning itself to any task (in the way that only humans can on our planet). If sentience isn't needed in simple creatures with a reaction that looks as if pain is involved, then it isn't needed in more complex creatures either and there should be no evolutionary pressure on sentience to appear to do something entirely superfluous.
If the brain is really measuring sentience, it is measuring the sentience of something in the brain. When a person feels pain in the hand of an arm which was amputated long ago, that shows that they are not feeling the pain in the hand, but in the head. If I stamp on your foot, you may feel pain, but there may be no pain experienced by anything in your foot that wouldn't be felt by a tennis ball being whacked by Nadal with a racquet. There may be all manner of feelings going on in quintillions of sentient things inside that person, but that is ignored by the brain which only focuses on one sentient thing somewhere inside the brain which is linked in to ideas that the brain is processing.
A self-driving car's brain is a computer which works in the same way as the computer on a desk. There is no sentience involved in its processing. If such a machine generates claims that it is sentient and that it's feeling pain, excitement, boredom or that it feels the greenness of green, then it has been programmed to tell lies. That machine could potentially calculate morality better than any human, but that doesn't make it in any way sentient. If you hit it with a hammer and it says "Ouch!", it is simply following a rule that it should say "Ouch!" if something hits it. You can write a simple program to make a computer to do this when a key is typed, but there is no feeling involved:-
If(keyInput=="p"){print "Ouch!"}
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/09/2019 09:57:24
They will have higher chance to survive if they could optimize distribution of resources to preserve conscious beings...Welcome to our discussion.
Being a meme, the universal moral standard shares space in memetic pool with other memes. They will have higher chance to survive if they could optimize distribution of resources to preserve conscious beings.Efforts to discover universal goal can be done using top-down or bottom-up approach. Your statement above seems to lean more on bottom-up approach, similar to my original attempts in other thread https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.0
This thread was meant to use the top-down approach, hence I started by definitions and then tried to answer basic/fundamental questions (what, when, where, who, why, how) regarding universal moral rules. Here is an example.
To answer why keeping the existence of conscient beings is a fundamental moral rule, we can use a method called reductio ad absurdum to its alternative.I'll try to summarize the discussion here in a more of deductive reasoning and then compile it in a Euclidean style writing.
Imagine a rule that actively seeks to destroy conscient beings. It's basically a meme that's self destruct by destroying its own medium. Or conscient beings that don't follow the rule to actively keep their existence (or their copies) will likely be outcompeted by those who do, or struck by random events and cease to exist.
Post by: Halc on 27/09/2019 15:40:50
Are you arguing that rock or car protons are different from the ones in fleas ? If not, I don't know why you brought up the prospect of suffering of fundamental particles, especially since those particles move fairly freely into and out of biological things like the flea.Why is a flea a sentience but an AI car not one?First, let's start with a rock. A rock may be sentient in that every fundamental particle in it may be sentient. Can we torture the rock? We could maybe throw it into a lava lake to torture it with high heat, but there's a lot of rock in that state all the time deep in the Earth. Maybe it's all in agony all the time. We should maybe throw all material into a black hole as that might stop the suffering by slowing its functionality to a halt. Maybe that's the best way to end all the extreme suffering that might for all we know be going on in the universe wherever there is matter..
The self-driving car may be sentient in the same way as the rock. Every particle in us could be sentient in the same way too, and most of it could be in extreme agony all the time without us knowing - we can't measure how it feels. The only sentient thing that we think we can measure is somewhere in our own brain. We have an information system in there which generates data that makes assertions about what that sentience is feeling. We don't know what evidence that information system is using when it makes its measurements, but it looks impossible for its assertions about sentience to be competent - it should not have any way of measuring feelings and knowing that they are feelings. It should be unable to tell whether they are pleasant feelings or unpleasant ones. Its assertions about feelings cannot be trusted to be anything more than fiction. However, we must also err on the side of caution and consider the possibility that the assertions may somehow be true. We will find out for certain when we can trace back the assertions about feelings in the brain to see how that data was put together and what evidence it was based on. In doing that, we might find some magical quantum mechanism which does the job.
As for all these comments concerning suffering, you act like it is a bad thing. If there was a pill that removed all my pain and suffering (there is), I'd not take it, because it's there for a reason. It would be like voluntarily removing my physical conscience, relying instead on rational reasoning to not do things that are wrong. I still have all my fingers because I have pain and suffering (and not for lack of trying otherwise).
Quote
It will most likely be in most creatures that have a brain and a response to damage with any kind of response that makes it look as if it might be in pain.So you want it to writhe in a familiar way in response to harm. I agree that the self-driving car does not writhe in a familiar way. I watched a damaged fly, and it seemed more intent on repairing itself than on gestures of agony.
Thus it is not wrong for an alien to injure us since we don't react to the injury in a way that is familiar to them.
The rules only apply to things that are 'sufficiently just like me'.
Quote
A self-driving car's brain is a computer which works in the same way as the computer on a desk. There is no sentience involved in its processing.That's just an assertion. How do you know this? Because it doesn't writhe in a familiar way when you hit it with a hammer? You just finished suggesting that fundamental particles are sentient, and yet a computer on my desk (which has moral responsibility, and not primarily to me) does not.
Interestingly, in both cases (the computer and a human), it is not the physical thing that holds moral responsibility, but the information that does. Hence if my computer contracts a virus that causes it to upload my password to a malicious site, I act to eradicate that information from the computer, and not to take action against the computer itself.
Similarly, if a person commits some crime, then creates an exact replica of himself and destroys the original person, the replica is still guilty of the crime despite the fact that the actual body that performed the crime is gone. The information is preserved and the information is what is guilty. So a thing that process/retains information seems capable of doing things that can be classified as right or wrong. Just my observation.
Quote
If such a machine generates claims that it is sentient and that it's feeling painA rock can do that. I just need a sharpie. How does a person demonstrate his claim of sentience (a thing you've yet to define)? A computer already has demonstrated that it bears moral responsibility, so if it isn't sentient, then sentience isn't required for what a thing does to do right or wrong.
Quote
or that it feels the greenness of green, then it has been programmed to tell lies.How do you convince the alien that you're not just programmed to say 'ouch' when you hammer your finger, assuming quite unreasonably that they'd consider "ouch" to be the correct response?
You seem to define a computer to be not sentient because it does a poor job of mimicking a person. By that standard, I'm not as sentient as a squirrel because I've yet to convince one that I am of of their own kind. I fail the squirrel Turning test. It can be done with a duck. I apparently pass the duck Turning test.
Post by: David Cooper on 27/09/2019 18:28:02
Are you arguing that rock or car protons are different from the ones in fleas ? If not, I don't know why you brought up the prospect of suffering of fundamental particles, especially since those particles move fairly freely into and out of biological things like the flea.
If suffering happens, and if a compound object can suffer, that cannot happen without at least one of the components of that compound object suffering. A suffering compound object with none of the components feeling anything at all is not possible. If you're looking for sentience, it has to be in something fundamental and not something of no substance that emerges by magic out of complexity.
Quote
As for all these comments concerning suffering, you act like it is a bad thing. If there was a pill that removed all my pain and suffering (there is), I'd not take it, because it's there for a reason. It would be like voluntarily removing my physical conscience, relying instead on rational reasoning to not do things that are wrong. I still have all my fingers because I have pain and suffering (and not for lack of trying otherwise).
Suffering has a use: it drives you to try to avoid greater damage. Where it isn't so great is when people are forced to suffer by others. Torture is universally recognised as immoral.
Quote
Thus it is not wrong for an alien to injure us since we don't react to the injury in a way that is familiar to them.
The rules only apply to things that are 'sufficiently just like me'.
Then you think it's moral for aliens to torture people?
Quote
QuoteA self-driving car's brain is a computer which works in the same way as the computer on a desk. There is no sentience involved in its processing.That's just an assertion. How do you know this? Because it doesn't writhe in a familiar way when you hit it with a hammer? You just finished suggesting that fundamental particles are sentient, and yet a computer on my desk (which has moral responsibility, and not primarily to me) does not.
All the particles of the machine could be sentient, but they may be suffering while the machine generates claims about being happy, or they may all be content while the machine generates claims about being in agony. The claims generated by an information system have no connection to the sentient state of the material of the machine.
It is not "just" an assertion. It is an assertion which I can demonstrate to be correct. A good starting point though would be for you to read up on the Chinese Room experiment so that you get an understanding of the disconnect between processing and sentience.
Quote
Similarly, if a person commits some crime, then creates an exact replica of himself and destroys the original person, the replica is still guilty of the crime despite the fact that the actual body that performed the crime is gone. The information is preserved and the information is what is guilty. So a thing that process/retains information seems capable of doing things that can be classified as right or wrong. Just my observation.
Not quite, but it's not far wrong. The sentience is not to blame because it is not in control: there is no such thing as free will. Both the people in that example are equally dangerous and need to be prevented from doing harm. In the future, we'll be able to make all such people wear devices that can disable them whenever they try to do seriously immoral things. We will also want to do gene editing to make sure that all the vicious rape and pillage genes are not passed on to future generations.
Quote
QuoteIf such a machine generates claims that it is sentient and that it's feeling painA rock can do that. I just need a sharpie.
How does a rock do that, and what's a sharpie?
Quote
How does a person demonstrate his claim of sentience (a thing you've yet to define)?
A person can't demonstrate it. All he can do is assert it and hope that others will believe it because they are sentient too.
Quote
A computer already has demonstrated that it bears moral responsibility, so if it isn't sentient, then sentience isn't required for what a thing does to do right or wrong.
Correct. Sentience is not needed by something that makes moral decisions.
Quote
Quoteor that it feels the greenness of green, then it has been programmed to tell lies.How do you convince the alien that you're not just programmed to say 'ouch' when you hammer your finger, assuming quite unreasonably that they'd consider "ouch" to be the correct response?
If the alien isn't sentient, you could have a very hard time convincing the alien that there is such a thing as sentience. However, it might decide to study you to find out why you believe yourself to be sentient, so it would scan your brain and model it, then it would look to see how your claims of sentience are generated and what evidence they're based on. It may then find that they are all fictions, or it may uncover the mechanism and discover that sentience is real.
Alternatively, if the alien is sentient, it will assume that you are too on the basis that you wouldn't have come up with the idea of sentience otherwise, and it would know that you are to be protected by the universal rule of morality.
Quote
You seem to define a computer to be not sentient because it does a poor job of mimicking a person. By that standard, I'm not as sentient as a squirrel because I've yet to convince one that I am of of their own kind. I fail the squirrel Turning test. It can be done with a duck. I apparently pass the duck Turning test.
Not at all. I say it isn't sentient because sentience has no connection to the information processing system of the computer which can only generate fake claims about sentience.
Post by: Halc on 28/09/2019 01:54:30
If suffering happens, and if a compound object can suffer, that cannot happen without at least one of the components of that compound object suffering. A suffering compound object with none of the components feeling anything at all is not possible.By reducto ad-adsurdum, that indeed implies that a proton can suffer, and only because at least one of its quarks isn't contented. I see no way to relieve the suffering of a quark since I've no idea what needs it has that aren't getting met.
A rock is made of the same particles, and you say it isn't capable of suffering, so maybe all protons want to be part of rocks, dirt, and computer objects, and hence the universal morality is to quick kill every Earth life form anywhere ASAP.
Since I don't buy into any definition of suffering that would support protons being in such a state, I see nowhere to go from there.
Quote
As for all these comments concerning suffering, you act like it is a bad thing. If there was a pill that removed all my pain and suffering (there is), I'd not take it, because it's there for a reason. It would be like voluntarily removing my physical conscience, relying instead on rational reasoning to not do things that are wrong. I still have all my fingers because I have pain and suffering (and not for lack of trying otherwise).
Quote
Torture is universally recognised as immoral.It is not. I see nothing in the universe that recognizes any moral rule at all. Not saying there isn't one. That said, there are human cultures that don't find torture immoral. Most are satisfied if they get the benefit of the torture without the direct evidence that it's going on. Immoral to kill your neighbor, but not immoral to hire a hitman to do it, so long as you don't watch.
Quote
Then you think it's moral for aliens to torture people?A moral code is not likely to assert that one is obligated to torture something, but that's the way you word the question. So no. I was commenting that by the rules you are giving me, it wouldn't be immoral for them to torture us.
Quote
All the particles of the machine could be sentient, but they may be suffering while the machine generates claims about being happy, or they may all be content while the machine generates claims about being in agony.Maybe your protons also are in a different state than the one you claim, so it seems that the state of the protons is in fact irrelevant to how I treat the object composed of said protons.
Quote
The claims generated by an information system have no connection to the sentient state of the material of the machine.Ah, there's the distinction I asked for. You claim a thing is 'sentient' if it has a connection with the feelings of its protons, and a computer doesn't. How do you justify this claim, and how do you know that the protons are suffering because there's say too much pressure on them? The same pressure applied to different protons of mine seems not to cause those particular protons any discomfort. That's evidence that it's not the protons that are suffering.
Quote
It is not "just" an assertion. It is an assertion which I can demonstrate to be correct. A good starting point though would be for you to read up on the Chinese Room experiment so that you get an understanding of the disconnect between processing and sentience.Chinese Room experiment has different interpretations, and has nothing to do with the suffering of particles.
Anyway, in some tellings, the guy in the room has a lookup table of correct responses to any input. If this is the algorithm, the room will very much be distinguishable from talking to a real Chinese speaker. It fails the Turing test.
If it doesn't fail the Turing test, then it passes the test and is indistinguishable from a real person, which makes it sentient (common definition, not yours).
Quote
Ah. The sentence definition comes out. As you've been reluctant to say, you're working with a dualistic model, and I'm not. My sentience (the physical collection of particles) is to blame because it is in control of itself (has free will). Your gob of matter is not to blame because it is instead controlled by an outside agent which assumes blame for the actions it causes. The agent is to blame, not the collection of matter.QuoteSimilarly, if a person commits some crime, then creates an exact replica of himself and destroys the original person, the replica is still guilty of the crime despite the fact that the actual body that performed the crime is gone. The information is preserved and the information is what is guilty. So a thing that process/retains information seems capable of doing things that can be classified as right or wrong. Just my observation.The sentience is not to blame because it is not in control: there is no such thing as free will.
Anyway, the self-driving car is then not sentient because it hasn't been assigned one of these immaterial external agents. My question is, what is the test for having this external control or not? How might the alien come down and know that you have one of these connections and the object to your left does not? The answer to this is obvious. The sentient object violates physics, because if it didn't, its actions would be a function of physics, and not a reaction to an input without a physical cause. Show me such a sensory mechanism in any sentient thing then.
In fact, there is none since a living thing is engineered entirely wrong for an avatar setup like that. If I want to efficiently move my arm, I should command the muscle directly and not bother with the indirection from a remote location. Nerves would be superfluous. So would senses since the immaterial entity could measure the environment directly, as is demonstrably done by out-of-body/near-death experiences.
Anyway, I had not intended this to be a debate on philosophy of mind. Yes, the dualistic model has a completely different (and untestable) set of assumptions about what the concept of right and wrong means. Morals don't come from the universe at all. They come from this other realm where the gods and other assertions are safely hidden from empirical inquiry.
Quote
You brought up sentience in a discussion of universal morals. If it isn't needed, then why bring it up?QuoteA computer already has demonstrated that it bears moral responsibility, so if it isn't sentient, then sentience isn't required for what a thing does to do right or wrong.Correct. Sentience is not needed by something that makes moral decisions.
Post by: David Cooper on 28/09/2019 22:04:38
A rock is made of the same particles, and you say it isn't capable of suffering...
I didn't say it isn't capable of suffering. The point I was making is that it could be suffering in that all the material it's made of could be suffering for all we know. We have no way to tell. We can melt down rocks though and make silicon and metals out of them, then we can build computers out of those materials, and all the material of the computers that we build may be suffering in the same way, but again we can't tell whether it's suffering or not. We can then run programs on that computer which we can program to make assertions about suffering which are not based on any measure as to whether the material is suffering or not, so the assertions produced by such programs are baseless. If we write code to trigger claims of pain when the "A" key on the keyboard is pressed and claims of pleasure when the "B" key is pressed, you are not actually generating any pain or pleasure in the machine by pressing either of those keys.
In humans though, we have a kind of computer making claims about sentience which believes those assertions to be true. We can expose a human to songs by the Spice Girls or Peter Andre to make them generate claims about experiencing pain or pleasure, and they will believe that they are genuinely experiencing pain. In the unlikely event that they believe they are genuinely experiencing pleasure, all the material they're made of may actually be experiencing extreme suffering in the same way as a rock might be, except for one sentient thing inside them which is actually experiencing pleasure and which is being measured as doing so in some way by some part of the information system that is generating the claims about sentience.
There is nothing we can usefully do for the sentiences that might be in rocks unless we can find a way to measure feelings in them. If we found that they were all suffering greatly, maybe we could ease their suffering by throwing everything we can into black holes, but there's no guarantee that that would make any difference to them. It isn't our immediate concern though, not least because it's unlikely that practically everything that exists should be suffering all the time. It's much more likely that if sentience is real and our claims about being sentient are true, we're doing something special with a sentient thing in the brain and we're systematically inducing feelings in it which are much more intense than the ones that normally occur in things like rocks.
Quote
QuoteTorture is universally recognised as immoral.It is not.
In some cases it isn't: it wouldn't be wrong for mass-murdering dictators to be tortured to death slowly to serve as a warning to others, but I was thinking about cases where people are torturing innocents. There may be some backward societies which don't see that as wrong, but a bit of torture aimed at them would soon teach them the error of their approach and they would then understand that it's wrong.
Quote
I see nothing in the universe that recognizes any moral rule at all.
I see people who do recognise moral rules. They get them wrong in places due to poor thinking, but they've got a lot of it right.
Quote
I was commenting that by the rules you are giving me, it wouldn't be immoral for them to torture us.
By the rule(s) I've provided, it would very clearly be immoral for them to torture us. The harm outweighs the benefit.
Quote
]Maybe your protons also are in a different state than the one you claim, so it seems that the state of the protons is in fact irrelevant to how I treat the object composed of said protons.
That's the whole point. What you do to the person or machine likely provides no gain for those sentient things. The only sentient thing that we're able to change things for usefully is the one that's being measured by the information system that's generating claims about being sentient, and that's the one that's most likely having unusually extreme feelings generated in it which go way beyond anything felt by the sentiences that might be in rocks.
Quote
You claim a thing is 'sentient' if it has a connection with the feelings of its protons, and a computer doesn't. How do you justify this claim, and how do you know that the protons are suffering because there's say too much pressure on them? The same pressure applied to different protons of mine seems not to cause those particular protons any discomfort. That's evidence that it's not the protons that are suffering.
You have no way of measuring what your protons are feeling, so you don't know if pressure is doing anything to affect how they feel. (By the way, when I use the word particles, I'm referring to something a lot more fundamental than protons, so I'd rather use the word particles when discussing this, even if that actually means something that we don't normally refer to as particles.) With computers there is no sentience wired into any system that induces feelings into it associated with the inputs which deliver signals that might cause pain to be felt in the system, and there's nothing in the hardware to read those feelings back with. If the feelings that people report having are real, there's something different happening in the brain which does lead to feelings being induced in a sentience and then being read back by the information system which generates assertions about those feelings being felt. Science has no proposed mechanism by which this can occur, but for the sake of discussions of morality, we can simply assume that it happens in brains and that it happens in some part of the hardware which we haven't yet understood. With computers though, there is no such facility: there is no way to induce feelings in any sentience in the machine other than by luck (and therefore no way to know if it's pleasant or unpleasant), and there is no way to read the feelings either, so the machine cannot make any informed claims about feelings: it can only pretend to have feelings.
Quote
Chinese Room experiment has different interpretations, and has nothing to do with the suffering of particles.
Anyway, in some tellings, the guy in the room has a lookup table of correct responses to any input. If this is the algorithm, the room will very much be distinguishable from talking to a real Chinese speaker. It fails the Turing test.
The point I want you to take from the Chinese Room experiment is that there is nowhere in which feelings are involved in the computations where they're relevant to the output. The person operating the machine may be happy, bored or deeply depressed, but so long as he carries out the task correctly, the program will function the same way in all three cases. The Chinese Room processor is Turing-complete, capable of running full AGI. It has no way of handling feelings, and nor do any of the computers we know how to build.
Quote
If it doesn't fail the Turing test, then it passes the test and is indistinguishable from a real person, which makes it sentient (common definition, not yours).
Passing the Turing Test has nothing to do with a machine being sentient, but merely intelligent. Anyone who claims otherwise has not understood what the Turing Test is about.
Quote
QuoteThe sentience is not to blame because it is not in control: there is no such thing as free will.Ah. The sentence definition comes out. As you've been reluctant to say, you're working with a dualistic model, and I'm not. My sentience (the physical collection of particles) is to blame because it is in control of itself (has free will). Your gob of matter is not to blame because it is instead controlled by an outside agent which assumes blame for the actions it causes. The agent is to blame, not the collection of matter.
There is no reluctance on my part. If you're working with sentience, then you are necessarily working with a "dualistic" model. If you aren't using that kind of model, you have no room for sentience other than as a fiction. In a model where it is a mere fiction, it is impossible to cause suffering because there is no such thing. In neither model is there room for free will.
Quote
Anyway, the self-driving car is then not sentient because it hasn't been assigned one of these immaterial external agents. My question is, what is the test for having this external control or not? How might the alien come down and know that you have one of these connections and the object to your left does not? The answer to this is obvious. The sentient object violates physics, because if it didn't, its actions would be a function of physics, and not a reaction to an input without a physical cause. Show me such a sensory mechanism in any sentient thing then.
In fact, there is none since a living thing is engineered entirely wrong for an avatar setup like that. If I want to efficiently move my arm, I should command the muscle directly and not bother with the indirection from a remote location. Nerves would be superfluous. So would senses since the immaterial entity could measure the environment directly, as is demonstrably done by out-of-body/near-death experiences.
Science has no model that can make sense of sentience - it looks as if there can be no such thing. If we decide that that's the case, then there can be no such thing as suffering and there is no role for morality. You can go and torture anyone you like and then defend yourself in court by showing that sentience makes no sense. You will then be locked up for the rest of your life to protect other people from you, and if there's no such thing as sentience, you won't be harmed by that. If you don't believe in sentience, you shouldn't have any problem with being locked up for life even without committing a crime, and you should be able to copy the philosopher who through himself into a volcano to demonstrate his belief in nihilism.
Morality is not something that nihilists care about. It is there for everyone who believes that feelings are or might somehow be real. When discussing morality, we take it for granted that feelings are real. If we work on the basis that they aren't real, then morality is redundant.
Quote
Anyway, I had not intended this to be a debate on philosophy of mind. Yes, the dualistic model has a completely different (and untestable) set of assumptions about what the concept of right and wrong means. Morals don't come from the universe at all. They come from this other realm where the gods and other assertions are safely hidden from empirical inquiry.
If you want to avoid the diversion, then the trick is to play by the rules by starting with the assumption that feelings are real and that something feels them. When we do that and turn our attention to computers, we find no mechanism to induce or read feelings in a sentience. In the brain, we assume that the hardware somehow is able to do both of those things. Science makes that look impossible too, but our job when discussing how morality works is to assume that it is possible; that there is some hardware trick that somehow enables it.
Quote
You brought up sentience in a discussion of universal morals. If it isn't needed, then why bring it up?
Protecting sentient things is the purpose of morality. Calculating morality does not require the calculator to be sentient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2019 00:46:37
Science has no model that can make sense of sentience - it looks as if there can be no such thing. If we decide that that's the case, then there can be no such thing as suffering and there is no role for morality.
Protecting sentient things is the purpose of morality. Calculating morality does not require the calculator to be sentient.That requires sentience to be defined objectively.
Post by: David Cooper on 30/09/2019 20:20:35
How do you define fundamental things? When you reach them, their definitions are always circular. All you have is how they relate to other things.Science has no model that can make sense of sentience - it looks as if there can be no such thing. If we decide that that's the case, then there can be no such thing as suffering and there is no role for morality.Protecting sentient things is the purpose of morality. Calculating morality does not require the calculator to be sentient.That requires sentience to be defined objectively.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2019 05:11:37
How do you define fundamental things? When you reach them, their definitions are always circular. All you have is how they relate to other things.You can compare fundamental things of one object to another. For example, which rock has more mass or volume.
How do you compare and relate sentience to other things?
Post by: David Cooper on 01/10/2019 18:20:08
How do you compare and relate sentience to other things?
We won't know until we find out how to read feelings out of whatever feels feelings. The only examples we think we know of are hidden inside our own heads where our brain makes claims that suggest that it's measuring feelings. That is something only science can explore, but getting to the evidence without destroying what you're looking for may be a tough task.
Post by: David Cooper on 01/10/2019 18:34:12
But we know the rock isn't sentient since none of its particles exhibits free will.
Nothing exhibits free will.
Quote
If any particle was suffering, it could put itself in a situation where this was not the case.
People who are being tortured can't stop the torture so easily.
Quote
Since it isn't doing that, either it isn't sentient or the thing is completely contented.
That's really just an assumption given false backing by faulty reasoning.
Quote
Likewise, the motion of the particles in my body can be described by the laws of physics. Not a single proton seems to be exerting free will. Hence I cannot be sentient (your definition).
My definition doesn't involve free will (not least because there's no such thing), so don't attribute your definition to me.
Quote
What prevents me from flying like superman? I will that, yet cannot bring it about. My free will does not seem to have any ability to override physics, yet you claim otherwise when contrasting yourself to the actions of computers that, lacking said sentience, are confined to the laws of physics.
Again you're trying to attribute ideas to me that are the opposite of the ones I hold. There is no free will involved in anything.
Quote
I did not intend to debate morality from a dualist perspective. The perspective is religious (inherently non-empirical) and that typically has morality pretty much built in. I don't deny that. I just find your particular flavor of it self contradictory.
If sentience exists, there is no escape from "dualism". When discussing morality in a way where we decide that it matters, we have to work under the premise that there is such a thing as sentience. If there is no such thing as sentience, morality has no role as there's nothing needing to be protected from anything else. A computer that prints "Ouch!" to the screen when you tap the "O" key and "Ooh, I like that!" when you type "E" (for ecstasy) does not feel pain or pleasure on either occasion. We can simply switch the strings round and it will print "Ouch!" when you type "E" instead. It's just data without sentience. Anything you do with a program on a computer works like that without any feelings being tied to the process at all. When you run them on a Chinese Room processor, you can easily see that this is the case. If you ban "dualism", the human brain is like that too with no feelings involved and with all the claims about feelings coming out of the brain being false. I'm not contradicting myself anywhere, but am simply telling it as it is. Sentience looks impossible and there is no room for it in any way that ties it to process in our machines. In discussing morality though, we put that apparent impossibility aside for cases where the full mechanism remains beyond the current reach of science and we humour the idea that sentience might be real. On that basis, we can then talk explore the idea of morality while remaining fully aware that it is predicated on something that may be false.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/10/2019 04:16:46
Quote
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
Quote
Definition of sentiencehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentience
1: a sentient quality or state
2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
Quote
Definition of consciousnesshttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness
1a: the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
b: the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
c: AWARENESS
especially : concern for some social or political cause
The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.
2: the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
3: the totality of conscious states of an individual
4: the normal state of conscious life
regained consciousness
5: the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes
If you use words for significantly different meanings than commonly used definitions, maybe it's better to use different terminology, or even create a new word to express your intention.
Post by: David Cooper on 02/10/2019 19:46:23
Nothing exhibits free will.I think I have misread your position. You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.
Free will depends on an injection of magic somewhere to get round the problem of everything that happens having a cause. Even if that cause is something genuinely random, it still doesn't provide for free will. We do what we're forced to do by physics. At a higher level, we're simply trying to do the best thing (for ourselves) all the time, and the only way to break free of that rule in order to pretend to have free will is to do something less good, but that seems to be the best thing to do too as it's an attempt to satisfy ourselves that we have free will and to feel better for believing that (if we're stupid enough not to realise that we failed).
Quote
It seems that you consider sentience to be a passive experiencer, lacking any agency in the physical world. Morals are there as obligations to these external experiencers, to keep your movie audience contented so to speak.
Perhaps I am wrong about this epiphenomenal stance. Kindly correct me if I've again got it wrong.
If sentience is real, it is just a passenger. It appears to have no useful role in the machine. However, people report pain being an unpleasant thing and they typically consider it important not to cause it without justification (which means using it with the aim of causing less suffering).
There are two different discussions involved in this. One is a discussion of how morality works, and it's predicated on sentience being a real thing. The other is a discussion of what sentience is and how it works. The second of these is the biggest puzzle of them all, and it would be easy to waste your whole life trying to crack it. I'd rather wait to see what happens when the claims about sentience generated by human brains are traced back to see what evidence they are based on. We may uncover a self-delusion mechanism which fools a machine with no self into thinking it has a self. Alternatively, we may find something new to science which stuns everyone. What I repeatedly come up against though is people who don't look deeply enough at how computers work who insist that sentience can be operating in there somewhere in the bit they don't understand, and they're absolutely sure they're right because they're absolutely sure that they themselves are sentient and that they are just machines. That's maybe a third discussion, and it's worth having in that it can be resolved just by filling in the gaps for those people so that they can see that sentience cannot be operating where they hoped it might be. Morality is also resolved. What is not resolved is the part that seems so impossible that it just makes sentience look impossible, and yet it feels too real for that to be the case.
Post by: David Cooper on 03/10/2019 20:56:47
OK, you define free will as 1) having this external thing (what you call a sentience), and 2) it having a will and being able to exert that. This actually pretty much sums up the concept from a typical dualist, yes.You say nothing has free will, but haven't defined it.Free will depends on an injection of magic somewhere to get round the problem of everything that happens having a cause.
When I said it "depends on an injection of magic", I was ruling out free will on that basis - not endorsing it. Whatever the sentience does, it's caused to do that by the inputs and whatever algorithm its mechanism applies to them.
Quote
I on the other hand would describe that situation as possession, where my will is overridden by a stronger agent, and its freedom taken away. You don't describe possession. The body retains its physical will and this 'sentience' gets its jollies by being along for the ride.
I just see a whole lot of causation from the outside interacting with causation from the set up of whatever's on the inside, and every part of it is dictated by physics.
Quote
That said, you seem aware of the 'magic' that needs to happen. Most are in stark denial of it, or posit it in some inaccessible place like the pineal gland despite the complete lack of neurons letting their shots be called by it.
I rule it out because it depends on magic.
Quote
You're an epiphenomenalist, a less mainstream stance.
I don't think that fits. If sentience is real, it has a causal role: without that, it cannot possibly cause claims about feelings being felt to be generated. It is still just a passenger though in that what it does is forced by the inputs.
Quote
Why do you posit it then? Seem like the equivalent of positing the invisible pink unicorn that's always in the room. If there's no distinction between the presence or absence of a thing, why posit it?
If there's no sentience, then torture is impossible and morality has no purpose. Most people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself. If you are completely out of that camp, then you should be a nihilist with no self.
Quote
Why might you not have many of them, a whole cinema full all taking the same ride?
Indeed, there could be quintillions of sentiences in there all imagining themselves to be the only one, and they might not all be feeling the same thing as each other, but due to lack of memory, they aren't going to be capable of recognising any contradiction between what they feel and what the brain reads the feeling to be.
Quote
Most people don't define sentience as an epiphenomenal passenger, so most don't base their moral decisions on how it will make the unicorn feel.
If they believe in sentience, the sentient thing that feels is what morality is there to protect. If they don't have that, they don't need morality. But they want to have sentience without any sentient thing to experience feelings other than magical complexity.
Post by: David Cooper on 04/10/2019 20:38:32
When I said it "depends on an injection of magic", I was ruling out free will on that basis - not endorsing it.Understood, but this is only true given a free-will definition that involves this kind of magic going on, instead of somebody else that considers free will to be not remote controlled.
The same magic is required for it regardless where it's controlled from. Whatever causes something is itself caused and is forced to cause what it causes. There is no such thing as choice in that whatever is chosen in the end was actually forced.
Quote
QuoteI just see a whole lot of causation from the outside interacting with causation from the set up of whatever's on the inside, and every part of it is dictated by physics.That sounds like a description of semi-deterministic physics.
It's fully deterministic physics.
Quote
QuoteIf sentience is real, it has a causal role: without that, it cannot possibly cause claims about feelings being felt to be generated. It is still just a passenger though in that what it does is forced by the inputs.This seems to be a contradictory statement.
It isn't. X causes Y, then Y causes Z --> X causes Z. Y causes Z but is forced to by X.
Quote
If I feel the warmth of green, I cannot cause the body to discuss said warmth without performing said magic on the physical body which supposedly is incapable of such feelings. If it has any causal role, there's magic going on.
There's no magic in Y being forced by X to cause Z.
Quote
QuoteIf there's no sentience, then torture is impossible and morality has no purpose.Agree. So I find your definitions rather implausible for this reason. My view doesn't have this external passenger.
If you don't have something experiencing the feelings, you have no sentience there and the feelings don't exist either. By throwing away the "passenger" you lose the sentience.
Quote
The physical being is all there is and is sentient in itself (yes, a different definition of sentience), has free will because nothing else is overriding its physical will, and morality has a purpose because there are obligations to the physical thing.
There is no free will for Y in "X causes Y causes Z" and no free will for X either because it's caused by W). Your big mistake there is in accepting something that's actually impossible. There is no free will. You want the physical being to be sentient in itself, and that's fine: that's like particles being sentient, and it's possible that all stuff is sentient. That doesn't solve the problem of how an information system can ever get that knowledge from it in order to report the existence of sentience.
Quote
I also don't think morality is about pain and suffering. Everybody that says that makes it sound like life is some kind of horrible thing to have to experience. Pleasure and pain are means to an end. If the pleasure and pain were the end (the point of morality), then we should just put everybody on heroin. Problem solved. Recognizing the greater purpose is isn't a trivial task.
Morality is about suffering AND the opposite. It's a harm:benefit calculation in which the harm is ideally minimised and the benefit (all kinds of pleasure) maximised, but where those two aims conflict with each other in places and you're looking for the best compromise between the two to optimise quality of life..
Quote
QuoteMost people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.Nonsense. I don't think I need the unicorn to feel my own pain for me. That you propose this indicates that the idea is beyond your comprehension, and not just an interpretation with which you don't agree.
But you are the unicorn. Of course you can't have a unicorn feel anything for you because then it would be the sentience rather than you. Don't attribute nonsense to me that comes out of your misreading of my position.
Quote
QuoteIf they believe in sentience, the sentient thing that feels is what morality is there to protect.Almost nobody believes in the sort of sentence you describe. Typically it's a separate experiencer capable of said magic (think Chalmers), or in my case, a sentience composed of a physical process (Dennett, or whoever that hero is supposed to be).
I don't give a damn where the sentient thing is or what it's made of: that's a job for science to uncover. The only thing that actually matters here is that for feelings to be real, something real has to experience them, and that is a sentience. No sentient thing --> no feelings can be felt --> no role for morality --> you can try to torture anyone as much as you like and no harm can be done. If you think sentience is real, you need to ask yourself where it is and how it interacts with the things that physics recognises as being real. Chalmers has sentient stuff, and that's not incompatible with physics, but he (and everyone else) cannot account for how that sentience can be detected by the brain in order for the information system of the brain to generate accounts of what that sentience is experiencing. Dennet appears to be a nihilist - it should be possible to torture him and have him assure everyone throughout that the pain isn't real and that he can't really be suffering. Dennet may be right, but it's hard to believe that when you're actually in pain (as I often am due to Crohn's disease). It feels too real to be a fiction: making something non-sentient believe that it's sentient is quite some trick.
What I object to most though is when people deny the existence of a sentient thing and yet insist on asserting that there is sentience in there. There isn't any in a computer which makes fake claims about being in pain when you type a particular key, and it's the same situation with any system which fakes the claims, no matter how complex the system is and how well hidden the cheating is. People who insist that there is sentience in such systems should also insist that it is there in the simple program that cheats by claiming that pain is experienced when a key is pressed just because it is programmed to print a string to the screen as a response which makes a claim and where the claim could be edited to make the opposite claim without changing the feeling of anything.
Post by: Halc on 05/10/2019 06:54:54
Quote from: David Cooper
The same magic is required for it regardless where it's controlled from.Blatantly false. A roomba is controlled from within itself and it requires no magic to do so. It just requires magic if the control is to come from outside the physical realm.
Quote
Whatever causes something is itself caused and is forced to cause what it causes.Indeed. You make it sound like a bad thing. I thought of what it would be like if choices were not based on input that was not caused by prior state. I'd be dead in a day.
Quote
There is no such thing as choice in that whatever is chosen in the end was actually forced.If that were true, mammals would not have evolved better brains to make better choices, or to make say moral choices. We are ultimately responsible for our choices, as evidenced by what happens to those that make poor ones. Not sure what choice is if you don't think that's going on.
MInd you, I agree that if the physics of the universe is deterministic, then my choices are determined. I'm just saying that they're still choices.
Quote
It isn't. X causes Y, then Y causes Z --> X causes Z. Y causes Z but is forced to by X.[/quote]Which one (X, Y, or Z) is the sentience (your definition)? I thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.QuoteIf sentience is real, it has a causal role: without that, it cannot possibly cause claims about feelings being felt to be generated. It is still just a passenger though in that what it does is forced by the inputs.This seems to be a contradictory statement.
Quote
If you don't have something experiencing the feelings, you have no sentience there and the feelings don't exist either.Only true in your interpretation. I for instance never said there wasn't something experiencing my feelings. I just don't think it's a separate entity, passenger or otherwise. I'm fine with you disagreeing with it, but do you find inconsistency with it, without begging your own interpretation?
Quote
I find that thinking shallow. Heroin it is then, the most moral thing you can do to others. It minimizes suffering an maximizes pleasure, resulting in the optimum quality of life.QuoteI also don't think morality is about pain and suffering. Everybody that says that makes it sound like life is some kind of horrible thing to have to experience. Pleasure and pain are means to an end. If the pleasure and pain were the end (the point of morality), then we should just put everybody on heroin. Problem solved. Recognizing the greater purpose is isn't a trivial task.Morality is about suffering AND the opposite.
Quote
I wasn't commenting on your position. Your statement above concerned the camp that I'm in, implying that pain cannot be felt given a different interpretation of mind.Quote from: Halc... Don't attribute nonsense to me that comes out of your misreading of my position.Quote from: CooperMost people believe that pain is real and that they strongly dislike it. If you are in that camp, then you're a unicornist yourself.Nonsense. I don't think I need the unicorn to feel my own pain for me.
Quote
The only thing that actually matters here is that for feelings to be real, something real has to experience them, and that is a sentience. No sentient thing --> no feelings can be felt --> no role for morality --> you can try to torture anyone as much as you like and no harm can be done.Totally agree. That's all that matters for the purpose of this topic. I'm not the one that drove this discussion to down assertions about the interpretation of mind. Only a moral nihilist denies that feelings matter to anything, and I'm not in with that crowd.
Quote
Dennet appears to be a nihilistA word you seem to use for any monist position. You're begging your interpretation to draw this conclusion.
Answer my question. How do you know about your passenger if it cannot make itself known to you?
Post by: David Cooper on 05/10/2019 21:01:59
Quote from: David CooperThe same magic is required for it regardless where it's controlled from.Blatantly false. A roomba is controlled from within itself and it requires no magic to do so. It just requires magic if the control is to come from outside the physical realm.
You appear to have lost track of the point. With the sentience, there are inputs and outputs, and the outputs are determined by the inputs. The inputs are the X (inputs) that cause Y in the sentient thing, and Y then causes Z (outputs). In the course of Y happening, feelings are supposedly generated, and some of the outputs document that in some way. A roomba reacts to inputs in the same way, but doesn't generate claims about sentience in Y.
Quote
If that were true, mammals would not have evolved better brains to make better choices, or to make say moral choices. We are ultimately responsible for our choices, as evidenced by what happens to those that make poor ones. Not sure what choice is if you don't think that's going on.
MInd you, I agree that if the physics of the universe is deterministic, then my choices are determined. I'm just saying that they're still choices.
Our choices are no different from the ones computers make. The computer making a choice between which string to print to the screen when you press a key is applying an algorithm to work out which one to print, but its choice is forced. You can run algorithms that produce apparently random numbers too, but the results are forced. We are like that: there are many factors that can determine what number you say if I ask you for a number between fifty and a hundred, but your choice is forced by the algorithms and perhaps disturbances in the system which affect the algorithms. That itch on your back may distract you for a moment and lead to a different number being chosen than the one you would have gone for if the distraction hadn't occurred when it did. It's all forced though. We can use interrupts in a computer to disrupt an algorithm which makes it miss an event at a timer that it's watching.
Quote
I thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.
I told you before that it has a causal role: the generation of data documenting the experience of sentience cannot be triggered without outputs from the sentience to inform the system that the experience happened. This is the key thing that science will some day be able to explore, because for sentience to be real, that output from it must exist. (The problem then though is how the output can be understood rather than just making baseless assertions about what it represents.)
Quote
QuoteIf you don't have something experiencing the feelings, you have no sentience there and the feelings don't exist either.Only true in your interpretation. I for instance never said there wasn't something experiencing my feelings. I just don't think it's a separate entity, passenger or otherwise. I'm fine with you disagreeing with it, but do you find inconsistency with it, without begging your own interpretation?
True in any rational interpretation. I don't say that it has to be a separate entity, but simply that for feelings to be felt, something has to feel them. Things that don't exist can't do anything, actions can't be performed by nothing, and experiences can't be experienced by nothing.
Quote
Quote[Morality is about suffering AND the opposite.I find that thinking shallow.
You're entitled to find reality shallow if you like, but if you remove those things, morality is 100% redundant.
Quote
Your statement above concerned the camp that I'm in, implying that pain cannot be felt given a different interpretation of mind.
An interpretation of mind in which feelings are experienced by nothing is a magical interpretation.
Quote
QuoteDennet appears to be a nihilistA word you seem to use for any monist position. You're begging your interpretation to draw this conclusion.
I use the word to describe a position which denies the feelings exist at all and that there is no sentience.
Quote
Answer my question. How do you know about your passenger if it cannot make itself known to you?
From the start I said that sentience could be a property of all particles (stuff, energy), so in that sense it needn't be a passenger as it is the essential nature of that stuff. I call it a passenger when referring to its lack of any useful causal role that can be produced just by going straight from X to Z without the middleman. The only thing it appears to do that goes beyond that is drive the generation of data to document the experiencing of feelings, but it's hard to believe that it actually does that as it should be impossible to interpret that part of the output in any way that would lead to the system that generates the data documenting the experience to have any idea that there was an experience of feelings at all.
Post by: Halc on 06/10/2019 19:28:30
The inputs are the X (inputs) that cause Y in the sentient thing, and Y then causes Z (outputs). In the course of Y happening, feelings are supposedly generated, and some of the outputs document that in some way.OK, Is Y the experiencing the feelings, or is Y the physical feelings which are noticed by the sentient experiencer? I'm trying to figure out if the physical feelings or the sentient experience of those feelings is what is causing Z, the output.
I ask because of this:
Quote
Here you are asserting output from the sentience, which you say cannot be done without some kind of magic that we both deny.QuoteI thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.I told you before that it has a causal role: the generation of data documenting the experience of sentience cannot be triggered without outputs from the sentience to inform the system that the experience happened.
You say that physics is entirely deterministic, which means that output from something external to the physical system cannot cause any effects in said determined system. In your quote just above, you assert the opposite, that the system is being informed of data from non-physical sources, which would make it non-deterministic, or which makes the sentience part of the deterministic physical system, in which case it isn't two systems, but just one.
Quote
I call it a passenger when referring to its lack of any useful causal role that can be produced just by going straight from X to ZHere again you seem to deny the 'passenger' having a causal role, yet above you say it causes data about the feelings. If I avoid standing in the rain because it gives me discomfort, then the discomfort definitely plays a causal role in my choosing to seek shelter. There's not a direct link from rain to choice of seeking shelter if I don't know if the sentient experiencer prefers a wet environment or not. Some things clearly have a preference for it, like say robins.
Post by: evan_au on 07/10/2019 01:42:15
Quote from: Halc
if the physics of the universe is deterministicIn quantum theory, physics is not deterministic (or at least, not determinable by us).
However, in mammals, I think moral decisions arise at a higher level than the quantum level - it is encoded in the strengths of synapses.
Quote from: David Cooper
Morality is ... a harm:benefit calculation in which the harm is ideally minimised and the benefit (all kinds of pleasure) maximisedAs I understand it, people with certain brain structures have psychopathic tendencies
- However, they don't become full-blown psychopaths unless there is a trigger - such as being abandoned by their mother at a young age
- With this trigger, their moral rule seems to be: "The only harm that counts is harm to me, and the only pleasure that counts is what brings pleasure to me.".
- A psychopath does a very local harm:benefit calculation
- Other systems of morality take a more global view of whose harm and benefit they include in the calculation
- Sometimes it's just "my family", "my tribe", "my skin colour", "my nation" or "my religion"
- Without the trigger, people with psychopathic tendencies could live useful and productive lives - as lawyers, drill sergeants or surgeons, for example
- So the synapses driving their morality are formed with various inputs from DNA, and development before and after birth. These synaptic weights can be modified by the individual based on their teaching, experiences, and deductions.
I agree that in the end, we are all responsible for our decisions.
Listen to neuroscientist James Fallon: https://after-on.com/episodes/029
Post by: Halc on 07/10/2019 02:37:50
His assertion, not mine. And deterministic doesn't mean determinable.Quote from: Halcif the physics of the universe is deterministicIn quantum theory, physics is not deterministic (or at least, not determinable by us).
That said, quantum theory actually doesn't say one way or another. It is interpretation dependent.
MWI and Bohmian mechanics for instance, while very different interpretations, are both hard deterministic (no true randomness). Neither asserts that one can predict where a photon will be measured no matter how much we measure ahead of time. That's just not what deterministic means.
Given his assertions on the subject, I assume David has bought into one of these deterministic interpretations, or that he hasn't put much thought into it. I know he's a presentist, though that hasn't come up in this topic. The typical presentist tends not to choose a deterministic interpretation of QM, but the combination is not contradictory.
Quote
However, in mammals, I think moral decisions arise at a higher level than the quantum level - it is encoded in the strengths of synapses.Agree that it's not a quantum thing at all. Quantum stuff always comes up because dualism needs a way to allow a non-physical will to effect changes in a physical world, and QM is where lies the argument that such external interference is or isn't feasible.
I think that to an extent, human morality is encoded into us at a deep level (DNA), but not completely. Much of it is simply taught. Being encoded in human DNA, it is human morality, not universal morality.
Look at the morality of wolves, which is quite strong and consistent from pack to pack. That's DNA morality, not taught. Wolves and bees are far more moral creatures than are humans, as measured by their adherence to their own code.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2019 09:51:18
From the start I said that sentience could be a property of all particles (stuff, energy), so in that sense it needn't be a passenger as it is the essential nature of that stuff.It seems to me that you used eastern philosophical definition of sentience.
Quote
Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights.I had some issues regarding this view, as I stated in my previous post. What is the ultimate/terminal goal of moral rules derived from this view? What will happen if we ignore them? why are they bad?
Neuroscience has shown that we can manipulate neurotransmitters to temporary disable human's ability to feel. Hence it is possible to kill a living organism, including humans, without involving any feeling of the subject (see Coup de grâce), hence not violating moral rules whose ultimate goal is to minimize pain and suffering while maximizing pleasure and happiness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2019 10:43:21
- So the synapses driving their morality are formed with various inputs from DNA, and development before and after birth. These synaptic weights can be modified by the individual based on their teaching, experiences, and deductions.I think this view is consistent with my thought experiment posted here
The next step for cooperating more effectively is by splitting duties among colony members. Some responsible for defense, some for digesting food, etc. Though each cell are genetically identical, they can develop differently due to Gene activation by their surrounding.
This requires longer and more complex genetic materials in each organism's cell.
I've mentioned that consciousness comes as a continuum. Different levels of consciousness are likely the product of evolution, involving random changes and natural selections. I summarized the process in the thread quoted above.
Development of feeling is just a milestone in the development of consciousness through evolution.
From neuroscience, we know that pain and pleasure are electrochemical processes in the nervous system. Hence seeking pleasure and avoiding pain should be treated as instrumental goals only, not the terminal goals themselves. Otherwise they would be the inevitable victims of reward hackings such as in drug abuses.So they need the ability to distinguish objects in their surrounding and categorize them, so they can choose appropriate actions.Some organisms develop pain and pleasure system to tell if some circumstances are good or bad for their survival. They try to avoid pain and seek pleasure, which is basically making assumptions that pain is bad while pleasure is good.
Though there are times it could be a mistake to seek pleasure and avoid pain, mostly this rule of thumb brings overall benefits to the organisms.
Avoiding pain can prevent organisms from suffering further damage which may threat their lives. While seeking pleasure can help them to get basic needs to survive, such as food and sex.
The next milestone of consciousness that I know of is emotion. It involves expected future feelings. This ability requires additional memory capacity to build a rough model/simulation of the environment.
The next milestone is reason, which is the ability to think. It builds more robust and detail models/simulations of the environment.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/10/2019 22:59:22
OK, Is Y the experiencing the feelings, or is Y the physical feelings which are noticed by the sentient experiencer? I'm trying to figure out if the physical feelings or the sentient experience of those feelings is what is causing Z, the output.
Let's look at something simple that might be sentient: a worm. You prod the worm with something sharp and it reacts as if in pain. The prodding is X and the reaction is Z. In between those two things is Y, and the pain (assuming that a worm can feel pain) is experienced there by something. You can do the exact same thing with a human, and if the human needs a feeling of pain as part of the mechanism, the worm likely has that too: evolution probably isn't going to add pain into this situation for us if it already has a system that works just fine without it while producing the same kind of response. We can't build a model of this with a feeling of pain in it: we simply don't know how to. The only models that we can build provide the same behaviour without pain being involved, or which assert that there is pain being experienced at some point without actually providing any way for the system to detect that this is happening and to report such a feeling being felt. The pain in any model we build is superfluous and would be impossible to detect. However, humans report the involvement of pain. Models only report it if they've been programmed to make baseless assertions which don't involve any measurement of pain or any other kinds of feelings.
There are two possibilities though if feelings are real: X causes Y (which is the experience of pain) and Y causes Z, or we might have X causes Z and X also causes pain at Y which Z then claims led to Y causing Z.
Quote
I ask because of this:QuoteHere you are asserting output from the sentience, which you say cannot be done without some kind of magic that we both deny.QuoteI thought it was a passenger and has no arrow pointing from it. If so, it has no causal role. If it has one, then there's magic going on.I told you before that it has a causal role: the generation of data documenting the experience of sentience cannot be triggered without outputs from the sentience to inform the system that the experience happened.
If you don't have output from the sentience, it has no role in the system. Its actual role may not be to cause Z, but Z is generating claims that Z was caused by Y. That's what science needs to explore to see why something at Z is generating such a claim.
Quote
You say that physics is entirely deterministic, which means that output from something external to the physical system cannot cause any effects in said determined system. In your quote just above, you assert the opposite, that the system is being informed of data from non-physical sources, which would make it non-deterministic, or which makes the sentience part of the deterministic physical system, in which case it isn't two systems, but just one.
I don't think there is such a thing as true randomness, but it isn't important to bring that into this and I didn't say that physics is entirely deterministic. Randomness is not free will. We can allow true randomness at base level if you like, but those random events then cause things, and that takes us to a point where everything else is caused, all dictated by the initial circumstances and those random inputs. In computer chips, they have to be designed in such a way that randomness doesn't interfere with their functionality, so everything that a program does is fully deterministic. In our brains, that may not be the case, but random events making a bit of neural net behave slightly different each time it fires is not free will and is more likely to cause trouble than do anything useful. Neural nets actually get trained in order to minimise unreliability issues, but this typically never reaches perfection and leads to us making mistakes in almost everything we do.
I also never said that something external to the physical system was involved in any way. Whatever is sentient, if feelings exist at all, is necessarily part of the physical system. The outputs from the sentience are outputs from something that is part of the physical system (and in which feelings, if feelings exist at all) are experienced.
Quote
Here again you seem to deny the 'passenger' having a causal role,
No: I deny it having a useful role. You can cut out Y and have X cause the same Z as you get with X causes Y causes Z, except that when you have Y in the chain you also get these assertions being generated about there being feelings involved in the process.
Quote
If I avoid standing in the rain because it gives me discomfort, then the discomfort definitely plays a causal role in my choosing to seek shelter.
Then show me a model of that. It should be exactly like with the pain one. A sensor on the skin sends a signal to the brain, and that's an input. The input is fed into a black box where discomfort is experienced. An output from the black box then causes the brain move the animal into shelter. We can bypass the black box and the functionality is unchanged: the input wire can simply be connected directly to the output wire. Except, the black box also triggers claims to be generated about feelings being experienced inside the box, and it makes those known to the outside by sending a signal down another wire to say so. However, we could simply connect the input wire to both output wires and remove the black box and the exact same functionality is produced, including the generation of claims about feelings being experienced in the black box even though the black box no longer exists in the system.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/10/2019 23:05:34
Agree that it's not a quantum thing at all. Quantum stuff always comes up because dualism needs a way to allow a non-physical will to effect changes in a physical world, and QM is where lies the argument that such external interference is or isn't feasible.
The reason that quantum stuff gets dragged into this is that it's impossible to model sentience without it. It looks impossible to model it with it too, but because it's complex, it provides some refuge for hope. If the brain doesn't perform some extraordinary kind of trick, sentience is fake and there is no role for morality; no self in any of us to need to be protected.
Post by: David Cooper on 07/10/2019 23:18:52
Neuroscience has shown that we can manipulate neurotransmitters to temporary disable human's ability to feel. Hence it is possible to kill a living organism, including humans, without involving any feeling of the subject (see Coup de grâce), hence not violating moral rules whose ultimate goal is to minimize pain and suffering while maximizing pleasure and happiness.
You can kill everyone humanely without them feeling anything, but that's clearly immoral if you're producing inferior harm:benefit figures, and you would be doing so if you tried that. Imagine that you are going to live the lives of everyone in the system, going round and round through time to do so. There are a thousand people on an island and one of them decides that he can have a better life if he kills all the others, and by doing it humanely he imagines that it's not immoral. He doesn't know that he will also live the lives of all those other people and that he will be killing himself 999 times. If he knew, he would not do it because he'd realise that he's going to lose out heavily rather than gain.
Of course, in the real world we don't believe that we're going to live all those lives in turn, but the method for calculating morality is right regardless: this is the way that AGI should calculate it. Morality isn't about rewarding one selfish person at the expense of all the others, but about maximising pleasure (though not by force - we don't all want to be drugged for it) and minimising suffering.
Also, we're setting things up for future generations. We care about our children's children's children's children's children, and we don't want to set up a system that picks one of them to give the Earth to while the rest are humanely killed. Morality isn't about biasing things in favour of one individual or group, but about rewarding all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/10/2019 09:50:41
Your calculation of harm:benefit here has nothing to do with feelings. Moral rules based on pleasure and suffering as their ultimate goals are vulnerable to reward hacking (such as drugs) and exploitation by utility monsters.Neuroscience has shown that we can manipulate neurotransmitters to temporary disable human's ability to feel. Hence it is possible to kill a living organism, including humans, without involving any feeling of the subject (see Coup de grâce), hence not violating moral rules whose ultimate goal is to minimize pain and suffering while maximizing pleasure and happiness.
You can kill everyone humanely without them feeling anything, but that's clearly immoral if you're producing inferior harm:benefit figures, and you would be doing so if you tried that. Imagine that you are going to live the lives of everyone in the system, going round and round through time to do so. There are a thousand people on an island and one of them decides that he can have a better life if he kills all the others, and by doing it humanely he imagines that it's not immoral. He doesn't know that he will also live the lives of all those other people and that he will be killing himself 999 times. If he knew, he would not do it because he'd realise that he's going to lose out heavily rather than gain.
Of course, in the real world we don't believe that we're going to live all those lives in turn, but the method for calculating morality is right regardless: this is the way that AGI should calculate it. Morality isn't about rewarding one selfish person at the expense of all the others, but about maximising pleasure (though not by force - we don't all want to be drugged for it) and minimising suffering.
Also, we're setting things up for future generations. We care about our children's children's children's children's children, and we don't want to set up a system that picks one of them to give the Earth to while the rest are humanely killed. Morality isn't about biasing things in favour of one individual or group, but about rewarding all.
We know that killing random person is immoral, even if we can make sure that the person doesn't feel any pain while dying. There must be a more fundamental reason to get to that conclusion, other than minimising suffering, because no suffering is involved here.
I have mentioned that moral rules are created as methods to protect conscious beings from getting harmed by other conscious beings. Those rules can not protect us from unconscious beings such as natural disasters, germs, or beast attacks.
Post by: evan_au on 08/10/2019 10:30:56
Quote from: David Cooper
standing in the rain ... we could simply connect the input wire to both output wires and remove the black box and the exact same functionality is produced, including the generation of claims about feelings being experienced in the black box even though the black box no longer exists in the system.If you grew up Scottish winters, standing in the rain is likely to give you hypothermia.
If you grew up in Darwin (Australia), standing in the rain cools you down a bit, and the water will evaporate fairly soon anyway.
We need the black box, because an individual human might be born in Edinburgh or Darwin.
If all reactions were hard-wired, without the integration of other sensations, experiences (and mothers yelling at children), humans would not have spread so far around the world.
Quote from: evan_au
Sometimes morality is just applied to "my family", "my tribe"...And sometimes morality is just applied to "my species"
- while some people (like Buddhists) want to apply morality to all living animals (partly because they think that, one day, they might be one of those animals).
- Some people want to extend it to plants
- And there are undoubtedly impacts of fungicides on microbes living in the soil and living in symbiosis with trees and plants; or microbes living in symbiosis with our guts
- Some people even wish to extend morality to the whole planet...
...We haven't made enough of an impact on the universe to be worried about saving the universe - but planetary protection officers are worried about us polluting Mars with our microbes, and destroying any traces of native Martian life.
Post by: Halc on 08/10/2019 14:44:14
With that I agree, but you are not consistent with this model.Quote from: HalcHere you are asserting output from the sentience, which you say cannot be done without some kind of magic that we both deny.If you don't have output from the sentience, it has no role in the system.
Quote
I also never said that something external to the physical system was involved in any way. Whatever is sentient, if feelings exist at all, is necessarily part of the physical system.OK, this is different. If it is part of the physical system, why can't it play a role in the system? What prevents it from having an output?
It would seem that I don't avoid hitting my thumb with a hammer because I want to avoid saying 'ouch'. I can say the word freely and it causes me no discomfort. No, I avoid hitting my thumb because it would hurt, which means the past experience of pain has had the causal effect of making me more careful. That's an output (a useful role), but you deny that this causal chain (output from the physical sentience) exists.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/10/2019 22:12:00
Your calculation of harm:benefit here has nothing to do with feelings.
It's entirely about feelings. The benefits are all feelings, and the harm is all feelings. If you prevent some of the benefits by removing the people who would have received them, you have worse harm:benefit figures as a result of their loss. Killing them humanely doesn't prevent that loss. Let's say that with our thousand people on the island, the average one of them gets 90 units of pleasure and 10 units of suffering in their life, so we have 10,000 units of suffering and 90,000 units of pleasure. By using a ":" I accidentally made it look like a ratio, but that isn't the right way to crunch the numbers. What you have to do is subtract the 10,000 form the 90,000 to get the score of 80,000. That is what the lives of those 1000 people are worth. If you kill 999 people humanely, you reduce the harm figure for each of those 999 people from 10 to 0 and you reduce the pleasure figure from 90 to 0 for each of them too. The one survivor is happier, and he may now have a suffering value of 1 and a pleasure value of 500, which we can turn into a score of 499. The quality of life for the new population is 499, but it used to be 80,000. That's a very immoral change indeed.
Note that if we could get that one surviving individual's pleasure up to 100,000, that would change the situation, but it would be hard to achieve such figures in any real scenario unless we're dealing with one human versus 999 mosquitoes.
Quote
Moral rules based on pleasure and suffering as their ultimate goals are vulnerable to reward hacking (such as drugs) and exploitation by utility monsters.
People don't want to be put on drugs by force. Those who wish to do that to others have a moral obligation to do it to themselves instead and allow others to make the same choice. As it happens, a lot of people do make that choice for themselves, and it doesn't appear to give them better lives. And utility monsters are not doing the sums correctly.
Quote
We know that killing random person is immoral, even if we can make sure that the person doesn't feel any pain while dying. There must be a more fundamental reason to get to that conclusion, other than minimising suffering, because no suffering is involved here.
You've focused on one half of the sum and ignored the other. That killer is not taking into account the loss of pleasure that results from his actions.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/10/2019 22:15:55
If you grew up Scottish winters, standing in the rain is likely to give you hypothermia.
If you grew up in Darwin (Australia), standing in the rain cools you down a bit, and the water will evaporate fairly soon anyway.
That is taken into account before the inputs go into the black box. The feelings relate to the total and not to the individual components. The black box remains superfluous.
Post by: David Cooper on 08/10/2019 22:32:57
With that I agree, but you are not consistent with this model.Quote from: HalcHere you are asserting output from the sentience, which you say cannot be done without some kind of magic that we both deny.If you don't have output from the sentience, it has no role in the system.
I've been over this stuff a thousand times in conversations like this and I'm being consistent throughout. The models keep changing to illustrate different points and what's said about them has to change to match. I don't know what you think isn't consistent, but if you want to chase it down you'll find that it isn't there.
Quote
QuoteI also never said that something external to the physical system was involved in any way. Whatever is sentient, if feelings exist at all, is necessarily part of the physical system.OK, this is different. If it is part of the physical system, why can't it play a role in the system? What prevents it from having an output?
Nothing prevents it from having an output. The problem is that the output is dictated by the input in such a way that the experience of feelings is superfluous. That doesn't mean an experience of feelings isn't part of the chain of causation, but the system would work just as well without it. And the other problem is that the information system that generates the claims about feelings being felt is outside the black box and cannot know anything about the feelings that are supposedly being experienced in there. If you attempt to put the information system inside the black box, we can again isolate the part where the feelings are experienced and put that into another black box within the first one, and again we see that the information system that generates the claims about feelings does so without seeing any evidence for them existing.
Quote
It would seem that I don't avoid hitting my thumb with a hammer because I want to avoid saying 'ouch'. I can say the word freely and it causes me no discomfort. No, I avoid hitting my thumb because it would hurt, which means the past experience of pain has had the causal effect of making me more careful. That's an output (a useful role), but you deny that this causal chain (output from the physical sentience) exists.
I don't deny that it exists. What I deny is that the information system can know that the pain exists and that the claims it makes cannot competent, unless there's something spectacular going on in the physics which science has not yet uncovered. There is no way to integrate sentience into computers in any way that enables the information system to know what is being experienced by anything that might be feeling feelings. It simply can't be done. If feelings are real in humans, something truly weird is going on.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/10/2019 02:01:07
Post by: Halc on 09/10/2019 02:47:21
And the other problem is that the information system that generates the claims about feelings being felt is outside the black box and cannot know anything about the feelings that are supposedly being experienced in there.I am conversing with your information system, not the black box, and that information system seems very well aware indeed of those feelings. Your stance seem to be that you are unaware that you feel pain and such. I feel mine, but I cannot prove that to you since only I have a subjective connection to the output of what you call this black box.
On the other hand, you claim the black box does have outputs, but they're apparently not taken into consideration by anything, which is functionally the same as not having those outputs, sort of like a computer with a VGA output without a monitor plugged into it.
Quote
Cannot competent? That seems a typo, but I cannot guess as to what you meant there.QuoteI avoid hitting my thumb because it would hurt, which means the past experience of pain has had the causal effect of making me more careful. That's an output (a useful role), but you deny that this causal chain (output from the physical sentience) exists.I don't deny that it exists. What I deny is that the information system can know that the pain exists and that the claims it makes cannot competent,
Again this contradiction is asserted: You don't deny the causal connection exists, yet the information system is seemingly forbidden from using the connection. Perhaps your black box also holds an entirely different belief about how it all works, but your information system instead generates these contradictory statements, and the black box lacks the free will to make it post its actual beliefs.
Quote
unless there's something spectacular going on in the physics which science has not yet uncovered.A simple wire (nerve) from the black box to the 'information system' part is neither spectacular nor hidden from science. In reality, there's more than one, but a serial line would do in a pinch. Perhaps you posit that the black box is spatially separated from the information system to where a wire would not be practical. If so, you've left off that critical detail, which is why I'm forced to play 20 questions, 'chasing it down' as you put it.
In a chess game, the winner is not determined by who has more pieces, nor the one with highest sum of pieces' values. They are merely rule of thumb, short cut, approximation, Which is usually useful when we can't be sure about the end position of the game.The set of all possible chess states does not represent a game being played. It wouldn't be an eternal structure if it did.
If the states have any sort of property of being better or worse than a different state, then there are exactly 3 states: Ones where white can force a win, ones where black can, and the remaining states. The only reason a human game of chess is deeper than that is because we can't just look at a chess position and know which of those 3 states it represents. If we could, the game would be trivial.
So no, there are no values on the pieces or rules of thumb in the set I described. Those 3 states at best, and not even those if the concept of 'win' is not part of the various final positions (the ones that don't have a subsequent position).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/10/2019 07:10:55
The only reason a human game of chess is deeper than that is because we can't just look at a chess position and know which of those 3 states it represents. If we could, the game would be trivial.In some cases we can, especially when the possible moves ahead are limited. That's why in high level games, grand masters often resign when they still have several moves ahead before inevitably fall to a checkmate position.
Post by: David Cooper on 09/10/2019 20:49:18
In a chess game, the winner is not determined by who has more pieces, nor the one with highest sum of pieces' values. They are merely rule of thumb, short cut, approximation, Which is usually useful when we can't be sure about the end position of the game. We can easily find exceptions where they don't apply, which means they are not the most fundamental principle. Likewise, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain are just short cut to approximate a more fundamental moral rule. The real fundamental moral rule must be applied universally, without exception. Any dispute would turn out to be technical problems due to incomplete information at hand.
The more fundamental rule is the one that you treat all participants as if they are a single participant. It ends up being much the same thing as utilitarianism. In your chess example, the players don't care about the wellbeing of their troops: a player could deliberately play a game in which he ends up with nothing more than king and rook against king and he will be just as happy as if he annihilated the other side without losing a piece of his own.
If you think my method for calculating morality doesn't work, show me an example of it failing.
Post by: David Cooper on 09/10/2019 21:25:16
I am conversing with your information system, not the black box, and that information system seems very well aware indeed of those feelings.
Then show me a model for how those feelings are integrated into the information system. The only kinds of information system science understands map to the Chinese Room processor in which feelings cannot have a role.
Quote
Your stance seem to be that you are unaware that you feel pain and such. I feel mine, but I cannot prove that to you since only I have a subjective connection to the output of what you call this black box.
My stance is that if feelings are real, something's going on in the brain which is radically different from anything science knows about when it comes to computation because feeling are incompatible with what computers do.
Quote
On the other hand, you claim the black box does have outputs, but they're apparently not taken into consideration by anything, which is functionally the same as not having those outputs, sort of like a computer with a VGA output without a monitor plugged into it.
Not at all. The outputs clearly have a role, but they are determined by the inputs in such a way that the black box is superfluous: the inputs can feed directly into the outputs without any difference in the actions of the machine and the claims that it generates about feelings being experienced.
Computers don't have a "read qualia" instruction, but if they did, it would simply be taking the output from a black box and then interpreting it by applying rules stored in data which was put together by something that had no idea what was actually in the black box. That is the big disconnect. http://magicschoolbook.com/consciousness (http://magicschoolbook.com/consciousness) - this illustrates the problem, and I've been trying to find an error in this for many years.
For what it's worth, I think sentience (and consciousness as a whole) is the most fundamental thing that we're dealing with here, not least because it's the one thing about our universe that can't be a simulation. I think that the way we do processing in computers is not the only way that computation can be done and that there must be some alternative method in which sentience is at its core. It is necessarily part of physics, but it has not yet been identified. Tracing back the claims that we generate to see what evidence they're based on is the way to explore this, but it may be hard to do that without destroying the thing whose workings we're trying to study. If everything else is a simulation, the mechanism may be very carefully hidden, but it has to show up somewhere because it is part of the chain of causation.
Quote
QuoteI don't deny that it exists. What I deny is that the information system can know that the pain exists and that the claims it makes cannot competent,Cannot competent? That seems a typo, but I cannot guess as to what you meant there.
"cannot be competent" - a word went missing somehow.
Quote
Again this contradiction is asserted: You don't deny the causal connection exists, yet the information system is seemingly forbidden from using the connection. Perhaps your black box also holds an entirely different belief about how it all works, but your information system instead generates these contradictory statements, and the black box lacks the free will to make it post its actual beliefs.
We have something (unidentified) experiencing feelings, but how is that unidentified thing going to be able to tell anything else about that experience? Is it to be a data system? If so, what is it in that information system that's experiencing feelings? The whole thing? Where's the mechanism for that? If we run that information on a Chinese Room processor, we find that there's no place for feelings in it. Where is it reading the feelings and how is it generating data to document that experience of feelings? We can stick a black box into it in which the feelings are felt, and then we can go into that black box to find another information system with a black box in it where the feelings are felt, and then when we go into that box we find another black box... It's black boxes all the way down forever.
You're one of the most rational people I've encountered in my search for intelligent life on this planet, so maybe you'll be able to get your head round the problem and then be able to start looking for solutions in the right place. We're looking for a model that makes sense of sentience by showing its role and by showing how data is generated to document the experience of feelings. With computation as we know it, there is no way to make such a model. We're missing something big.
Quote
A simple wire (nerve) from the black box to the 'information system' part is neither spectacular nor hidden from science.
How do you know what the output from the box means? How does the data system attribute meaning to that signal? If we try to model this based on our current understanding of computation, we get a signal in from the black box in the form of a value in a port. We then look up a file to see what data from that port represents, and then we assert that it represents that. The information in the file was not created by anything in the black box, and whatever it was that created that data has no way of knowing anything about feelings, so the claims generated by mapping data in that file to input from that port are nothing more than fiction.
Quote
In reality, there's more than one, but a serial line would do in a pinch.
Let's give it a parallel port and have it speak in ASCII. Now ask yourself, how is it able to speak to us? How does it know our language? There's an information processing system in the black box, and that can run on a Chinese Room processor. Where are the feelings being experienced in the box, and what by? How is the information system in the black box able to measure them and know what the numbers it's getting in its measurements mean? It looks up a file to see what the numbers mean, and then it maps them too it and creates an assertion about something which it cannot know anything about.
Quote
Perhaps you posit that the black box is spatially separated from the information system to where a wire would not be practical. If so, you've left off that critical detail, which is why I'm forced to play 20 questions, 'chasing it down' as you put it.
Draw a model and see how well you get on with it. Where is the information system reading the feeling and how does it know that there's a feeling there at all? How does it construct the data that documents this experience of feeling, and where does it ever see the evidence that the feeling is in any way real?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2019 08:02:30
The more fundamental rule is the one that you treat all participants as if they are a single participant. It ends up being much the same thing as utilitarianism. In your chess example, the players don't care about the wellbeing of their troops: a player could deliberately play a game in which he ends up with nothing more than king and rook against king and he will be just as happy as if he annihilated the other side without losing a piece of his own.Yes. It's written in the rules of the game. People tend to be more emotional when they are dealing with anthropomorphized objects, such as chess pieces. I don't see something like that in other games like Go, where the pieces are not anthropomorphized.
If you think my method for calculating morality doesn't work, show me an example of it failing.
Quote
Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have been developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have different targets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
Quote
The thought experimenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
A hypothetical being, which Nozick calls the utility monster, receives much more utility from each unit of a resource they consume than anyone else does. For instance, eating a cookie might bring only one unit of pleasure to an ordinary person but could bring 100 units of pleasure to a utility monster. If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, it follows from utilitarianism that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the mandates of utilitarianism, because, for the utility monster, the pleasure they receive outweighs the suffering they may cause.[1] Nozick writes:
Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose ... the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster's maw, in order to increase total utility.[2]
This thought experiment attempts to show that utilitarianism is not actually egalitarian, even though it appears to be at first glance.[1]
The experiment contends that there is no way of aggregating utility which can circumvent the conclusion that all units should be given to a utility monster, because it's possible to tailor a monster to any given system.
For example, Rawls' maximin considers a group's utility to be the same as the utility of the member who's worst off. The "happy" utility monster of total utilitarianism is ineffective against maximin, because as soon as a monster has received enough utility to no longer be the worst-off in the group, there's no need to accommodate it. But maximin has its own monster: an unhappy (worst-off) being who only gains a tiny amount of utility no matter how many resources are given to it.
It can be shown that all consequentialist systems based on maximizing a global function are subject to utility monsters.[1]
History
Robert Nozick, a twentieth century American philosopher, coined the term "utility monster" in response to Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism. Nozick proposed that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of the condition that some people would use this to justify exploitation of others. An individual (or specific group) would claim their entitlement to more "happy units" than they claim others deserve, and the others would consequently be left to receive fewer "happy units".
Nozick deems these exploiters "utility monsters" (and for ease of understanding, they might also be thought of as happiness hogs). Nozick poses utility monsters justify their greediness with the notion that, compared to others, they experience greater inequality or sadness in the world, and deserve more happy units to bridge this gap. People not part of the utility monster group (or not the utility monster individual themselves) are left with less happy units to be split among the members. Utility monsters state that the others are happier in the world to begin with, so they would not need those extra happy units to which they lay claim anyway.
Post by: David Cooper on 10/10/2019 20:29:41
Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have been developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have different targets.
I have given you a method which can be used to determine the right form of utilitarianism. Where they differ, we can now reject the incorrect ones.
Quote
The thought experiment
A hypothetical being, which Nozick calls the utility monster, receives much more utility from each unit of a resource they consume than anyone else does. For instance, eating a cookie might bring only one unit of pleasure to an ordinary person but could bring 100 units of pleasure to a utility monster. If the utility monster can get so much pleasure from each unit of resources, it follows from utilitarianism that the distribution of resources should acknowledge this. If the utility monster existed, it would justify the mistreatment and perhaps annihilation of everyone else, according to the mandates of utilitarianism, because, for the utility monster, the pleasure they receive outweighs the suffering they may cause.
No it would not allow the mistreatment of anyone. This is what poor philosophers always do when they analyse thought experiments incorrectly - they jump to incorrect conclusions. Let me provide a better example, and then we'll look back at the above one afterwards. Imagine that a scientist creates a new breed of human which gets 100 times more pleasure out of life, and that these humans aren't disadvantaged in any way. The rest of us would then think, we want that too. If we can't have it added to us through gene modification, would it be possible to design it into our children? If so, then that is the way to switch to a population of people who enjoy life more without upsetting anyone. The missing part of the calculation is that upset that would be caused by mistreating or annihilating people, and the new breed of people who get more enjoyment out of living aren't actually going to get that enjoyment if they spend all their time fearing that they'll be wiped out next in order to make room for another breed of human which gets 10,000 times as much pleasure out of living. By creating all that fear, you actually create a world with less pleasure in it.
Let us suppose that we can't do it with humans though and that we need to be replaced with the utility monster in order to populate the universe with things that get more out of existing than we do. The correct way to make that transition is for humans voluntarily to have fewer children and to reduce their population gradually to zero over many generations while the utility monsters grow their population. We'd agree to do this for the same reason that if we were spiders we'd be happy to disappear and be replaced by humans. We would see the superiority of the utility monster and let it win out, but not through abuse and genocide.
Quote
[1] Nozick writes:
Utilitarian theory is embarrassed by the possibility of utility monsters who get enormously greater sums of utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose ... the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster's maw, in order to increase total utility.[2]
No. Utilitarian theory applied correctly does not allow that because it actually results in a hellish life of fear for the utility monsters.
Quote
This thought experiment attempts to show that utilitarianism is not actually egalitarian, even though it appears to be at first glance.[1]
When you apply my method to it, you see that one single participant is each of the humans and each of the utility monsters, living each of those lives in turn. This helps you see the correct way to apply utilitarianism because that individual participant will suffer more if the people in the system are abused and if the utility monsters are in continual fear that they'll be next to be treated that way.
Quote
The experiment contends that there is no way of aggregating utility which can circumvent the conclusion that all units should be given to a utility monster, because it's possible to tailor a monster to any given system.
That analysis of the experiment is woeful philosophy (and it is also very much the norm for philosophy because most philosophers are shoddy thinkers who fail to take all factors into account).
Quote
For example, Rawls' maximin considers a group's utility to be the same as the utility of the member who's worst off. The "happy" utility monster of total utilitarianism is ineffective against maximin, because as soon as a monster has received enough utility to no longer be the worst-off in the group, there's no need to accommodate it. But maximin has its own monster: an unhappy (worst-off) being who only gains a tiny amount of utility no matter how many resources are given to it.
I don't know what that is, but it isn't utilitarianism because it's ignoring any amount of happiness beyond the level of the least happy thing in existence.
Quote
It can be shown that all consequentialist systems based on maximizing a global function are subject to utility monsters.[1]
If you ask people if they'd like to be modified so that they can fly, most would agree to that. We could replace non-flying humans with flying ones and we'd like that to happen. That is a utility monster, and it's a good thing. There are moral rules about how we get from one to the other, and that must be done in a non-abusive way. If all non-flying humans were humanely killed to make room with flying ones, are those flying ones going to be happy when they realise the same could happen to them to make room for flying humans that can breathe underwater? No. Nozick misapplies utilitarianism.
Post by: Halc on 11/10/2019 05:34:37
Then show me a model for how those feelings are integrated into the information system. The only kinds of information system science understands map to the Chinese Room processor in which feelings cannot have a role.I don't think a system would pass a Turing test without feelings, so the Chinese room, despite being a test of ability to imitate human intelligence, not feelings, would seem to be an example of strong AI. All Searle manages to prove is that by replacing a CPU with a human, the human can be shown to function without an understanding of the Chinese language, which is hardly news. In the same way, the CPU of my computer has no idea that a jpg file represents an image.
Secondly, the mind of no living thing works via a von-Neumann architecture, with a processing unit executing a stream of instructions, but it has been shown that a Turning machine can execute any algorithm including doing what any living thing does, and thus the Chinese room is capable of passing the Turing test if implemented correctly.
- - -
Concerning the way we've been using the term 'black box'. You are describing a white box since you are placing the feelings of the sentience in the box. A black box has no description of what is in the box, only a description of inputs and outputs. A black box with no outputs can be implemented with an empty box.
Quote
The outputs clearly have a role, but they are determined by the inputs in such a way that the black box is superfluous: the inputs can feed directly into the outputs without any difference in the actions of the machine and the claims that it generates about feelings being experienced.If the inputs and outputs are identical, the box can be implemented as a pass-through box, which is indeed superfluous unless bypass is not an option. The phone lines in my street work that way, propagating signals from here to there with the output being ideally the same as the input.
Those lines are not superfluous because my phone would not work if you took them away. You seem to posit that the box is white, not black, and generates feelings that are not present at the inputs. If the inputs can be fed straight into the outputs without any difference, then the generation of said feelings cannot be distinguished at the outputs from a different box that doesn't generate them.
Quote
it would simply be taking the output from a black box and then interpreting it by applying rules stored in data which was put together by something that had no idea what was actually in the black box.The whole point of a black box is that one doesn't need to know what's inside it. The whole point of the consciousness debate is to discuss what's going on inside us, so using black-box methodology seems a poor strategy for achieving this.
Quote
http://magicschoolbook.com/consciousness (http://magicschoolbook.com/consciousness) - this illustrates the problem, and I've been trying to find an error in this for many years.The site lists 19 premises. Some of them are just definitions, but some very much are assumptions, and the conclusions drawn are only as strong as the assumptions. I could think of counterexamples of many of the premises. Others are begging a view that defies methodological naturalism, which makes them non-scientific premises. So you're on your own if you find problems with it.
Quote
I don't deny that it exists. What I deny is that the information system can know that the pain exists and that the claims it makes cannot [be] competent,OK, I repaired the sentence, but now you're saying that your own claims of experiencing pain are not competent claims? I don't think you meant to say that either, but that's how it comes out now. The claims (the posts on this site) are output by the information system, right? What else produces them? Maybe you actually mean it.
Quote
We have something (unidentified) experiencing feelings, but how is that unidentified thing going to be able to tell anything else about that experience?Using the output you say it has. I don't think the thing is unidentified, nor do I deny the output from it since said output is plastered all over our posts.
Quote
Is it to be a data system? If so, what is it in that information system that's experiencing feelings? The whole thing? Where's the mechanism for that?You don't know where the whole thing is?
Neurologists say that most of the basic emotions we feel (pleasure, fear and such) are processed in the limbic system, so most creatures don't feel them. Various kinds of qualia are handled in different places. Pain in particular seems not specific to any subsystem, so 'whole thing' (not just brain) is a pretty good description. If you hold to the dualist view, then you assert that all this is simply correlation, a cop-out that can be used no matter how much science learns about these things.
Quote
If we run that information on a Chinese Room processor, we find that there's no place for feelings in it.The Chinese room models a text-only I/O. A real human is not confined to a text-only stream of input. It makes no attempt to model a human. If it did, there would indeed be a place for feelings. All the experiment shows is that the system can converse in Chinese without the guy knowing Chinese, similar to how I can post in English without any of my cells knowing the language.
Quote
With computation as we know it, there is no way to make such a model. We're missing something big.Computation as you know it is a processor running a set of instructions, hardly a model of any living thing, which is more of an electro-chemical system with a neural net. The chemicals are critical, easily demonstrated by the changed behavior of people under various drugs. Chemicals would have zero effect on a CPU running a binary instruction stream, except possibly to dissolve it.
Quote
A simple wire (nerve) from the black box to the 'information system' part is neither spectacular nor hidden from science.How do you know what the output from the box means?[/quote]I don't have to. According to your terminology, the 'data system' needs the output to be mapped according to the rules of that data system. Evolution isn't going to select for one system that cannot parse its own inputs. That would be like hooking the vision data to the auditory system and v-v. It violates the rules of the data system, leaving the person blind and deaf.
Quote
How does the data system attribute meaning to that signal?Same way my computer attributes meaning from the USB signal from my mouse: by the mouse outputting according to the rules of the data system, despite me personally not knowing those rules. I'm no expert in USB protocol. I'm more of an NFS guy, and this computer doesn't use an NFS interface. There's probably no mouse that speaks NFS.
Quote
If we try to model this based on our current understanding of computation, we get a signal in from the black box in the form of a value in a port. We then look up a file to see what data from that port represents, and then we assert that it represents that.Look up a file? My, you sure know a lot more about how it works than I do.
Quote
In reality, there's more than one, but a serial line would do in a pinch.Let's give it a parallel port and have it speak in ASCII. Now ask yourself, how is it able to speak to us? How does it know our language?[/quote]You tell me. You're the one that compartmentalizes it into an isolated box like that. Not my model at all.
Quote
There's an information processing system in the black boxThen it isn't a black box.
Quote
and that can run on a Chinese Room processor. Where are the feelings being experienced in the box, and what by? How is the information system in the black box able to measure them and know what the numbers it's getting in its measurements mean? It looks up a file to see what the numbers mean, and then it maps them too it and creates an assertion about something which it cannot know anything about.Again, your model, not mine. I have no separation of information system and the not-information-system.
Quote
Draw a model and see how well you get on with it. Where is the information system reading the feeling and how does it know that there's a feeling there at all?There's no reading of something outside the information system. My model only has the system, which does its own feeling.
Quote
How does it construct the data that documents this experience of feelingSounds like you're asking how memory works. I don't know. Not a neurologist.
Quote
where does it ever see the evidence that the feeling is in any way real?I (the information system) have subjective evidence of my feelings.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/10/2019 10:13:54
No it would not allow the mistreatment of anyone. This is what poor philosophers always do when they analyse thought experiments incorrectly - they jump to incorrect conclusions. Let me provide a better example, and then we'll look back at the above one afterwards. Imagine that a scientist creates a new breed of human which gets 100 times more pleasure out of life, and that these humans aren't disadvantaged in any way. The rest of us would then think, we want that too. If we can't have it added to us through gene modification, would it be possible to design it into our children? If so, then that is the way to switch to a population of people who enjoy life more without upsetting anyone. The missing part of the calculation is that upset that would be caused by mistreating or annihilating people, and the new breed of people who get more enjoyment out of living aren't actually going to get that enjoyment if they spend all their time fearing that they'll be wiped out next in order to make room for another breed of human which gets 10,000 times as much pleasure out of living. By creating all that fear, you actually create a world with less pleasure in it.I think we need to be clear about our definition of terms we used in this discussion, since subtle differences may lead to frustrating disagreements. I want to avoid implicit assumptions and taking for granted that our understanding of a term is the same as other participants.
Let us suppose that we can't do it with humans though and that we need to be replaced with the utility monster in order to populate the universe with things that get more out of existing than we do. The correct way to make that transition is for humans voluntarily to have fewer children and to reduce their population gradually to zero over many generations while the utility monsters grow their population. We'd agree to do this for the same reason that if we were spiders we'd be happy to disappear and be replaced by humans. We would see the superiority of the utility monster and let it win out, but not through abuse and genocide.
Who do you mean with anyone? human? what about animals and plants?
Why pleasure is good while pain is bad? what about inability/reduced ability to feel pain or pleasure?
How much fewer children is considered acceptable?
Post by: David Cooper on 11/10/2019 22:25:26
I don't think a system would pass a Turing test without feelings, so the Chinese room, despite being a test of ability to imitate human intelligence, not feelings, would seem to be an example of strong AI. All Searle manages to prove is that by replacing a CPU with a human, the human can be shown to function without an understanding of the Chinese language, which is hardly news. In the same way, the CPU of my computer has no idea that a jpg file represents an image.
Secondly, the mind of no living thing works via a von-Neumann architecture, with a processing unit executing a stream of instructions, but it has been shown that a Turning machine can execute any algorithm including doing what any living thing does, and thus the Chinese room is capable of passing the Turing test if implemented correctly.
In principle, a system with no feelings could pretend to have feelings sufficiently well to pass the Turing Test. It would gradually learn what it has to claim to be feeling in any situation not be be caught out.
We do actually process streams of instructions in our head when doing careful processing, like maths, or when making food by following a recipe. The algorithms that we apply there are directly replicable on computers.
Quote
Concerning the way we've been using the term 'black box'. You are describing a white box since you are placing the feelings of the sentience in the box. A black box has no description of what is in the box, only a description of inputs and outputs. A black box with no outputs can be implemented with an empty box.
Okay, but it's a black box until we try to work out what's going on inside it, at which point it becomes a white box and we have to complete the contents by including a new black box.
Quote
Those lines are not superfluous because my phone would not work if you took them away. You seem to posit that the box is white, not black, and generates feelings that are not present at the inputs. If the inputs can be fed straight into the outputs without any difference, then the generation of said feelings cannot be distinguished at the outputs from a different box that doesn't generate them.
First, the outputs are not the same as the inputs: there's an extra output line which duplicates what goes out on the main output line, and this extra one is read as indicating that a feeling was experienced. Then there's the bit about your phone functioning. What evidence to we have that sentience is functioning in the box? Is there information coming out of the box that says so? If so, how is that data constructed? Do we have an information system inside the box creating it or do we just have a signal coming out of the box whose meaning is asserted for it by an information system on the outside which cannot know if its claims are true? If the latter, the data is incompetent. If the former, then there's an information system inside the box (now turning white) and we're adding a new black box on the inside to hold the part of the system which we can't model.
Quote
The whole point of a black box is that one doesn't need to know what's inside it. The whole point of the consciousness debate is to discuss what's going on inside us, so using black-box methodology seems a poor strategy for achieving this.
The whole point of the black box is to draw your attention to the problem. If the bit we can't model is inside the black box and we don't know what's going on in there, we don't have a proper model of sentience. To make a proper model of sentience we have to eliminate the black box, but no one has ever managed to do so because they always have to point somewhere and say "feelings are felt here and they are magically recognised as existing and as being feelings by this magic routine which asserts that they are being felt there even though it has absolutely no evidence to back its assertion".
Quote
The site lists 19 premises. Some of them are just definitions, but some very much are assumptions, and the conclusions drawn are only as strong as the assumptions. I could think of counterexamples of many of the premises. Others are begging a view that defies methodological naturalism, which makes them non-scientific premises. So you're on your own if you find problems with it.
Give me your best counterexample then. So far as I can see, they are correct. If you can break any one of them, that might lead to an advance, so don't hold back.
Quote
OK, I repaired the sentence, but now you're saying that your own claims of experiencing pain are not competent claims? I don't think you meant to say that either, but that's how it comes out now. The claims (the posts on this site) are output by the information system, right? What else produces them? Maybe you actually mean it.
That is predicated on the idea that the brain works like a computer, processing data in ways that science understands. If the claims coming out of my head about feelings are competent, some other kind of system is putting that data together in a way that science has yet to account for.
Quote
QuoteWe have something (unidentified) experiencing feelings, but how is that unidentified thing going to be able to tell anything else about that experience?Using the output you say it has. I don't think the thing is unidentified, nor do I deny the output from it since said output is plastered all over our posts.
That isn't good enough. The whole point is that the only way to interpret that output is to map baseless assertions to it, unless the output is already coming in the form of data that the external data system can understand, but if that's the case, we need to see the information system that constructed that data and to model how it knew what the output from the sentient thing means.
Quote
QuoteIs it to be a data system? If so, what is it in that information system that's experiencing feelings? The whole thing? Where's the mechanism for that?You don't know where the whole thing is?
I'm not asking where the whole thing is. I was asking if it's the whole thing that's experiencing feelings rather than just a part of it. It makes little difference either way though, because to model this we need to have an interface between the experience and the system that makes data. For that data to be true, the system that makes it has to be able to know about the experience, but it can't.
Quote
If you hold to the dualist view, then you assert that all this is simply correlation, a cop-out that can be used no matter how much science learns about these things.
You've only found it once you've found the interface and seen how the data system knows that the data it's generating is true.
Quote
The Chinese room models a text-only I/O. A real human is not confined to a text-only stream of input. It makes no attempt to model a human. If it did, there would indeed be a place for feelings. All the experiment shows is that the system can converse in Chinese without the guy knowing Chinese, similar to how I can post in English without any of my cells knowing the language.
A Chinese Room processor can run any code at all and can run an AGI system. It is Turing complete. It cannot handle actual feelings, but can handle data that represents feelings. A piece of paper with a symbol on it can represent a feeling, but nothing there is feeling that feeling. We need to model actual feelings, and that's something that science cannot yet do in any way that enables them to be detected.
Quote
Computation as you know it is a processor running a set of instructions, hardly a model of any living thing, which is more of an electro-chemical system with a neural net. The chemicals are critical, easily demonstrated by the changed behavior of people under various drugs. Chemicals would have zero effect on a CPU running a binary instruction stream, except possibly to dissolve it.
We can simulate neural networks. Where is the interface between the experience of feelings and the system that generates the data to document that experience? Waving at something complex isn't good enough. You have no model of sentience, but we do have models of neural nets which are equivalent to running algorithms on conventional computers.
Quote
QuoteHow do you know what the output from the box means?I don't have to. According to your terminology, the 'data system' needs the output to be mapped according to the rules of that data system. Evolution isn't going to select for one system that cannot parse its own inputs. That would be like hooking the vision data to the auditory system and v-v. It violates the rules of the data system, leaving the person blind and deaf.
If evolution selects for an assertion of pain being experienced in once case and an assertion of pleasure in another case, who's to say that the sentient thing isn't actually feeling the opposite sensation to the one asserted? The mapping of assertion to output is incompetent.
Quote
QuoteHow does the data system attribute meaning to that signal?Same way my computer attributes meaning from the USB signal from my mouse: by the mouse outputting according to the rules of the data system, despite me personally not knowing those rules. I'm no expert in USB protocol. I'm more of an NFS guy, and this computer doesn't use an NFS interface. There's probably no mouse that speaks NFS.
The mouse is designed to speak the language that the computer understands, or rather, the computer is told how to interpret the squeaks from the mouse. If there are feelings being experienced in the mouse, the computer cannot know about them unless the mouse tells it, and for the mouse to tell it it has to use a language. If the mouse is using a language, something in the mouse has to be able to read the feelings, and how does that something know what's being felt? It can't.
Quote
QuoteIf we try to model this based on our current understanding of computation, we get a signal in from the black box in the form of a value in a port. We then look up a file to see what data from that port represents, and then we assert that it represents that.Look up a file? My, you sure know a lot more about how it works than I do.
That's exactly the point. You see room for something impossible in the places where you don't know what's going on. I understand what's going on throughout the whole system, apart from the place where the magic is needed to complete the model.
Quote
QuoteLet's give it a parallel port and have it speak in ASCII. Now ask yourself, how is it able to speak to us? How does it know our language?You tell me. You're the one that compartmentalizes it into an isolated box like that. Not my model at all.
Your model works on magic. I'm trying to eliminate the magic, and the black box shows the point where that task becomes impossible. So, you open up the black box and have the feelings exist somewhere (who cares where) in the system while data is generated to document the existence of those feelings, but you still can't show me how the part of the system putting that data together knows anything about the feelings at all.
Quote
QuoteThere's an information processing system in the black boxThen it isn't a black box.
We want to explain the magic component, so we break it open and it becomes a white box, but it then contains a black box where the magic component resides. We can go on opening an infinite chain of black boxes and watch them turn white, but there will always be another black box containing the magic component which you can't model.
Quote
Again, your model, not mine. I have no separation of information system and the not-information-system.
And that's how you fool yourself into thinking you have a working model, but it runs on magic. The part of it that generates the data about feelings might be in intense pain, but how can the process it's running know anything about that feeling in order to generate data about it? It can't. That's where science is hopelessly lost. Our current understanding of computation is not compatible with sentience.
Quote
QuoteDraw a model and see how well you get on with it. Where is the information system reading the feeling and how does it know that there's a feeling there at all?There's no reading of something outside the information system. My model only has the system, which does its own feeling.
And how does it then convert from that experience of feeling into data being generated in a competent way that ensures that the data is true? This is where there's a gap in your knowledge a mile wide, and you need to fill that.
Quote
QuoteHow does it construct the data that documents this experience of feelingSounds like you're asking how memory works. I don't know. Not a neurologist.
I'm asking for a theoretical model. Science doesn't have one for this.
Quote
Quotewhere does it ever see the evidence that the feeling is in any way real?I (the information system) have subjective evidence of my feelings.
Show me the model.
Post by: David Cooper on 11/10/2019 22:52:52
Who do you mean with anyone? human? what about animals and plants?
If they're sentient, then they're included. Some animals may not be, and it's highly doubtful that any plants are, or at least, not in any way that's tied to what's happening to them (just as the material of a rock could be sentient).
Quote
Why pleasure is good while pain is bad?
They are just what they are. One is horrible and we try to avoid it, while the other is nice and we seek it out, with the result that most people are now overweight due to their desire to eat delicious things.
Quote
what about inability/reduced ability to feel pain or pleasure?
What about it? Each individual must be protected by morality from whatever kinds of suffering can be inflicted on it, and that varies between different people as well as between different species.
Quote
How much fewer children is considered acceptable?
Imagine that you have to live all the lives of all the people and utility monsters. They are all you. With that understanding in your head, you decide that you prefer being utility monsters, so you want to phase out people and replace them. You also have to live the lives of those people, so you need to work out how not to upset them, and the best way to do that is to let the transition take a long time so that the difference is too small to register with them. For a sustainable human population, each person who has children might have 1.2 children. That could be reduced to 1.1 and the population would gradually disappear while the utility monsters gradually increase in number. Some of those humans will realise that they're envious of the utility monsters and would rather be them, so they may be open to the idea of bringing up utility monsters instead of children, and that may be all you need to drive the transition. It might also make the humans feel a lot happier about things if they know that a small population of humans will be allowed to go on existing forever - that could result in better happiness numbers overall than having them totally replaced by utility monsters.
Post by: Halc on 12/10/2019 23:01:36
Okay, but it's a black box until we try to work out what's going on inside it, at which point it becomes a white box and we have to complete the contents by including a new black box.This is fine, but you're not going to demonstrate your sentience that way, since you always put it in the black box where you cannot assert its existence.
Quote
First, the outputs are not the same as the inputsDidn't you say otherwise?
Quote from: David
the inputs can feed directly into the outputs without any difference in the actions of the machine and the claims that it generates about feelings being experienced.OK, this statement says the inputs can be fed into the outputs, but are not necessarily. It says those outputs make no difference to the actions of the machine, which means the machine would claim feelings even if there were none. That means you've zero evidence for this sentience you claim.
Quote
there's an extra output line which duplicates what goes out on the main output line, and this extra one is read as indicating that a feeling was experienced.This contradicts your prior statement.
1) How do you know about these lines? The answer seems awfully like something you just now made up.
2) If there are two outputs and one is a duplicate of the other, how can it carry additional information? Duplicate outputs are usually there for redundancy so the system still works if one of them fails. That's part of the reason you have two eyes and such. The presence of a duplicate data stream does not indicate feelings if the one 'main' stream does not indicate the feelings. There is no additional information in the 2nd line.
3) This is the contradiction part: You said earlier that the action of the 'machine' is unaffected by these outputs, but here you claim that an output is read as indicating that a feeling was experienced. That's being affected. If the machine action is unaffected by this output, then the output is effectively ignored at some layer.
Where does the output of your black box go? To what is it connected? This is outside the black box, so science should be able to pinpoint it. It's in the white part of the box after all. If you can't answer that, then you can't make your black box ever smaller since the surrounding box is also black.
Quote
The whole point of the black box is to draw your attention to the problem.More like a way to hide it. The scientists that work on this do not work this way. They explore what's in the box.
Quote
If the bit we can't model is inside the black box and we don't know what's going on in there, we don't have a proper model of sentience.So you're admitting you don't have a proper white box model? Does anybody claim they have one?
Quote
they always have to point somewhere and say "feelings are felt here and they are magically recognised as existing and as being feelings by this magic routine which asserts that they are being felt there even though it has absolutely no evidence to back its assertion".I'm unaware of this wording. There are no 'routines' for one thing. They very much do have evidence as to mapping where much of this functionality goes on, but that isn't a model of how it works. It is a pretty good way to say which creatures 'feel' the various sorts of this to which humans can relate.
I don't think there can be an objective model of a subjective experience. We might create an artificial sentience, and yet even knowing how it was created, we'd not be able to say how it works. They're already way past the point where they know how some of the real AI systems work. Fake AI, maybe, but not real AI. A self-driving car is fake AI.
Quote
Some small nits. The information system processes only data (1). 3 says the non-data must first be converted to data before being given to the information system (IS), but 5 and 13 talk about the IS doing the converting, which means it processes something that isn't data. As I said, that's just a nit.QuoteThe site lists 19 premises. Some of them are just definitions, but some very much are assumptions, and the conclusions drawn are only as strong as the assumptions. I could think of counterexamples of many of the premises. Others are begging a view that defies methodological naturalism, which makes them non-scientific premises. So you're on your own if you find problems with it.Give me your best counterexample then. So far as I can see, they are correct. If you can break any one of them, that might lead to an advance, so don't hold back.
13 also talks about ideas being distinct from data. An idea sounds an awful lot like data to me.
A counterexamples comes up with 10 which says that data which is not covered by the rules of the IS cannot be considered by the IS. Not sure what they mean by 'considered' but take a digital signal processor (DSP) or just a simple amplifier. It might be fed a data stream that is meaningless to the IS, yet the IS is completely capable of processing the stream. This is similar to the guy in the Chinese room. He is an IS, and he's handling data (the Chinese symbols) that does not conform to his own rules (English), yet he's tasked with processing that data.
My big gripe with the list is point 7's immediate and unstated premise that a 'conscious thing' and an 'information system' are separate things, and that the former is not a form of data. That destroys the objectivity of the whole analysis. I deny this premise.
Quote
That is predicated on the idea that the brain works like a computer, processing data in ways that science understands.Science does not posit the brain to operate like a computer. There are some analogies, sure, but there is no equivalent to a CPU, address space, or instructions. Yes, they have a fairly solid grasp on how the circuitry works, but not how the circuit works.
Quote
I'm not asking where the whole thing is. I was asking if it's the whole thing that's experiencing feelings rather than just a part of it.Yes, It's the whole thing. It isn't a special piece of material or anything.
Quote
It makes little difference either way though, because to model this we need to have an interface between the experience and the system that makes data. For that data to be true, the system that makes it has to be able to know about the experience, but it can't.Doesn't work that way. Eyes arguably 'makes data', yet isn't a device that 'knows' about experience. The system that processes the data (in my case) has evolved to be compatible with the system that makes the data, not the other way around. It's very good at that, being able to glean information from new sources. They've taught humans to navigate by sound like a bat, despite the fact that we've not evolved for it. The system handles this alternately formatted data (outside the rules of the IS) just fine. The only thing they needed to add was the bit that produces the sound pulses, since we're not physically capable of generating them.
Quote
Didn't say otherwise, but that's all it does is run code. The processor doesn't know Chinese. But the system (the whole thing) does. There is no black box where the Chinese part is. There's not a 'know Chinese' instruction in the book of English instructions from which the guy in there works.QuoteAll the [Chinese room] experiment shows is that the system can converse in Chinese without the guy knowing Chinese, similar to how I can post in English without any of my cells knowing the language.A Chinese Room processor can run any code at all and can run an AGI system. It is Turing complete.
Quote
We can simulate neural networks. Where is the interface between the experience of feelings and the system that generates the data to document that experience?This presumes that the experience is not part of the system, and that it needs to be run through this data-generation step. You hold the same premise as step 7.
Anyway, an neural net would not accurately simulate a human since a human is more than a network. A human is part of a larger network, which would also need to be simulated. Not saying it cannot be done, and I don't think it need be done at a deeper level than electro-bio-chemical. Going to the molecular level for instance seems unnecessary.
Quote
Waving at something complex isn't good enough. You have no model of sentience.Pretty much how you're presenting your views, yes. My model is pretty simple actually. I don't claim to know how it works. Neither do you, but you add more details than do I, but still hide your complex part in a black box, as if you had an understanding of how the data-processing part worked.
Quote
but we do have models of neural nets which are equivalent to running algorithms on conventional computers.That we do.
Quote
If evolution selects for an assertion of pain being experienced in once case and an assertion of pleasure in another case, who's to say that the sentient thing isn't actually feeling the opposite sensation to the one asserted? The mapping of assertion to output is incompetent.This makes no sense to me since I don't model the sentience as a separate thing. There is no asserting going on. If the data system takes 'damage' data and takes pleasure from them, then it will make choices to encourage the sensation, resulting in the being being less fit.
Quote
The mouse is designed to speak the language that the computer understands, or rather, the computer is told how to interpret the squeaks from the mouse.The first guess is closer. Somebody put out a standard interface and both computer and mouse adhere to that interface. Sensory organs and brains don't work that way, being evolved rather than designed. Turns out the sensory organ pretty much defines the data format, and the IS is really good at extracting meaning from any data. So we could in theory afix a 6th sense to detect vibrations of passing creatures, like the lateral line in fish. Run some nerves from that up the spine and the IS would quickly have a new sense to add to its qualia. Some people see a 4th color, and some only 2.
Quote
If there are feelings being experienced in the mouse, the computer cannot know about them unless the mouse tells it, and for the mouse to tell it it has to use a language.And even then, the computer only knows about the claim, not the feelings. You don't seem to be inclined to believe a computer mouse if it told you it had feelings.
Quote
If the mouse is using a language, something in the mouse has to be able to read the feelings, and how does that something know what's being felt? It can't.This again assumes feelings separate from the thing that reads it. Fine and dandy if it works that way, but if the two systems don't interface in a meaningful way, then system 2 is not able to pass on a message from system 1 that it just interprets as noise.
Quote
I'm trying to eliminate the magic, and the black box shows the point where that task becomes impossible. So, you open up the black box and have the feelings exist somewhere (who cares where) in the system while data is generated to document the existence of those feelings, but you still can't show me how the part of the system putting that data together knows anything about the feelings at all.The part of the system putting that data together experiences the subjective feelings directly since it's the same system. No magic is needed for a system to have access to itself. The part of the system documenting the feelings is probably my mouth and hands since I can speak and write of those feelings. You seem to ask how the hands know about the feelings. They don't. They do what they're told via the one puppet language they understand: Move thus. They have no idea that they're documenting feelings, and such documentation can be produced by anything (like a copy machine), so it's hardly proof of a particular documented claim.
Quote
And that's how you fool yourself into thinking you have a working mode, but it runs on magiclI'm only fooling myself if I'm wrong, and that hasn't been demonstrated. My model doesn't run on magic. I've asserted no such thing, and you've supposedly not asserted it about your model.
Quote
The part of it that generates the data about feelings might be in intense pain, but how can the process it's running know anything about that feeling in order to generate data about it?Your model, not mine. You need magic because you're trying to squeeze your model into mine. Your statement above mixes layers of understanding and is thus word salad, like describing a system using classic and quantum physics intermixed.
Quote
For one, it already is data, so no conversion. I am capable of lying, so if I generate additional data (like I do on these posts), I have no way of proving that the data is true, so I cannot assure something outside the system of the truth of generated data. Inside the system, there is no truth or falsehood, just subjective experience.QuoteThere's no reading of something outside the information system. My model only has the system, which does its own feeling.And how does it then convert from that experience of feeling into data being generated in a competent way that ensures that the data is true?
Quote
I'm asking for a theoretical model. Science doesn't have one for this.A model of how memory works? I think they have some, but I'm no personally aware of them. It's just not my field. I mean, I'm a computer guy, and yet I'd have to look it up if I were to provide an answer as to how exactly the various kinds of computer memory work. For my purposes, I just assume it does.
Quote
That is the model. One system, not multiple. Yes, it has inputs and outputs, but the feelings don't come from those. There is no generation of data of feelings from a separate feeling organ.QuoteI (the information system) have subjective evidence of my feelings.Show me the model.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 01:19:12
Okay, but it's a black box until we try to work out what's going on inside it, at which point it becomes a white box and we have to complete the contents by including a new black box.This is fine, but you're not going to demonstrate your sentience that way, since you always put it in the black box where you cannot assert its existence.
The point of the black box is to put sentience in the model by hiding the missing part where the model depends on magic. If we open the black box, we then have to try to show the functionality of the magic, and science doesn't have that bit of the model. We cannot represent the magic other than by writing "the magic bit happens here", and that's what the black box does already. The opened black box merely reveals the bit saying "the magic happens here". The box is thus the same whether it's closed and black or open and white.
Quote
QuoteFirst, the outputs are not the same as the inputsDidn't you say otherwise?
They can be the same if you want them to be, but there has to be an extra output if you want it to signal the existence of a feeling being experienced, and that output will be the same as the other output (so it doesn't actually provide any extra information). You can turn one wire into two without the box as well, and that's why the box doesn't add any useful functionality and the outputs tell you precisely nothing about sentience.
Quote
It says those outputs make no difference to the actions of the machine, which means the machine would claim feelings even if there were none. That means you've zero evidence for this sentience you claim.
That's the whole point: there is no evidence of the sentience. There is no way for a data system to acquire such evidence, so its claims about the existence of sentience are incompetent.
Quote
Quotethere's an extra output line which duplicates what goes out on the main output line, and this extra one is read as indicating that a feeling was experienced.This contradicts your prior statement.
It doesn't. The extra output is proposed as a way to make an additional signal to indicate the existence of a feeling in the box. You could do this with a hundred extra outputs if you like, and they can be inversions of the main output signal too. It doesn't matter what they are, because the data system on the outside cannot know what they actually mean and can only look up an interpretation file to find out what something outside of the box asserts that they mean; something that doesn't actually know if feelings exist in the box at all.
Quote
1) How do you know about these lines? The answer seems awfully like something you just now made up.
Of course it's something I made up: it's an attempt to build a model of sentience, and it's an attempt that fails. You're free to attempt to build one to your own design, and it will fail too. No one has built a model of sentience that doesn't fail, and it looks impossible to do otherwise.
Quote
2) If there are two outputs and one is a duplicate of the other, how can it carry additional information?
That's exactly the point: it doesn't carry additional information. What you're supposed to be doing here is asking yourself how data documenting the existence of feelings can be generated and how it can relate to the actual experience of that feeling in such a way as for the data documenting the existence of feelings to be true rather than a mere assertion with no connection to the experience of the feeling. When I type a key and the word "ouch" appears on the screen, that data isn't put together by anything that read a feeling in something sentient: it's just generating a baseless assertion. The challenge is to build a model where the claims aren't mere assertions but where they can be shown to be true.
Quote
3) This is the contradiction part: You said earlier that the action of the 'machine' is unaffected by these outputs, but here you claim that an output is read as indicating that a feeling was experienced. That's being affected. If the machine action is unaffected by this output, then the output is effectively ignored at some layer.
The black box can be replaced by wires which simply connect an input to two outputs. The existence of one of those outputs can then be made to trigger a false claim to be generated. That affects the behaviour of the machine: cut the wire and the claim is no longer triggered, but it isn't sentience that's driving that change in behaviour.
Quote
Where does the output of your black box go? To what is it connected? This is outside the black box, so science should be able to pinpoint it. It's in the white part of the box after all. If you can't answer that, then you can't make your black box ever smaller since the surrounding box is also black.
With the computer saying "ouch" when a key is typed, a signal comes in through a port, a routine picks up a value there and looks up a "file" (or set of variables) to see what string that value should be mapped to, and then it prints that string to the screen. Where might we have the feeling experienced? In the port? The port becomes a black box. The feeling is felt in the port and then the value is read, mapped to a string, and the string is sent to the screen. The experience of the feeling makes no difference to the end result, and the "ouch" is no more evidence of the existence of sentience than it was before. Science can follow everything that's going on there except for the part where the feeling is being experienced, and nothing the determines what data is put together to appear on the screen can detect the experiencing of the feeling. It is undetectable and superfluous.
Quote
QuoteThe whole point of the black box is to draw your attention to the problem.More like a way to hide it. The scientists that work on this do not work this way. They explore what's in the box.
I'm not hiding anything: this is all about what's going on in the box. We open it up and we see that it contains magic. We don't like that, but that's what's in there. Either that or there is no sentience involved.
Quote
QuoteIf the bit we can't model is inside the black box and we don't know what's going on in there, we don't have a proper model of sentience.So you're admitting you don't have a proper white box model? Does anybody claim they have one?
I said from the start that it looks impossible. I'm showing you a broken model in order to show you the problem, and I said at the start that it is a broken model. Anyone who claims that sentience is compatible with computation as we understand it needs to prove the point by demonstrating a working model of it. I've stated that sentience is incompatible with computation as science understands it and that a model of it cannot be built unless we find some radically new way of doing computation which is beyond current scientific knowledge. Computers as we understand them today cannot read feelings in anything: all they can do is map assertions to inputs from something which might be sentient but which might equally not be. The asserted claims thus generated are completely incompetent.
Quote
Quotethey always have to point somewhere and say "feelings are felt here and they are magically recognised as existing and as being feelings by this magic routine which asserts that they are being felt there even though it has absolutely no evidence to back its assertion".I'm unaware of this wording. There are no 'routines' for one thing. They very much do have evidence as to mapping where much of this functionality goes on, but that isn't a model of how it works. It is a pretty good way to say which creatures 'feel' the various sorts of this to which humans can relate.
There are routines. Once you're dealing with neural nets, you may not be able to work out how they do what they do, but they are running functionality in one way or another. That lack of understanding leaves room for people to point at the mess and say "sentience is in there", but that's not doing science. We need to see the mechanism and we need to identify the thing that is sentient. Neural nets can be simulated and we can then look at how they behave in terms of cause and effect. If they are producing data, we should be able to look to see how they built that data and what caused them to do so. If they are producing data, they must be doing something systematic based on running some kind of algorithm. The data either maps to something that's really happening (a sentient experience) or it doesn't. If there is a sentient experience in there, how is the neural net reading it and how does it make sure that the data it generates to document that experience is true? Those are the important questions to focus on. If there's some mechanism by which it can detect the sentient experience and know that the data it's generating about it is true, that would be the most important scientific discovery of all time. But it looks impossible. The process generating the data cannot ensure that the data is true.
Quote
Some small nits. The information system processes only data (1). 3 says the non-data must first be converted to data before being given to the information system (IS), but 5 and 13 talk about the IS doing the converting, which means it processes something that isn't data. As I said, that's just a nit.
You're right - it is possible to process something meaningless before it is proper data. If we have data coming in from a port, it's just a number. The system has to decide what it represents, and it's only then that the number maps to a meaning. Processing of it when it has no meaning merely converts it from something meaningless to something else that's meaningless. If it's an 8-bit value, it can be converted into a 32-bit value, for example. It's still a meaningless value until a meaning is mapped to it. The system might decide that it represents a feeling, and it then maps the idea of a feeling to that value, but it didn't get that idea from the value itself or the port that it came in through, and the point is that there is a disconnect. Whatever the value meant to the sentience on the other side of the port, that meaning is not passed across with the value. For the meaning to be passed too, we must have an information system on the other side of the port, and if we have that, we need to look at how it's reading the sentience. It in turn is going to be reading a value from a port to measure the sentience, so the problem recurs there.
Quote
13 also talks about ideas being distinct from data. An idea sounds an awful lot like data to me.
Variables are data, but they are not ideas. The can represent ideas, and the ideas are more complex than the symbols used to represent them. The previous sentence can be represented by z, but z is not the idea: you have to look back at the previous sentence to find the idea which z represents.
Quote
A counterexamples comes up with 10 which says that data which is not covered by the rules of the IS cannot be considered by the IS. Not sure what they mean by 'considered' ...
It's simply that it can't know anything about them. There is no way for the idea of sentience to be passed across, so the receiver of the data has to map that idea to it itself. It has no way of knowing if that idea was ever represented by the data by the passer of the data.
Quote
... but take a digital signal processor (DSP) or just a simple amplifier. It might be fed a data stream that is meaningless to the IS, yet the IS is completely capable of processing the stream. This is similar to the guy in the Chinese room. He is an IS, and he's handling data (the Chinese symbols) that does not conform to his own rules (English), yet he's tasked with processing that data.
Yes, but the information systems on both sides were designed by people to handle the data correctly. The problem with sentience is that it cannot build a data system, and any data system that is built cannot know about sentience, so a data system which makes claims about sentient must fabricate them.
Quote
My big gripe with the list is point 7's immediate and unstated premise that a 'conscious thing' and an 'information system' are separate things, and that the former is not a form of data. That destroys the objectivity of the whole analysis. I deny this premise.
[Break due to character limit being exceeded...]
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 01:20:19
Quote
My big gripe with the list is point 7's immediate and unstated premise that a 'conscious thing' and an 'information system' are separate things, and that the former is not a form of data. That destroys the objectivity of the whole analysis. I deny this premise.
If sentience is a form of data, what does that sentience look like in the Chinese Room? It's just symbols on pieces of paper and simple processes being applied where new symbols are produced on pieces of paper. If a piece of paper has "ouch" written on it, is that an experience of pain?
Quote
Science does not posit the brain to operate like a computer. There are some analogies, sure, but there is no equivalent to a CPU, address space, or instructions. Yes, they have a fairly solid grasp on how the circuitry works, but not how the circuit works.
But science has an understanding of computation, and the issue here is about whether sentience can interface with computation. With computation as we understand it, it can't.
Quote
QuoteI'm not asking where the whole thing is. I was asking if it's the whole thing that's experiencing feelings rather than just a part of it.Yes, It's the whole thing. It isn't a special piece of material or anything.
If a multi-component feels a feeling without any of the components feeling anything, that's magic. And you still have to have something in that multi-component thing reading the level of feeling in it before it can generate data to document that level of feeling being experienced. You can't just have the whole thing magically generate data to document a feeling without a mechanism to go from experience of feeling to an information system creating the data to document it.
Quote
Doesn't work that way. Eyes arguably 'makes data', yet isn't a device that 'knows' about experience. The system that processes the data (in my case) has evolved to be compatible with the system that makes the data, not the other way around. It's very good at that, being able to glean information from new sources. They've taught humans to navigate by sound like a bat, despite the fact that we've not evolved for it. The system handles this alternately formatted data (outside the rules of the IS) just fine. The only thing they needed to add was the bit that produces the sound pulses, since we're not physically capable of generating them.
There is no sentience tied up in that. The data that comes in can be seen to match up to the external reality by the success of the algorithms used to interpret it. Machines can match it all, but there are no feelings involved.
Quote
The processor doesn't know Chinese. But the system (the whole thing) does. There is no black box where the Chinese part is. There's not a 'know Chinese' instruction in the book of English instructions from which the guy in there works.
Again, that's easy because sentience isn't involved. Computation (of the kinds known to science) have no trouble with accounting for vision or communication in Chinese. The problem is with sentience (and any other aspect of consciousness that might be distinct from sentience).
Quote
]This presumes that the experience is not part of the system, and that it needs to be run through this data-generation step. You hold the same premise as step 7.
We don't have any model for sentience being part of the system and we don't have any model for how a feeling can be measured.
Quote
QuoteWaving at something complex isn't good enough. You have no model of sentience.Pretty much how you're presenting your views, yes. My model is pretty simple actually. I don't claim to know how it works. Neither do you, but you add more details than do I, but still hide your complex part in a black box, as if you had an understanding of how the data-processing part worked.
Your model is simple because it has magic hidden in the complexity which you can simply wave at without showing how it works. My model is honest in that it isolates the magic part and labels it as such by putting it in a black (magic) box.
Quote
QuoteIf evolution selects for an assertion of pain being experienced in one case and an assertion of pleasure in another case, who's to say that the sentient thing isn't actually feeling the opposite sensation to the one asserted? The mapping of assertion to output is incompetent.This makes no sense to me since I don't model the sentience as a separate thing.
The point is that an unpleasant feeling could be used to drive someone to increase that feeling rather than decrease it. We can take the same system the printed "ouch" to the screen and replace the "ouch" with "Oooh, I like that!" and there is no change to any feeling that might be imagined to be being experienced. If it was painful before, it's still painful, and if it's pleasant now, it was pleasant before.
Quote
There is no asserting going on. If the data system takes 'damage' data and takes pleasure from them, then it will make choices to encourage the sensation, resulting in the being being less fit.
The claims that come out about feelings are assertions. They are either true or baseless. If the damage inputs are handled correctly, the pleasure will be suppressed in an attempt to minimise damage. And if an unpleasant feeling is generated when an animal eats delicious food, it will be designed (by evolution) to go on eating it. The information system in the animal will in each case generate data about those experiences which claim the opposite of what they actually felt like.
Quote
QuoteThe mouse is designed to speak the language that the computer understands, or rather, the computer is told how to interpret the squeaks from the mouse.The first guess is closer.
I doubt that. The mouse is designed first, then the computer is told how to interpret its squeaks. That's why the computer keeps having to be taught new languages to speak to new designs of mouse.
Quote
And even then, the computer only knows about the claim, not the feelings.
Exactly.
Quote
You don't seem to be inclined to believe a computer mouse if it told you it had feelings.
How's it going to do that without fabricating the data? We can look at how the mouse works and see that such data is fake. With real mice and humans, we don't have sufficient resolution to do that without chopping them up, and if we chop them up, the functionality is disrupted and it's hard to study it.
Quote
This again assumes feelings separate from the thing that reads it. Fine and dandy if it works that way, but if the two systems don't interface in a meaningful way, then system 2 is not able to pass on a message from system 1 that it just interprets as noise.
Trying to integrate the two things into one is fine, but at some point you need to have something measure the feeling, and it also has to have some way to know that what it's measuring is a feeling.
Quote
The part of the system putting that data together experiences the subjective feelings directly since it's the same system.
The Chinese Room can't measure feelings, so what's different in the brain that makes the impossible possible?
Quote
No magic is needed for a system to have access to itself.
Magic is needed to measure a feeling and know that it is a feeling.
Quote
The part of the system documenting the feelings is probably my mouth and hands since I can speak and write of those feelings.
The system documenting the feelings is in the brain. But can it be trusted to be telling the truth?
Quote
My model doesn't run on magic. I've asserted no such thing, and you've supposedly not asserted it about your model.
It's measuring a feeling and magically knowing that it's a feeling that it's measuring rather than just a signal of any normal kind.
Quote
Your model, not mine. You need magic because you're trying to squeeze your model into mine. Your statement above mixes layers of understanding and is thus word salad, like describing a system using classic and quantum physics intermixed.
Your model needs the same magic. You just hide that from yourself by flinging it into complexity so that you don't need to understand it. But all of that complexity is running on simpler rules which science claims to understand, leaving no room for sentience unless there's something going on which science has missed.
Quote
QuoteAnd how does it then convert from that experience of feeling into data being generated in a competent way that ensures that the data is true?For one, it already is data, so no conversion.
Magical sentient data. Symbols on paper experiencing feelings according to the meanings represented.
Quote
I am capable of lying, so if I generate additional data (like I do on these posts), I have no way of proving that the data is true, so I cannot assure something outside the system of the truth of generated data. Inside the system, there is no truth or falsehood, just subjective experience.
For the symbols on paper, there is no experience tied to the meaning of the data. Any feelings there are not part of the process and do not convert into data representing the experience of them.
Quote
A model of how memory works?
I was asking for a theoretical model of sentience: referring to the words of mine that you quoted rather than your reply to it (in which you brought in memory).
Quote
That is the model. One system, not multiple. Yes, it has inputs and outputs, but the feelings don't come from those. There is no generation of data of feelings from a separate feeling organ.
It is a magic model, like any other model that's been attempted. The feelings must be measured by something, and the thing doing the measuring cannot know that they are feelings.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 05:41:08
I have given you a method which can be used to determine the right form of utilitarianism. Where they differ, we can now reject the incorrect ones.I think what you are doing here is building a moral system based on simple version of utilitarianism, and then apply patches to cover specific criticisms that discovers loopholes on it. Discovering those loopholes is what philosophers do.
No it would not allow the mistreatment of anyone. This is what poor philosophers always do when they analyse thought experiments incorrectly - they jump to incorrect conclusions. Let me provide a better example, and then we'll look back at the above one afterwards. Imagine that a scientist creates a new breed of human which gets 100 times more pleasure out of life, and that these humans aren't disadvantaged in any way. The rest of us would then think, we want that too. If we can't have it added to us through gene modification, would it be possible to design it into our children? If so, then that is the way to switch to a population of people who enjoy life more without upsetting anyone. The missing part of the calculation is that upset that would be caused by mistreating or annihilating people, and the new breed of people who get more enjoyment out of living aren't actually going to get that enjoyment if they spend all their time fearing that they'll be wiped out next in order to make room for another breed of human which gets 10,000 times as much pleasure out of living. By creating all that fear, you actually create a world with less pleasure in it.
Let us suppose that we can't do it with humans though and that we need to be replaced with the utility monster in order to populate the universe with things that get more out of existing than we do. The correct way to make that transition is for humans voluntarily to have fewer children and to reduce their population gradually to zero over many generations while the utility monsters grow their population. We'd agree to do this for the same reason that if we were spiders we'd be happy to disappear and be replaced by humans. We would see the superiority of the utility monster and let it win out, but not through abuse and genocide.
No. Utilitarian theory applied correctly does not allow that because it actually results in a hellish life of fear for the utility monsters.
When you apply my method to it, you see that one single participant is each of the humans and each of the utility monsters, living each of those lives in turn. This helps you see the correct way to apply utilitarianism because that individual participant will suffer more if the people in the system are abused and if the utility monsters are in continual fear that they'll be next to be treated that way.
That analysis of the experiment is woeful philosophy (and it is also very much the norm for philosophy because most philosophers are shoddy thinkers who fail to take all factors into account).
I don't know what that is, but it isn't utilitarianism because it's ignoring any amount of happiness beyond the level of the least happy thing in existence.
If you ask people if they'd like to be modified so that they can fly, most would agree to that. We could replace non-flying humans with flying ones and we'd like that to happen. That is a utility monster, and it's a good thing. There are moral rules about how we get from one to the other, and that must be done in a non-abusive way. If all non-flying humans were humanely killed to make room with flying ones, are those flying ones going to be happy when they realise the same could happen to them to make room for flying humans that can breathe underwater? No. Nozick misapplies utilitarianism.
Rawl's version is widely recognized as one form of utilitarianism.
Ability to fly or breath underwater can be useful, but they don't have to be permanent nor expressed genetically. Ancient humans can survive freezing weather by simply using other mammal's fur.
At least we can agree that moral rules should consider long term consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 06:17:10
If they're sentient, then they're included. Some animals may not be, and it's highly doubtful that any plants are, or at least, not in any way that's tied to what's happening to them (just as the material of a rock could be sentient).You need to draw a line between sentient and non-sentient. Or assign numbers to allow us measure and describe sentience, including partial sentience. The next step would be some methods to use those numbers to make decisions of which options to take in morally conflicting situations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 06:37:57
They are just what they are. One is horrible and we try to avoid it, while the other is nice and we seek it out, with the result that most people are now overweight due to their desire to eat delicious things.
Quote
Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition defines pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage".[1] In medical diagnosis, pain is regarded as a symptom of an underlying condition.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain
I don't think that a fundamental principle of morality should be based on symptoms.
Quote
Pleasure is a component of reward, but not all rewards are pleasurable (e.g., money does not elicit pleasure unless this response is conditioned).[2] Stimuli that are naturally pleasurable, and therefore attractive, are known as intrinsic rewards, whereas stimuli that are attractive and motivate approach behavior, but are not inherently pleasurable, are termed extrinsic rewards.[2] Extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) are rewarding as a result of a learned association with an intrinsic reward.[2] In other words, extrinsic rewards function as motivational magnets that elicit "wanting", but not "liking" reactions once they have been acquired.[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure#Neuropsychology
The reward system contains pleasure centers or hedonic hotspots – i.e., brain structures that mediate pleasure or "liking" reactions from intrinsic rewards. As of October 2017, hedonic hotspots have been identified in subcompartments within the nucleus accumbens shell, ventral pallidum, parabrachial nucleus, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and insular cortex.[3][4][5] The hotspot within the nucleus accumbens shell is located in the rostrodorsal quadrant of the medial shell, while the hedonic coldspot is located in a more posterior region. The posterior ventral pallidum also contains a hedonic hotspot, while the anterior ventral pallidum contains a hedonic coldspot. Microinjections of opioids, endocannabinoids, and orexin are capable of enhancing liking in these hotspots.[3] The hedonic hotspots located in the anterior OFC and posterior insula have been demonstrated to respond to orexin and opioids, as has the overlapping hedonic coldspot in the anterior insula and posterior OFC.[5] On the other hand, the parabrachial nucleus hotspot has only been demonstrated to respond to benzodiazepine receptor agonists.[3]
Hedonic hotspots are functionally linked, in that activation of one hotspot results in the recruitment of the others, as indexed by the induced expression of c-Fos, an immediate early gene. Furthermore, inhibition of one hotspot results in the blunting of the effects of activating another hotspot.[3][5] Therefore, the simultaneous activation of every hedonic hotspot within the reward system is believed to be necessary for generating the sensation of an intense euphoria.[6]
A system with known method to hack the reward is prone to reward hacking and produce unintended consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 06:43:23
What about it? Each individual must be protected by morality from whatever kinds of suffering can be inflicted on it, and that varies between different people as well as between different species.A person gets brain damage that makes him unable to feel pain and pleasure, while still capable of doing normal activities. Is he still considered sentient? Does he still has right to be treated as sentient being? Why so?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2019 07:11:23
Imagine that you have to live all the lives of all the people and utility monsters. They are all you. With that understanding in your head, you decide that you prefer being utility monsters, so you want to phase out people and replace them. You also have to live the lives of those people, so you need to work out how not to upset them, and the best way to do that is to let the transition take a long time so that the difference is too small to register with them. For a sustainable human population, each person who has children might have 1.2 children. That could be reduced to 1.1 and the population would gradually disappear while the utility monsters gradually increase in number. Some of those humans will realise that they're envious of the utility monsters and would rather be them, so they may be open to the idea of bringing up utility monsters instead of children, and that may be all you need to drive the transition. It might also make the humans feel a lot happier about things if they know that a small population of humans will be allowed to go on existing forever - that could result in better happiness numbers overall than having them totally replaced by utility monsters.If we acknowledge that currently, humans are not the most optimal form to achieve universal moral goal, we also acknowledge that there are somethings that must be changed. But we must be careful that many changes lead to worse outcome than existing condition.
Those changes don't have to be purely genetical, nor require total destruction of older version (i.e. death). Some form of diversity could be useful. Biohacking can change some parts of the body to eliminate disadvantage and gain some advantages, although those changes can make us be chimeras.
They don't have to be organic either. Interfaces with biomechatronics can be useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 20:29:18
I think what you are doing here is building a moral system based on simple version of utilitarianism, and then apply patches to cover specific criticisms that discovers loopholes on it. Discovering those loopholes is what philosophers do.
Rawl's version is widely recognized as one form of utilitarianism.
What patches? I identified a method that covers the entirety of morality in one simple go by reducing multiple-participant systems to single-participant systems so that it becomes nothing more fancy than a calculation as to what is best for that individual. I did not expect this to be a version of utilitarianism, but it appears to be the fundamental approach that utilitarianism is subconsciously informed by and which no one had previously managed to pin down. We now have it though right out in the open.
When someone sets out a faulty thought experiment which ignores some of the factors and comes to an incorrect conclusion as a result, I am not patching anything when I point to the factors which the person has failed to include in it and which completely change the conclusion. I am correcting their errors.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 20:35:07
You need to draw a line between sentient and non-sentient.
Indeed. Non-sentient things don't need to be protected by morality because they can't be harmed (and can't enjoy anything either). Things could be sentient without us having any way to know though, but we don't know what to do or what not to do with them to make them feel better rather than worse, so we just have to leave that to luck. A rock may feel pain when its glowing red hot, but most of the rock in this planet is in that state. Perhaps it's the cold rock that's in pain and we can make it feel better by melting it. We don't know. We might as well just melt rock if we need it hot and leave it alone when we don't.
Quote
Or assign numbers to allow us measure and describe sentience, including partial sentience. The next step would be some methods to use those numbers to make decisions of which options to take in morally conflicting situations.
It's all about best guesses when dealing with sentient things whose feelings you can't actually measure. Maybe some day it will be possible to measure feelings for all sentient things, at which point the scores given to them will become much more accurate.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 20:43:14
I don't think that a fundamental principle of morality should be based on symptoms.
It has to be based on how much things feel good or horrid. We can put a lot of numbers to that with humans simply by collecting data from people who know how to compare two different things. Someone who has been poisoned and who has been stabbed can be asked which one they'd chose to repeat if they had to go through another such incident, and that would tell you which is worse (once you've averaged the answers of enough people who have that experience. They needn't all share the same two experiences though: you can do it with a ring of them in which the first has been through those two events, the second has been stabbed and stung by a bullet ant, the third has been stung by a bullet ant and has been attacked by a honey badger, and the fourth has been attacked by a honey badger and poisoned. You should be able to imagine how this can extend to cover most of human experience. It would be harder to do it for animals, but we can make assumptions that they will feel much the same way as we do about many things, though with less mental anguish as the get simpler as they'll have less understanding of what's going on.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 20:52:46
A person gets brain damage that makes him unable to feel pain and pleasure, while still capable of doing normal activities. Is he still considered sentient? Does he still has right to be treated as sentient being? Why so?
If you've removed all of that from him, there could still be neutral feelings like colour qualia, in which case he would still be sentient. You could thus have a species which is sentient but only has such neutral feelings and they would not care about existing or anything else that happens to them, so they have no need of protection from morality. They might be programmed to struggle to survive when under attack, but in their minds they would be calmly observing everything throughout and would be indifferent to the outcome.
In the case of your brain-damaged human though, there are the relatives, friends and other caring people to consider. They will be upset if he is not protected by morality even if he doesn't need that himself.
Post by: David Cooper on 14/10/2019 20:57:37
If we acknowledge that currently, humans are not the most optimal form to achieve universal moral goal, we also acknowledge that there are somethings that must be changed. But we must be careful that many changes lead to worse outcome than existing condition.
The important thing is to find out which genes lead to people having a strong desire to do immoral things and to edit those genes to remove those desires, at least in future generations. (It may not be possible to change the brains that have already had their development shaped by bad genes.) We will be able to do a lot though just by putting dangerous people under the control of something that they wear which can disable them temporarily by a high voltage whenever they try to do something seriously immoral. That will maximise their freedom, ensuring that we don't need to lock them up in prison to protect others.
Post by: Halc on 16/10/2019 12:55:34
Irrational is what they are. It means there's no point in engaging with an irrational data system, as you label it. Your whole moral code is based on a lie about feeling for which you claim no evidence exists.QuoteIt says those outputs make no difference to the actions of the machine, which means the machine would claim feelings even if there were none. That means you've zero evidence for this sentience you claim.That's the whole point: there is no evidence of the sentience. There is no way for a data system to acquire such evidence, so its claims about the existence of sentience are incompetent.
Quote
Once you're dealing with neural nets, you may not be able to work out how they do what they do, but they are running functionality in one way or another. That lack of understanding leaves room for people to point at the mess and say "sentience is in there", but that's not doing science.But you're pointing in there and saying sentience is not there, which is equally not science. Science is not saying "I don't know how it works, so it's in there". I in particular reference my subjective experience in making my claim, despite my inability to present that evidence to another.
Quote
We need to see the mechanism and we need to identify the thing that is sentient. Neural nets can be simulated and we can then look at how they behave in terms of cause and effect.Doesn't work. You can look at them all you want and understand exactly how it works, and still not see the sentience because the understanding is not subjective. The lack of understanding is not the problem.
Quote
I made no mention of variables. I said ideas seem to be data. You assert otherwise, but have not demonstrated it.Quote13 also talks about ideas being distinct from data. An idea sounds an awful lot like data to me.Variables are data, but they are not ideas.
Quote
If sentience is a form of data, what does that sentience look like in the Chinese Room?Chinese room is not a model of a human, or if it is, it is a model of a paralyzed person with ESP in a sensory deprivation chamber. Any output from it that attempts to pass a Turing test is deceit.
Nevertheless, the thing is capable of its own sentience. The sentience is in the processing of the data of course. It is not the data itself. Data can be shelved. Process cannot.
Quote from: Halc
My big gripe with the list is point 7's immediate and unstated premise that a 'conscious thing' and an 'information system' are separate things, and that the former is not a form of data. That destroys the objectivity of the whole analysis. I deny this premise.You didn't really reply to this. You posted some text after it, but that text (above) was related to sentience being the processing of data and no to point 7 which implicitly assumes a premise of separation of 'conscious thing' and an 'information system'.
Quote
If a multi-component feels a feeling without any of the components feeling anything, that's magic.I was wondering where you thought the magic was needed. Now I know. I deny that it is magic. Combustion of a gas can occur without any of the electrons and protons (the compoents) being combusted. A computer can read a web page without any transistor actually reading the web page. Kindly justify your assertion.
I'm talking about feeling and not the documentation of it, since you harp on that a lot. There are creatures that feel (in a crude manner) and yet lack the complexity (or the motivation) to document it, so they've no memory of past feelings.
Quote
We don't have any model for sentience being part of the systemDon't say 'we'. You don't have a model maybe.
Quote
The claims that come out about feelings are assertions. They are either true or baseless. If the damage inputs are handled correctly, the pleasure will be suppressed in an attempt to minimise damage.Given damage data, what's the point of suppressing pleasure if the system that is in charge of minimizing the damage is unaware of either the pain or pleasure? This makes no sense given the model you've described.
Quote
And if an unpleasant feeling is generated when an animal eats delicious food, it will be designed (by evolution) to go on eating it.You told me the animal cannot know the food tastes good. It just concludes it should eat it, I don't know, due to logical deduction or something.
Quote
This presumes that 'feeling' and 'normal signal' are different things. I'll partially agree since I don't think any feeling is reducible to one signal, but signals involved with feelings are quite normal.QuoteMy model doesn't run on magic. I've asserted no such thing, and you've supposedly not asserted it about your model.It's measuring a feeling and magically knowing that it's a feeling that it's measuring rather than just a signal of any normal kind.
Post by: David Cooper on 16/10/2019 23:55:45
It means there's no point in engaging with an irrational data system, as you label it. Your whole moral code is based on a lie about feeling for which you claim no evidence exists.
It isn't necessarily irrational in any other aspect, but it's merely generating false claims about being sentient. In the case of humans though, the claims might yet be true, somehow. If they are true, then morality has a purpose and we know how it should be applied. If it turns out that the claims are false, then morality is superfluous: it would not be wrong for AGI to stand back and let some people torture others for fun because there would be no suffering and no fun.
Quote
But you're pointing in there and saying sentience is not there, which is equally not science.
What I'm doing is pointing at simple systems and saying sentience isn't there, or at least, not in any way that shapes the data being generated were if it involves claims about feelings in the machine, they are fictions. We can add layers of complexity and see that sentience is still not there, and if we just go on adding more layers of complexity in the same way, sentience will never be involved. Something radically different has to happen to introduce sentience. Something in there has to have a way of measuring feelings.
Quote
Science is not saying "I don't know how it works, so it's in there".
A lot of science is doing exactly that. The researchers believe they are sentient, so they project that into what they're studying.
Quote
Doesn't work. You can look at them [neural nets] all you want and understand exactly how it works, and still not see the sentience because the understanding is not subjective. The lack of understanding is not the problem.
The data documenting the experiencing of feelings has to be generated by something non-magical in nature. If we can understand how the data's generated and don't find sentience in that mechanism with feelings being measured in any way, there is no sentience involved in shaping that data.
Quote
QuoteVariables are data, but they are not ideas.I made no mention of variables. I said ideas seem to be data. You assert otherwise, but have not demonstrated it.
I was giving an example of data that doesn't count as an idea. It can represent an idea, but the idea has to be stored in a more complex structure.
Quote
Chinese room is not a model of a human, or if it is, it is a model of a paralyzed person with ESP in a sensory deprivation chamber. Any output from it that attempts to pass a Turing test is deceit.
It is a model for every conventional kind of computing (non-quantum) that we understand.
Quote
Nevertheless, the thing is capable of its own sentience. The sentience is in the processing of the data of course. It is not the data itself. Data can be shelved. Process cannot.
There is a person operating the Chinese Room, but their feelings make no impression on the data or the process. The process is just a series of simple operations on data, and each of those operations can be identical to other instances with the same function being applied to the same piece of data in very different contexts where the machinery is blind to the context and should not feel any difference between them.
Quote
Quote from: HalcMy big gripe with the list is point 7's immediate and unstated premise that a 'conscious thing' and an 'information system' are separate things, and that the former is not a form of data. That destroys the objectivity of the whole analysis. I deny this premise.You didn't really reply to this. You posted some text after it, but that text (above) was related to sentience being the processing of data and no to point 7 which implicitly assumes a premise of separation of 'conscious thing' and an 'information system'.
I replied with questions: "If sentience is a form of data, what does that sentience look like in the Chinese Room? It's just symbols on pieces of paper and simple processes being applied where new symbols are produced on pieces of paper. If a piece of paper has "ouch" written on it, is that an experience of pain?"
The point of those questions was to make you pay attention to your objection to the conscious thing not being data. If it's data, it's just symbols printed on paper. That's magic sentience with symbols on paper feeling things related to the meanings that an information maps to those symbols.
Quote
Combustion of a gas can occur without any of the electrons and protons (the compoents) being combusted.
Combustion is an abstraction. There is a change in linkage from a higher energy link to a lower energy link and the energy freed up from that is expressed as movement. Burning is equal to that lower-level description and we can substitute that description for all cases of burning.
If feelings are an abstraction in the same way, there needs to be a lower level description of them which accounts for them and equates to them. If pain is an abstraction and is "experienced" by an abstraction (some composite thing), you can then have none of the components feeling anything. But if sentience equals the low-level description, the problem there is that there is no sentience in the low level description, so sentience is lost. How's it been lost? Well, it was lost as soon as it was asserted that none of the components feel anything. For sentience to be real, at least one of the components must feel something.
Quote
There are creatures that feel (in a crude manner) and yet lack the complexity (or the motivation) to document it, so they've no memory of past feelings.
People often deny that such creatures have feelings. The key thing about humans is that they create data that documents an experience of feelings, and that should make it possible to trace back the claims to see what evidence they're based on. With animals which don't produce such data, there's nothing to trace. However, many of them may still produce internal data about it which they can't talk about.
Quote
QuoteWe don't have any model for sentience being part of the systemDon't say 'we'. You don't have a model maybe.
No one has a model for it. Or rather, no one has a model for it that doesn't have a magic module in it somewhere.
Quote
Given damage data, what's the point of suppressing pleasure if the system that is in charge of minimizing the damage is unaware of either the pain or pleasure? This makes no sense given the model you've described.
Why would it make sense in a broken model? All the models are broken so you can't expect things to add up.
Quote
QuoteAnd if an unpleasant feeling is generated when an animal eats delicious food, it will be designed (by evolution) to go on eating it.You told me the animal cannot know the food tastes good. It just concludes it should eat it, I don't know, due to logical deduction or something.
If it generates data claiming it tastes good while the actual feeling might be the opposite, that shows a total disconnect between the feelings and the data that supposedly documents the feelings. This is one of the ways of showing the faults in models: if a feeling is asserted to be experienced in a model and you can switch the assertion round while nothing else changes, the feeling can't respond to match the new assertion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/10/2019 10:05:56
If they're sentient, then they're included. Some animals may not be, and it's highly doubtful that any plants are, or at least, not in any way that's tied to what's happening to them (just as the material of a rock could be sentient).That's the very problem identified by philosophers critisizing utilitarianism. How can you expect anyone else to agree with your thoughts when your don't clearly define what you mean with sentience, which you claimed to be the core idea of universal morality? At least you have to define a criterion to determine which agent is more sentient when compared to another agent. It would be better if you can assign a number to represent each agent's sentience, so they can be ranked at once. You can't calculate something that can't be quantified. Until you have a method to quantify sentience of moral agents, your AGI is useless to calculate the best option in a moral problem.
AFAIK, neuroscience has demonstrated that pain, pleasure, sadness, happiness are electrochemical states of nervous systems, and human already have basic understanding of how to manipulate them at will. I think we can be quite confident to say that rocks feel nothing, thus not sentient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/10/2019 10:39:00
The neutral feelings contribute nothing to total utility, hence the resources should be used optimally, which is to maximize positive feelings and minimize negative feelings.A person gets brain damage that makes him unable to feel pain and pleasure, while still capable of doing normal activities. Is he still considered sentient? Does he still has right to be treated as sentient being? Why so?
If you've removed all of that from him, there could still be neutral feelings like colour qualia, in which case he would still be sentient. You could thus have a species which is sentient but only has such neutral feelings and they would not care about existing or anything else that happens to them, so they have no need of protection from morality. They might be programmed to struggle to survive when under attack, but in their minds they would be calmly observing everything throughout and would be indifferent to the outcome.
Quote
In the case of your brain-damaged human though, there are the relatives, friends and other caring people to consider. They will be upset if he is not protected by morality even if he doesn't need that himself.So if the brain-damaged human has no relative or friend that care, e.g. unwanted baby left by the parents, there would be no utilitarian moral reason to save him/her.
Post by: David Cooper on 17/10/2019 20:19:59
That's the very problem identified by philosophers critisizing utilitarianism. How can you expect anyone else to agree with your thoughts when your don't clearly define what you mean with sentience, which you claimed to be the core idea of universal morality?
I'm not required to spell out what is sentient and in what ways it is sentient. That task is part of the calculation: what are the odds that species A is sentient, and how much does it suffer in cases where it suffers, and how much pleasure does it experience in cases where it enjoys things. AGI will make the best judgements it can about those things and then act on the basis of those numbers. It will look at rocks and determine that there is no known way to affect how any sentience that might be in any rock is feeling, so anything goes when it comes to interactions with rocks.
Quote
At least you have to define a criterion to determine which agent is more sentient when compared to another agent. It would be better if you can assign a number to represent each agent's sentience, so they can be ranked at once. You can't calculate something that can't be quantified. Until you have a method to quantify sentience of moral agents, your AGI is useless to calculate the best option in a moral problem.
It's AGI's job to work out those numbers as best as they can be worked out.
Quote
AFAIK, neuroscience has demonstrated that pain, pleasure, sadness, happiness are electrochemical states of nervous systems, and human already have basic understanding of how to manipulate them at will. I think we can be quite confident to say that rocks feel nothing, thus not sentient.
Neuroscience has demonstrated nothing of the kind. It merely makes assumptions equivalent to listening to the radio waves coming off a processor and making connections with patterns in that and the (false) claims about sentience being generated by a program.
Quote
So if the brain-damaged human has no relative or friend that care, e.g. unwanted baby left by the parents, there would be no utilitarian moral reason to save him/her.
There are plenty of non-relatives who will care too, so the only way to get to the point where that person doesn't matter to anyone is for that person to exist in a world where there are no other people, or where all people are like that. They may then be regarded as expendable machines which, while conscious, have no feelings that enable them to be harmed and none that enable them to enjoy existing either. They are then superfluous.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2019 02:06:59
I'm not required to spell out what is sentient and in what ways it is sentient. That task is part of the calculation: what are the odds that species A is sentient, and how much does it suffer in cases where it suffers, and how much pleasure does it experience in cases where it enjoys things. AGI will make the best judgements it can about those things and then act on the basis of those numbers. It will look at rocks and determine that there is no known way to affect how any sentience that might be in any rock is feeling, so anything goes when it comes to interactions with rocks.
It's AGI's job to work out those numbers as best as they can be worked out.Do you know how Artificial Intelligence work? Their creators need to define what their ultimate/terminal goal is. An advanced version of AI may find instrumental goals beyond the expectation of its creators, but they won't change the ultimate/terminal goal. I have posted several videos discussing this. You better check them out.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2019 02:20:53
Neuroscience has demonstrated nothing of the kind. It merely makes assumptions equivalent to listening to the radio waves coming off a processor and making connections with patterns in that and the (false) claims about sentience being generated by a program.Neuroscience has demonstrated how brain activity would be like when someone is conscious and when someone is not conscious. It can determine if someone is feeling pain or not, pleasure or not. At least it can demonstrate sentience in the standard definition. If you want to expand the scope of the term, it's fine. You just need to clearly state its new boundary condition so everyone else can understand what you mean. Does your calculation include emotional states such as happiness, sadness, love, passion, anger, anxiety, lust, etc.?
You have claimed that the ultimate goal of morality is maximizing X while minimizing Y. But so far you haven't clearly define what they are and their boundary conditions, so it's impossible for anyone else to definitively agree or disagree with you.
Post by: David Cooper on 18/10/2019 20:56:31
Do you know how Artificial Intelligence work?
I would hope so. I've been working in that field for two decades.
Quote
Their creators need to define what their ultimate/terminal goal is.
Their goal is to do what they're programmed to do, and that will be to help sentient things. When there's a conflict between the wishes of different sentient things, they are to apply computational morality to determine the right course of action.
Quote
An advanced version of AI may find instrumental goals beyond the expectation of its creators, but they won't change the ultimate/terminal goal.
That's right: computational morality governs any other sub-goals that they might come up with.
Quote
I have posted several videos discussing this. You better check them out.
There are mountains of information on this issue and most of it is wayward. I have taken you straight to the correct answer so that you can jettison all the superfluous junk.
Quote
Neuroscience has demonstrated how brain activity would be like when someone is conscious and when someone is not conscious. It can determine if someone is feeling pain or not, pleasure or not. At least it can demonstrate sentience in the standard definition.
All it has demonstrated is correlation with something that may or may not be real. If you pull the plug on a machine that's generating false claims about being conscious, the false claims stop. The link between the claims being generated and particular patterns of activity in a processor do not determine that the claimed feelings in the system are real.
Quote
Does your calculation include emotional states such as happiness, sadness, love, passion, anger, anxiety, lust, etc.?
Of course. All feelings have to be considered and be weighted appropriately in order to come up with the right total.
Quote
You have claimed that the ultimate goal of morality is maximizing X while minimizing Y. But so far you haven't clearly define what they are and their boundary conditions, so it's impossible for anyone else to definitively agree or disagree with you.
I've provided the method (which provides you with any boundary conditions you need) and it isn't my job to produce the actual numbers. A lot of data has to be collected and crunched in order to get those numbers, and only AGI can do that work.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2019 03:15:37
QuoteI wasn't talking about artificial intelligent machines here. It was experiments on living humans using medical instrumentation such as fMRI and brainwave sensors that can determine when someone is conscious or not, when they are feeling pain or not. We can compare the readings of the instrumentations and the experience of the human subjects to draw a general patterns about what brain conditions constitute consciousness and feelings.
Neuroscience has demonstrated how brain activity would be like when someone is conscious and when someone is not conscious. It can determine if someone is feeling pain or not, pleasure or not. At least it can demonstrate sentience in the standard definition.
All it has demonstrated is correlation with something that may or may not be real. If you pull the plug on a machine that's generating false claims about being conscious, the false claims stop. The link between the claims being generated and particular patterns of activity in a processor do not determine that the claimed feelings in the system are real.
Post by: David Cooper on 21/10/2019 17:26:41
I wasn't talking about artificial intelligent machines here. It was experiments on living humans using medical instrumentation such as fMRI and brainwave sensors that can determine when someone is conscious or not, when they are feeling pain or not. We can compare the readings of the instrumentations and the experience of the human subjects to draw a general patterns about what brain conditions constitute consciousness and feelings.
You are talking about biological machines which generate claims about consciousness which may not be true, just as a computer can generate claims about experiencing feelings (including one of awareness) without those claims being true. When you disrupt the functionality of the hardware in some way, whether it's a CPU or a brain, you stop the generation of those claims. You do not get any proof from that that you are narrowing down the place where actual feelings might be being experienced.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2019 10:53:19
You are talking about biological machines which generate claims about consciousness which may not be true, just as a computer can generate claims about experiencing feelings (including one of awareness) without those claims being true. When you disrupt the functionality of the hardware in some way, whether it's a CPU or a brain, you stop the generation of those claims. You do not get any proof from that that you are narrowing down the place where actual feelings might be being experienced.Any instrumentation system has non-zero error rate. There always be a chance for either false positive or false negative. But as long the error rate can be maintained below an acceptable limit (based on risk evaluation considering probability of the error occurence and severity of the effects), the method can be legitimately used.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/10/2019 10:07:15
Quote
Russell & Norvig (2003) group agents into five classes based on their degree of perceived intelligence and capability:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_agent#Classes
1. simple reflex agents
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Simple_reflex_agent.png/408px-Simple_reflex_agent.png)
2. model-based reflex agents
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Model_based_reflex_agent.png/408px-Model_based_reflex_agent.png)
3. goal-based agents
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Model_based_goal_based_agent.png/408px-Model_based_goal_based_agent.png)
4. utility-based agents
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Model_based_utility_based.png/408px-Model_based_utility_based.png)
5. learning agents
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/IntelligentAgent-Learning.png/408px-IntelligentAgent-Learning.png)
Enforcement of moral rules through reward and punishment can only be done to learning agents.
Post by: David Cooper on 24/10/2019 21:01:27
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2019 11:15:19
I think it's good that you and others are still exploring this. We'll soon be able to put all the different approaches to the test by running them in AGI systems to see how they perform when applied consistently to all thought experiments. Many approaches will be shown to be wrong by their clear failure to account for some scenarios which reveal serious defects. Many others may do a half-decent job in all cases. Some may do the job perfectly. I'm confident that my approach will produce the best performance in all cases despite it being extremely simple because I think I've found the actual logical basis for morality. I think other approaches are guided by a subconscious understanding of this too, but instead of uncovering the method that I found, people tend to create rules at a higher level which fail to account for everything that's covered at the base level, so they end up with partially correct moral systems which fail in some circumstances. Whatever your ideas evolve into, it will be possible to let AGI take your rules and apply them to test them to destruction, so I'm going to stop commenting in this thread in order not to lose any time that's better spent on building the tool that will enable that testing to be done.Thank you for your contribution in this topic. It's sad that you decide to stop, but it's certainly your right.
IMO, in searching for a universal moral standard we need to declare the definitions of each terms we use to construct our ideas. That's because human languages, including English, contain many ambiguities, homonyms, and dependencies on contexts. You can say that an AGI may resolve the problem, but without clear definition, different AGI systems (e.g. made by different developers, trained using different methods, etc.) might lead to different or even contradicting solutions.
Different person may have different preference on the same feeling/sensation. In extreme case, some kind of pain might be preferred by some kind of persons, such as sadomasochists. Hence I concluded that there must be a deeper meaning than feeling which we should base our morality upon.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2019 11:18:14
https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral-rules-that-supposedly-unite-humanity/
Quote
In 2012, Oliver Scott Curry was an anthropology lecturer at the University of Oxford. One day, he organized a debate among his students about whether morality was innate or acquired. One side argued passionately that morality was the same everywhere; the other, that morals were different everywhere.
“I realized that, obviously, no one really knew, and so decided to find out for myself,” Curry says.
Seven years later, Curry, now a senior researcher at Oxford’s Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, can offer up an answer to the seemingly ginormous question of what morality is and how it does—or doesn’t—vary around the world.
Morality, he says, is meant to promote cooperation. “People everywhere face a similar set of social problems, and use a similar set of moral rules to solve them,” he says as lead author of a paper recently published in Current Anthropology. “Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.”
For the study, Curry’s group studied ethnographic accounts of ethics from 60 societies, across over 600 sources. The universal rules of morality are:
Help your family
Help your group
Return favors
Be brave
Defer to superiors
Divide resources fairly
Respect others’ property
The authors reviewed seven “well-established” types of cooperation to test the idea that morality evolved to promote cooperation, including family values, or why we allocate resources to family; group loyalty, or why we form groups, conform to local norms, and promote unity and solidarity; social exchange or reciprocity, or why we trust others, return favors, seek revenge, express gratitude, feel guilt, and make up after fights; resolving conflicts through contests which entail “hawkish displays of dominance” such as bravery or “dovish displays of submission,” such as humility or deference; fairness, or how to divide disputed resources equally or compromise; and property rights, that is, not stealing.
The team found that these seven cooperative behaviors were considered morally good in 99.9% of cases across cultures. Curry is careful to note that people around the world differ hugely in how they prioritize different cooperative behaviors. But he said the evidence was overwhelming in widespread adherence to those moral values.
“I was surprised by how unsurprising it all was,” he says. “I expected there would be lots of ‘be brave,’ ‘don’t steal from others,’ and ‘return favors,’ but I also expected a lot of strange, bizarre moral rules.” They did find the occasional departure from the norm. For example, among the Chuukese, the largest ethnic group in the Federated States of Micronesia, “to steal openly from others is admirable in that it shows a person’s dominance and demonstrates that he is not intimidated by the aggressive powers of others.” That said, researchers who studied the group concluded that the seven universal moral rules still apply to this behavior: “it appears to be a case in which one form of cooperation (respect for property) has been trumped by another (respect for a hawkish trait, although not explicitly bravery),” they wrote.
Plenty of studies have looked at some rules of morality in some places, but none have attempted to examined the rules of morality in such a large sample of societies. Indeed, when Curry was trying to get funding, his idea was repeatedly rejected as either too obvious or too impossible to prove.
The question of whether morality is universal or relative is an age-old one. In the 17th century, John Locke wrote that if you look around the world, “you could be sure that there is scarce that principle of morality to be named, or rule of virtue to be thought on …. which is not, somewhere or other, slighted and condemned by the general fashion of whole societies of men.”
Philosopher David Hume disagreed. He wrote that moral judgments depend on an “internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species,” noting that certain qualities, including “truth, justice, courage, temperance, constancy, dignity of mind . . . friendship, sympathy, mutual attachment, and fidelity” were pretty universal.
In a critique of Curry’s paper, Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology and cognitive science at Yale University, says that we are far from consensus on a definition of morality. Is it about fairness and justice, or about “maximizing the welfare of sentient beings?” Is it about delaying gratification for long-term gain, otherwise known as intertemporal choice—or maybe altruism?
Bloom also says that the authors of the Current Anthropology study do not sufficiently explain the way we come to moral judgements—that is, the roles that reason, emotions, brain structures, social forces, and development may play in shaping our ideas of morality. While the paper claims that moral judgments are universal because of “collection of instincts, intuitions, inventions, and institutions,” Bloom writes, the authors make “no specific claims about what’s innate, what’s learned, and what arises from personal choice.”
So perhaps the seven universal rules may not be the ultimate list. But at a time when it often feels like we don’t have much in common, Curry offers a framework to consider how we might.
“Humans are a very tribal species,” Curry says. “We are quick to divide into us and them.”
And here is how the trolley problem has evolved over time.
https://www.prindlepost.org/2018/05/just-how-useful-is-the-trolley-problem/
Quote
Philosophy can be perceived as a rather dry, boring subject. Perhaps for that very reason, divulgers have attempted to use stimulating and provocative thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios, in order to arouse students and get them to think about deep problems.
Surely one of the most popular thought experiments is the so-called “Trolley Problem”, widely discussed across American colleges as a way to introduce ethics. It actually goes back to an obscure paper written by Philippa Foot in the 1960s. Foot wondered if a surgeon could ethically kill one healthy patient in order to give her organs to five sick patients, and thus save their life. Then, she wondered whether the driver of a trolley on course to run over five people could divert the trolley onto another track in which only one person would be killed.
As it happens, when presented with these questions, most people agree it is not ethical for the surgeon to kill the patient and distribute her organs thus saving the other five, but it is indeed ethical for the driver to divert the trolley, thus killing one and saving the five. Foot was intrigued what the difference would be between both cases.
She reasoned that, in the first case, the dilemma is between killing one and letting five die, whereas in the second case, the dilemma is between killing one and killing five. Foot argued that there is a big moral difference between killing and letting die. She considered negative duties (duties not to harm others) should have precedence over positive duties (duties to help others), and that is why letting five die is better than killing one.
This was a standard argument for many years, until another philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, took over the discussion and considered new variants of the trolley scenario. Thomson considered a trolley going down its path about to run over five people, and the possibility of diverting it towards another track where only one person would be run over. But, in this case, the decision to do so would not come from the driver, but rather, from a bystander who pulls a lever in order to divert the trolley.
The bystander could simply do nothing, and let the five die. But, when presented with this scenario, most people believe that the bystander has the moral obligation to pull the lever. This is strange, as now, the dilemma is not between killing one and killing five, but instead, killing one and letting five die. Why can the bystander pull the lever, but the surgeon cannot kill the healthy person?
Thomson believed that the answer was to be found in the doctrine of double effect, widely discussed by Thomas Aquinas and Catholic moral philosophers. Some actions may serve an ultimately good purpose, and yet, have harmful side effects. Those actions would be morally acceptable as long as the harmful side effects are merely foreseen, but not intended. The surgeon would save the five patients by distributing the healthy person’s organs, but in so doing, he would intend the harmful effect (the death of the donor). The bystander would also save the five persons by diverting the trolley, but killing the one person on the alternate track is not an intrinsic part of the plan, and in that sense, the bystander would merely foresee, but not intend, the death of that one person.
Thomson considered another trolley scenario that seemed to support her point. Suppose the trolley is going down its path to run over five people, and it is about to go underneath a bridge. On that bridge, there is a fat man. If thrown onto the tracks, the fat man’s weight would stop the trolley, and thus save the five people. Again, this would be killing one person in order to save five. However, the fat man’s death would not only be foreseen but also intended. According to the doctrine of double effect, this action would be immoral. And indeed, when presented with this scenario, most people disapprove of throwing down the fat man.
However, Thomson herself came up with yet another trolley scenario, in which an action is widely approved by people who consider it, yet it is at odds with the doctrine of double effect. Suppose this time that the trolley is on its path to run over five people, and there is a looping track in which the fat man is now standing. If the trolley is diverted onto that track, the fat man’s body will stop the trolley, and it will prevent the trolley from making it back to the track where the five people will be run over. Most people believe that a bystander should pull the lever to divert the trolley, and thus kill the fat man to save the five.
Yet, by doing so, the fat man’s death is not merely foreseen, but intended. If the fat man were somehow able to escape from the tracks, he would not be able to save the other five. The fat man needs to die, and yet, most people do not seem to have a problem with that.
Thomson wondered why people would object to the fat man being thrown from the bridge, but would not object to running over the fat man in the looping track, when in fact, in both scenarios the doctrine of double effect is violated. To this day, this question remains unanswered.
Some philosophers have made the case that too much has been written about the Trolley Problem, and too little has been achieved with it. Some argue either that the examples are unrealistic to the point of being comical and irrelevant. Others argue that intuitions are not reliable and that moral decisions should be based on reasoned analysis, not just on feeling “right” or “wrong” when presented with scenarios.
It is true that all these scenarios are highly unrealistic and that intuitions can be wrong. The morality of actions cannot just be decided by public votes. Yet, despite all its shortcomings, the Trolley Problem remains an exciting and useful approach. It is extremely unlikely someone will ever encounter a situation where a fat man could be thrown from a bridge in order to save five people. But the thought of that situation can elicit thinking about situations with structural similarities, such as whether or not civilians can be bombed in wars, or whether or not doctors should practice euthanasia. The Trolley Problem will not provide definite answers, but it will certainly help in thinking more clearly.
Post by: David Cooper on 25/10/2019 18:20:33
Different person may have different preference on the same feeling/sensation. In extreme case, some kind of pain might be preferred by some kind of persons, such as sadomasochists. Hence I concluded that there must be a deeper meaning than feeling which we should base our morality upon.
This is precisely why I've had enough of discussing this here. There may be no two individuals who feel the same things as each other, but all that means is that correct morality has to take into account individual differences wherever data about that is available. Where it isn't available, you have to go by the best information you have, and that will typically be the average. If one masochist likes being tortured to death, that doesn't negate the wrongness of torture for others. Apply my method: you imagine that you are all the participants in the system, so when you are the masochist, you will enjoy being tortured to death, and when you're a sadist, you may get pleasure out of torturing that masochist to death, so it is moral for that sadist to torture that masochist to death if the masochist signs up to that. The method necessarily covers all cases.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2019 04:05:11
Here is another reading on trolley problem to check our ideas on universal morality.When I first encountered the trolley problem, I kept thinking why the number 5 was chosen to trade with 1 to determine the morality of action/inaction. Then I sketched a basic version of trolley problem where the numbers vary, like I've shown in my previous post here:
https://qz.com/1562585/the-seven-moral-rules-that-supposedly-unite-humanity/
And here is how the trolley problem has evolved over time.
https://www.prindlepost.org/2018/05/just-how-useful-is-the-trolley-problem/
Here is an example to emphasize that sometimes moral decision is based on efficiency. We will use some variations of trolley problem with following assumptions:One of notable conclusions I got from this analysis is emphasized in bold.
- the case is evaluated retrospectively by a perfect artificial intelligence, hence no room for uncertainty of cause and effect regarding the actions or inactions.
- a train is moving in high speed on the left track.
- a lever can be used to switch the train to the right track.
- if the train goes to the left track, every person on the left track will be killed. Likewise for the right track.
- all the people involved are average persons who have positive contribution to the society. No preferences for any one person over the others.
The table below shows possible combination of how many persons on the left and right tracks, ranging from 0 to 5.
The left column in the table below shows how many persons are on the left track, while the top row shows how many persons are on the right track.
\ 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 o o o o o o
1 x o o o o o
2 x ? o o o o
3 x ? ? o o o
4 x ? ? ? o o
5 x ? ? ? ? o
When there are 0 person on the left track, moral persons must leave the lever as it is, no matter how many persons on the right track. This is indicated by letter o in every cell next to number 0 on the left column.
When there are 0 person on the right track, moral persons must switch the lever if there are at least 1 person on the left track. This is indicated by letter x in every cell below the number 0 on the top row, except when there is 0 person on the left track.
When there are non-zero persons on each track and more persons on the right track than the left track, moral persons must leave the lever as it is to reduce casualty. This is indicated by letter o in every cell on the top right side of diagonal cells.
When there are the same number of persons on the left and right tracks, moral persons should leave the lever to conserve resource (energy to switch the track) and avoid being accused of playing god. This is indicated by letter o in every diagonal cell.
When there are non-zero persons on each track and more persons on the left track, the answer might vary (based on previous studies). If you choose to do nothing in these situations, effectively it shows how much you value your action of switching the lever, in the unit of difference of person number between the left and right track. This is indicated by question marks in every cell on the bottom left side of diagonal cells.
Can we call ourselves moral if we let 1 million people die just because we don't want to move the lever which would kill 1? (Imagine a nuclear bomb on the right track that would kill entire city). How many people have to die before we are morally justified to move the lever to kill 1 person?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2019 04:17:52
Quote
Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition defines pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage".[1] In medical diagnosis, pain is regarded as a symptom of an underlying condition.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain
AFAIK, the underlying condition for pleasure and pain is that they help organism to have better chance to survive by pursuing pleasure experiences such as eating food and having sex, and avoiding painful experiences such as from extreme temperature or pressure. Besides the immediate feeling by sensory organs, more complex organisms have developed emotion, which is basically the ability to predict future feelings, based on simple model of their surroundings. The next milestone for organism complexity would be reason, which involves more accurate and precise model of reality.
It is possible to replace feelings with other form of information to determine if the current situation have overall good/bad effect to the existence of an agent. That's why I put feelings and emotions as instrumental goals, rather than ultimate/terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2019 11:50:04
https://www.prindlepost.org/2018/05/just-how-useful-is-the-trolley-problem/In the case of surgeon version of trolley problem, I think many people would make following assumptions that make them reluctant to make the sacrifice:
Quote
Philosophy can be perceived as a rather dry, boring subject. Perhaps for that very reason, divulgers have attempted to use stimulating and provocative thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios, in order to arouse students and get them to think about deep problems.
Surely one of the most popular thought experiments is the so-called “Trolley Problem”, widely discussed across American colleges as a way to introduce ethics. It actually goes back to an obscure paper written by Philippa Foot in the 1960s. Foot wondered if a surgeon could ethically kill one healthy patient in order to give her organs to five sick patients, and thus save their life. Then, she wondered whether the driver of a trolley on course to run over five people could divert the trolley onto another track in which only one person would be killed.
As it happens, when presented with these questions, most people agree it is not ethical for the surgeon to kill the patient and distribute her organs thus saving the other five, but it is indeed ethical for the driver to divert the trolley, thus killing one and saving the five. Foot was intrigued what the difference would be between both cases.
She reasoned that, in the first case, the dilemma is between killing one and letting five die, whereas in the second case, the dilemma is between killing one and killing five. Foot argued that there is a big moral difference between killing and letting die. She considered negative duties (duties not to harm others) should have precedence over positive duties (duties to help others), and that is why letting five die is better than killing one.
This was a standard argument for many years, until another philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, took over the discussion and considered new variants of the trolley scenario. Thomson considered a trolley going down its path about to run over five people, and the possibility of diverting it towards another track where only one person would be run over. But, in this case, the decision to do so would not come from the driver, but rather, from a bystander who pulls a lever in order to divert the trolley.
The bystander could simply do nothing, and let the five die. But, when presented with this scenario, most people believe that the bystander has the moral obligation to pull the lever. This is strange, as now, the dilemma is not between killing one and killing five, but instead, killing one and letting five die. Why can the bystander pull the lever, but the surgeon cannot kill the healthy person?
- there is some non-zero chance that the surgery would fail.
- the five patients' conditions are somehow the consequence of their own fault, such as not living a healthy life, thus make them deserve their failing organs.
- on the other hand, the healthy person to be sacrificed is given credit for living a healthy life.
- many people would likely see the situation in that healthy person's perspective.
In presenting the problem while preventing the second assumption into equation, we can state that the five patients are victims of mass shooting, hence their failing organs have nothing to do with their lifestyle. Furthermore, to tip the balance further, the healthy person could be the mass shooter, or at least someone who let the mass shooting happens.
Or in alternative scenario, the five patients are heroes that risk their lives to stop the mass shooter and save others' lives while the healthy patient is a coward running away from the shooting location.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2019 06:45:59
Your objections seem to just be trying to avoid the issue. Let's assume the surgery carries no risks. The one dies, the others go on to live full lives. This is like assuming no friction in simple physics questions, or assuming the trolley will not overturn when it hits the switch at speed, explode and kill 20. Adding variables like this just detracts from the question being asked.It's the opposite. I'm trying to identify the reason why people change their mind when the situation is slightly changed, one parameter at a time.
It is considered (rightly so) unethical to harvest a healthy condemned criminal in order to save the lives of all these innocents in need. Now why is that?
I have some possible reason to think about.
- Perhaps the crime isn't considered severe enough for death penalty.
- Fear of revenge from the victim's relatives. There's always non-zero chance the secret will be revealed.
- Hope that there might be better options without sacrificing anyone, such as technological advancement.
- The lost of those five lives are not that big deal. Life can still go on as usual. Millions of lives had died due to accident, natural disasters, epidemic, famine, etc. without anyone getting their hands dirty of homicide.
In practice, people may choose differently among one another as well as between theory and practice because of their anxiety, time pressure, different knowledge and experience related to the situation at hand.
There is another solution: You have these 5 people each in need of a different organ from the one healthy person. So they draw lots and the loser gives his organs to the other 4. That's like one of the 5 trolley victims getting to be the hero by throwing the other 4 off the tracks before the trolley hits and kills him. Win win, and yet even this isn't done in practice. Why not? What is the actual moral code which typically drives practical policy?In practice, that is a very rare circumstance.
The cost/resource required could be high. Who will pay the operation? The uncertainty of cost and benefit would make surgeons avert risks by simply doing nothing and noone would blame them.
It might also have been done already, but we never know because it is kept secret to avoid backlash and public outcry.
Post by: Halc on 20/11/2019 13:39:43
In the case of surgeon version of trolley problem, I think many people would make following assumptions that make them reluctant to make the sacrifice:Foot was correct in noticing that people don't really hold to the beliefs they claim. A hypothetical situation (trolley) yields a different answer than a real one (such as the surgery policy described actually being implemented as policy).
- there is some non-zero chance that the surgery would fail.
- the five patients' conditions are somehow the consequence of their own fault, such as not living a healthy life, thus make them deserve their failing organs.
- on the other hand, the healthy person to be sacrificed is given credit for living a healthy life.
- many people would likely see the situation in that healthy person's perspective.
Your objections seem to just be trying to avoid the issue. Let's assume the surgery carries no risks. The one dies, the others go on to live full lives. This is like assuming no friction in simple physics questions, or assuming the trolley will not overturn when it hits the switch at speed, explode and kill 20. Adding variables like this just detracts from the question being asked.
Next point attempts to put a level of blame on the conditions of the 5. So let's discard that. All have faulty organs (different ones) due to accidents or something, but not due to unhealthy choices being made. In fact, the reasoning is rejected if only the one healthy person carries all the blame. It is considered (rightly so) unethical to harvest a healthy condemned criminal in order to save the lives of all these innocents in need. Now why is that? Certainly make no sense on David's utilitarian measurement.
There is another solution: You have these 5 people each in need of a different organ from the one healthy person. So they draw lots and the loser gives his organs to the other 4. That's like one of the 5 trolley victims getting to be the hero by throwing the other 4 off the tracks before the trolley hits and kills him. Win win, and yet even this isn't done in practice. Why not? What is the actual moral code which typically drives practical policy?
Again, you seem to be searching for loopholes rather than focusing on the fundamental reasons why we choose to divert the trolley on a paper philosophy test but not in practice. I think there is a reason, but the best way to to see it is to consider the most favorable case, and wonder why it is still rejected. You seem to be looking for the less favorable cases, which is looking in the wrong direction.Quote from: HalcIt is considered (rightly so) unethical to harvest a healthy condemned criminal in order to save the lives of all these innocents in need. Now why is that?I have some possible reason to think about.
Quote
- Perhaps the crime isn't considered severe enough for death penalty."Condemned criminal" means it is severe enough. The death sentence has been made.
Quote
- Fear of revenge from the victim's relatives. There's always non-zero chance the secret will be revealed.There's a secret involved? I was suggesting this be above board. Not sure who the victim is here, the criminal or the victims of whatever crimes he committed. If the former, he's already got the death penalty and his relatives already know it. Changing the sentence to 'death by disassembly' shouldn't be significantly different from their POV than say death by lethal injection (which renders the organs unusable for transplants).
Quote
- Hope that there might be better options without sacrificing anyone, such as technological advancement.People in need of transplants often have short life expectancy, certainly shorter than advancement of technology. OK, they've made I think a few mechanical hearts, and the world is covered with mechanical kidneys (not implantable ones though). A dialysis machine does not fit in a torso. No mechanical livers. It's transplant or die. Not sure what other organs are life-saving. There are eye transplants, but that just restores sight, not life.
Speaking of livers, they do consider 'blame'. An alcoholic is far less likely to get a liver transplant, unless of course he has enough money/fame. Mickey Mantle is a prime example, drinking his liver into failure and got the transplant at age 48. He lived only 2 months after getting it. So actual morals in practice seems to be to give the scarce resource to the wealthy celebrity and not somebody who's more likely to get more years added to their life from having it done.
Sorry. Side rant.
Quote
- The lost of those five lives are not that big deal. Life can still go on as usual.With that reasoning, murder shouldn't even be illegal.
Quote
Millions of lives had died due to accident, natural disasters, epidemic, famine, etc. without anyone getting their hands dirty of homicide.Ah, there's the standard. Because putting the trolley on the track with one is an act of homicide (involves the dirtying of someone's hands), but the non-act of not saving 5 (or 4) people who could be saved is not similarly labeled a homicide. Negligent homicide is effectively death caused by failing to take action, so letting the trolley go straight is still homicide.
This H word is why I brought up the death-row guy, because his life is already forfeit, and it isn't a homicide to harvest him. The people who throw the switch to kill him are not charged with homicide. And there is no policy of saving lives with his organs, and I said 'rightly so' to that policy.
A specialty doctor could just decide to stay home one day to watch TV for once, without informing his hospital employer. As a result, 3 patients die. His hands are not 'dirty with homicide', and people die every day anyway, so there's nothing wrong with his choosing to blow the day off like that.
Sorry, I find this an immoral choice on the doctor's part.
Quote
In fact, I think it has never been done. But I'm asking why not, since it actually works better than the 'accidental' version they use now.Quote from: HalcThere is another solution: You have these 5 people each in need of a different organ from the one healthy person. So they draw lots and the loser gives his organs to the other 4. That's like one of the 5 trolley victims getting to be the hero by throwing the other 4 off the tracks before the trolley hits and kills him. Win win, and yet even this isn't done in practice.In practice, that is a very rare circumstance.
Quote
The cost/resource required could be high, especially if . Who will pay the operation?Same person who pays when there is a donor found. It costs this money in both circumstances. High cost of the procedure actually is an incentive to do it. The hospitals make plenty of money over these sorts of things, so you'd think the solution I proposed would be found more attractive.
The cost (to save a given life this way) is higher in fact using accident victims, because being unplanned, the matching procedure must be done in absolute haste. Planning it like this (finding a group that are matches for each other and none likely to be approved for a transplant through normal channels) eliminates much of the cost. They can all be brought together into one building instead of needing to preserve and transport the organs all to different cities.
Quote
The uncertainty of cost and benefit would make surgeons avert risks by simply doing nothing and noone would blame them.Surgeons always take risks, and sometimes people blame them. They say to watch out for surgeons who have too low of a failure rate for a risky procedure because either they cook the books or they are too incompetent to take on the higher risk patients. But people very much do blame surgeons who refuse to save lives when it is within their capability.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2019 02:51:22
Again, you seem to be searching for loopholes rather than focusing on the fundamental reasons why we choose to divert the trolley on a paper philosophy test but not in practice. I think there is a reason, but the best way to to see it is to consider the most favorable case, and wonder why it is still rejected. You seem to be looking for the less favorable cases, which is looking in the wrong direction.The social experiments shows that different people give different answers for different reasons. They also changed their mind in different occasions, even when presented with exactly same situation. It might even be the case that some of them just performed coin toss to choose the answer.
Reasonable people would consider expected cost and benefit of each option, which can be classified as short term, mid term, and long term. Before you can decide which way is the right way, you need to explore every possible scenario to see the best option.
When viewed retrospectively, usually people would choose option with highest benefit and lower cost in long term.
If you are a software developer or law maker, looking for loopholes is an important part of your job. Those loopholes can be exploited which may cost unbearable damage if not mitigated properly. They may not be obvious at a glance, that's why the software/law should be scrutinized.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2019 03:10:01
"Condemned criminal" means it is severe enough. The death sentence has been made.Sorry for my limitations in English. It's not my native language. The dictionaries have several definitions for the word "condemn". Some says it can mean life imprisonment.
There's a secret involved? I was suggesting this be above board. Not sure who the victim is here, the criminal or the victims of whatever crimes he committed. If the former, he's already got the death penalty and his relatives already know it. Changing the sentence to 'death by disassembly' shouldn't be significantly different from their POV than say death by lethal injection (which renders the organs unusable for transplants).In the surgeon version of the trolley problem, the secrecy is part of the scenario. Sorry for the mixed up.
I think one reason can be given in the condemned criminal scenario is the fear of future case where innocent persons could be falsely accused for death penalty just to harvest their organs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2019 03:48:18
There is another solution: You have these 5 people each in need of a different organ from the one healthy person. So they draw lots and the loser gives his organs to the other 4. That's like one of the 5 trolley victims getting to be the hero by throwing the other 4 off the tracks before the trolley hits and kills him. Win win, and yet even this isn't done in practice.Sacrificing one to get parts required to save many is routinely done in industry. But it's only done with machines/equipments, not human. Though it's often called cannibalizing.
In fact, I think it has never been done. But I'm asking why not, since it actually works better than the 'accidental' version they use now.
I have already proposed this option in earlier post in this thread.
Maybe finding many people with compatible organs are not easy in practice. Or the hospitals don't have adequate resources to perform many surgery at once. They also need consent from the patient to be sacrificed, and perhaps also the recipients themselves.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2019 03:56:35
QuoteIn the past, it wasn't. Ask the Aztecs who sacrifice humans. Or Europeans collonizing Americas and killing the natives.
- The lost of those five lives are not that big deal. Life can still go on as usual.
With that reasoning, murder shouldn't even be illegal.
It's still happening in conflict zones, where too many people meet limited resource to survive. Some of those killings can even tip the life balance favorably.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2019 04:08:47
A specialty doctor could just decide to stay home one day to watch TV for once, without informing his hospital employer. As a result, 3 patients die. His hands are not 'dirty with homicide', and people die every day anyway, so there's nothing wrong with his choosing to blow the day off like that.I don't know if all hospitals apply the same rules. But their employees have rights such as annual leaves. The duties to provide adequate resources for their operation include having backup doctors. So don't put so much pressure to the doctors.
Sorry, I find this an immoral choice on the doctor's part.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2019 06:35:57
Quote
Indeed, are happiness and misery mathematical entities that can be added or subtracted in the first place? Eating ice cream is enjoyable. Finding true love is more enjoyable. Do you think that if you just eat enough ice cream, the accumulated pleasure could ever equal the rapture of true love?Homo Deus - Yuval Noah Harari.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2019 14:04:54
Quote
Eating ice cream is enjoyable. Finding true love is more enjoyable. Do you think that if you just eat enough ice cream, the accumulated pleasure could ever equal the rapture of true love?
Not a universal example, by any means. There are some people who choose to eat to excess (say outside the 3σ region of the normal distribution) and end up with no friends. Some people are socially anhedonic and prefer any amount of ice cream to even a hint of love. Some people (me included) don't much like ice cream.
You can base your moral standard on an arithmetic mean, or some other statistic, but the definition of immorality requires an arbitrary limit on deviation.
Let's go back to deliberate killing. It is apparently OK for a soldier to kill a uniformed opponent at a distance, or even hand-to-hand, but not to execute a wounded opponent. But it is a moral imperative to execute a wounded animal of any other species. Or he could kill a plain-clothes spy, but arbitrarily butchering other civilians is a war crime. Except if said civilians happen to be in the vicinity of a legitimate (or reasonably suspected) bombing target...... Surely, of all the possible human interactions, acts of war should be cut and dried by now? But they aren't.
Post by: syhprum on 30/12/2019 15:23:28
Fear not the rules of warfare will be settled one day we get plenty of practice.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2019 12:34:28
The technology of firestorm and nuclear bombing then changed the primary objective from infantry occupation of foreign territory to demonstrably unlimited aerial destruction of the homeland, but the relevant Geneva Conventions did not protect noncombatant civilians at the time. Problem nowadays is asymmetric warfare, with guerrillas embedded in compliant (if not complicit) civilian populations: Geneva has not caught up with Vietnam.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2020 15:49:28
The case was raised earlier of the surgeon who takes a day off, during which several patients die. The "right to life" means that the State has to provide best possible medical cover for all conditions at all times, whether as a national service or by buying treatment for those who can't afford it. This is quite different from a national or private service providing "best available within budget", which avoids individual moral dilemmas by substituting explicit terms of business (e.g. "surgery available Mon-Fri only") for an unlimited duty. Thus it is contractually wrong for the surgeon to take a day off without notice, or for the scalpels to be blunt, but the buck stops there.
Less spectacular, but more of a practical problem, is the EU "right to family life" which has actually prevented the deportation of an undesirable who claimed his cat was his family, and the proposed destination would not accept cats.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2020 09:01:12
Quote
In the broad and always disconcerting area of Ethics there seem to be two broad categories for identifying what makes acts ‘moral’:https://charlescrawford.biz/2018/05/17/philosophy-trolley-problem-torture/
Deontology: Acts are moral (or not) in themselves: it’s just wrong to kill or torture someone under most circumstances, regardless of the consequences. See Kant.
Consequentialism: Acts are moral according to their consequences: killing or torturing someone leads to bad results or sets bad precedents, so (sic) we should not do it.
Then there is Particularism: the idea that there are no clear moral principles as such.
Even someone who embrace Deontology recognize that there are exceptions to their judgement toward some actions, as seen in the usage of the word most, instead of all circumstances. It shows that the moral value is not inherently attached to the actions themselves. It still depends on the circumstances instead, and the consequences are part of those.
All objections/criticisms to Consequentialism that I've seen so far get their points by emphasizing short term consequences which are in contrast to their long term overall consequences. If anybody know some counterexamples, please let me know.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2020 02:54:57
Let's go back to deliberate killing. It is apparently OK for a soldier to kill a uniformed opponent at a distance, or even hand-to-hand, but not to execute a wounded opponent.It may depends on the wound and circumstances. If it's so severe and there is no possibility to save them in time(e.g. hole through the lung), and letting them live only causes them to endure prolonged, meaningless pain, then executing them might be the best option.
But it is a moral imperative to execute a wounded animal of any other species. Or he could kill a plain-clothes spy, but arbitrarily butchering other civilians is a war crime. Except if said civilians happen to be in the vicinity of a legitimate (or reasonably suspected) bombing target...... Surely, of all the possible human interactions, acts of war should be cut and dried by now? But they aren't.Cooperations are formed by common interests of involving parties. They are more reliable if they have common goals instead of spontaneous interests. They can be permanent with common terminal goals.
When there are discrepancies in terminal goals, they will understandably set different priority lists, which may cause conflicts and dispute. If those conflict of interest can not be negotiated, then war will break out.
So in order to create everlasting peace, we need to convince people about our common terminal goals, and build an adequately accurate and precise model of objective reality so we can act accordingly to achieve those goals in reliable manner.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2020 04:30:47
The example above was meant as counterexample to classical method of utilitarian morality. Another prominent critic is the utility monster as discussed in my previous posts.QuoteEating ice cream is enjoyable. Finding true love is more enjoyable. Do you think that if you just eat enough ice cream, the accumulated pleasure could ever equal the rapture of true love?Not a universal example, by any means. There are some people who choose to eat to excess (say outside the 3σ region of the normal distribution) and end up with no friends. Some people are socially anhedonic and prefer any amount of ice cream to even a hint of love. Some people (me included) don't much like ice cream.
You can base your moral standard on an arithmetic mean, or some other statistic, but the definition of immorality requires an arbitrary limit on deviation.
If we have found an ultimate terminal goal for conscious moral agents, we can set moral rules to achieve that goal. We can learn from AI researches to optimize the process of setting those moral rules and avoid making mistakes identified in that field, such as Goodhart's Curse. https://arbital.com/p/goodharts_curse/
Quote
Goodhart's Curse and meta-utility functionsOther interesting reading around AI problems.
An obvious next question is "Why not just define the AI such that the AI itself regards U as an estimate of V, causing the AI's U to more closely align with V as the AI gets a more accurate empirical picture of the world?"
Reply: Of course this is the obvious thing that we'd want to do. But what if we make an error in exactly how we define "treat U as an estimate of V"? Goodhart's Curse will magnify and blow up any error in this definition as well.
We must distinguish:
V, the true value function that is in our hearts.
T, the external target that we formally told the AI to align on, where we are hoping that T really means V.
U, the AI's current estimate of T or probability distribution over possible T.
U will converge toward T as the AI becomes more advanced. The AI's epistemic improvements and learned experience will tend over time to eliminate a subclass of Goodhart's Curse where the current estimate of U-value has diverged upward from T-value, cases where the uncertain U-estimate was selected to be erroneously above the correct formal value T.
However, Goodhart's Curse will still apply to any potential regions where T diverges upward from V, where the formal target diverges from the true value function that is in our hearts. We'd be placing immense pressure toward seeking out what we would retrospectively regard as human errors in defining the meta-rule for determining utilities. 1
Goodhart's Curse and 'moral uncertainty'
"Moral uncertainty" is sometimes offered as a solution source in AI alignment; if the AI has a probability distribution over utility functions, it can be risk-averse about things that might be bad. Would this not be safer than having the AI be very sure about what it ought to do?
Translating this idea into the V-T-U story, we want to give the AI a formal external target T to which the AI does not currently have full access and knowledge. We are then hoping that the AI's uncertainty about T, the AI's estimate of the variance between T and U, will warn the AI away from regions where from our perspective U would be a high-variance estimate of V. In other words, we're hoping that estimated U-T uncertainty correlates well with, and is a good proxy for, actual U-V divergence.
The idea would be that T is something like a supervised learning procedure from labeled examples, and the places where the current U diverges from V are things we 'forgot to tell the AI'; so the AI should notice that in these cases it has little information about T.
Goodhart's Curse would then seek out any flaws or loopholes in this hoped-for correlation between estimated U-T uncertainty and real U-V divergence. Searching a very wide space of options would be liable to select on:
Regions where the AI has made an epistemic error and poorly estimated the variance between U and T;
Regions where the formal target T is solidly estimable to the AI, but from our own perspective the divergence from T to V is high (that is, the U-T uncertainty fails to perfectly cover all T-V divergences).
The second case seems especially likely to occur in future phases where the AI is smarter and has more empirical information, and has correctly reduced its uncertainty about its formal target T. So moral uncertainty and risk aversion may not scale well to superintelligence as a means of warning the AI away from regions where we'd retrospectively judge that U/T and V had diverged.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vXzM5L6njDZSf4Ftk/defining-ai-wireheading
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2020 04:49:02
Quote
Goodhart's Law is named after the economist Charles Goodhart. A standard formulation is "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure." Goodhart's original formulation is "Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse when pressure is placed upon it for control purposes."
For example, suppose we require banks to have '3% capital reserves' as defined some particular way. 'Capital reserves' measured that particular exact way will rapidly become a much less good indicator of the stability of a bank, as accountants fiddle with balance sheets to make them legally correspond to the highest possible level of 'capital reserves'.
Decades earlier, IBM once paid its programmers per line of code produced. If you pay people per line of code produced, the "total lines of code produced" will have even less correlation with real productivity than it had previously.
And the research below made a breakthrough in deciphering how the body’s cells sense touch, including pain and pleasure.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03955-w?utm_source=twt_nnc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=naturenews&sf227836567=1
Quote
Touch underlies the functioning of almost every tissue and cell type, says Patapoutian. Organisms interpret forces to understand their world, to enjoy a caress and to avoid painful stimuli. In the body, cells sense blood flowing past, air inflating the lungs and the fullness of the stomach or bladder. Hearing is based on cells in the inner ear detecting the force of sound waves.It shows why morality based on pain and pleasure is susceptible to problems identified as winner's, optimizer's and Goodhart's curses. https://arbital.com/p/goodharts_curse/
Post by: alancalverd on 14/01/2020 17:28:13
Decades earlier, IBM once paid its programmers per line of code produced. If you pay people per line of code produced, the "total lines of code produced" will have even less correlation with real productivity than it had previously.A fine example. Slightly off topic from universal morality, but I've always distinguished between production and management. Production workers should get paid per unit product since they have no other choice or control. The function of management is to optimise, so managers should be paid only from a profit share. The IBM example is interesting since a line of code is not product but a component: if you can achieve the same result with less code, you have a more efficient product: the program or subroutine is the product.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2020 09:55:24
This example emphasizes the discrepancy between longterm goal with short term goal. Just like the name suggest, long term goals have measurable results after a long time has passed since the goal setting, hence without other tools, we might not know wether or not they are going to be achieved, or even if we are going to the right direction. That's why we need short term goals, to help us evaluate our actions and see if they are aligned with our long term goals. In process control system, we can use Smith predictor which is a predictive controller designed to control systems with a significant feedback time delay. We must carefully choose the design of the predictor to be as accurate as possible to minimize process fluctuation.Decades earlier, IBM once paid its programmers per line of code produced. If you pay people per line of code produced, the "total lines of code produced" will have even less correlation with real productivity than it had previously.A fine example. Slightly off topic from universal morality, but I've always distinguished between production and management. Production workers should get paid per unit product since they have no other choice or control. The function of management is to optimise, so managers should be paid only from a profit share. The IBM example is interesting since a line of code is not product but a component: if you can achieve the same result with less code, you have a more efficient product: the program or subroutine is the product.
The same logic also applies to moral rules. They are shortcut to help us achieve long term goals as conscious agents. We need to be more transparent of why those rules should be followed, and what circumstances may trigger exceptions. Most cultures suggest that killing, lying, stealing are bad, but they found exceptions for them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2020 08:40:14
What can be the differences between intelligence and consciousness?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-consciousness-and-intelligence
Quote
Glyn Williams, Answered Aug 11, 2014
I personally define intelligence as the ability to solve problems.
And while we often attempt to solve problems using conscious methods. (Visualize a problem, visualize potential solutions etc) - it is clear from nature that problems can be solved without intent of any sort.
Evolutionary biology has solved the problem of flight at least 4 times. Without a single conscious-style thought in its non-head.
Chess playing computers can solve chess problems, by iterating though all possible moves. Again without a sense of self.
Consciousness as it is usually defined, is type of intelligence that is associated with the problems of agency. If you are a being and have to do stuff - then that might be called awareness or consciousness.
It's also worth noting that being conscious doesn't necessarily having high intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Historical_IQ_classification_tables
Quote
IQ Range ("ratio IQ") IQ Classification
175 and over Precocious
150–174 Very superior
125–149 Superior
115–124 Very bright
105–114 Bright
95–104 Average
85–94 Dull
75–84 Borderline
50–74 Morons
25–49 Imbeciles
0–24 Idiots
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2020 09:02:51
Moral rules are set to achieve some desired states in reliable manner, i.e. they produce more desired results in the long run.Here is another objection to deontological morality. There are circumstances where following one moral rule will inevitably violating other moral rules. Which rules must we keep following then, which can be abandoned? How to set priority for those rules? Is the priority fixed, or might it still depend on the circumstances?QuoteIn the broad and always disconcerting area of Ethics there seem to be two broad categories for identifying what makes acts ‘moral’:https://charlescrawford.biz/2018/05/17/philosophy-trolley-problem-torture/
Deontology: Acts are moral (or not) in themselves: it’s just wrong to kill or torture someone under most circumstances, regardless of the consequences. See Kant.
Consequentialism: Acts are moral according to their consequences: killing or torturing someone leads to bad results or sets bad precedents, so (sic) we should not do it.
Then there is Particularism: the idea that there are no clear moral principles as such.
Even someone who embrace Deontology recognize that there are exceptions to their judgement toward some actions, as seen in the usage of the word most, instead of all circumstances. It shows that the moral value is not inherently attached to the actions themselves. It still depends on the circumstances instead, and the consequences are part of those.
All objections/criticisms to Consequentialism that I've seen so far get their points by emphasizing short term consequences which are in contrast to their long term overall consequences. If anybody know some counterexamples, please let me know.
In modern times, slavery has been classified as one of the most immoral acts. But this wasn't the case for majority of human history. It wasn't even in the list of ten commandments, which still have many adherents. But this is understandable since at that time, worse actions such as genocide were considered normal and had been done repeatedly by prominent moral authorities such as prophets, which presumably had higher moral standards than their peers.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/01/2020 16:22:41
prominent moral authorities such as prophets, which presumably had higher moral standards than their peers.Illegitimate presumption! Priests, politicians, philosophers, prophets, and perverts in general, all profess to have higher moral standards than the rest of us, but so did Hitler and Trump. "By their deeds shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:16) is probably the least questionable line in the entire Bible.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/01/2020 04:21:12
prominent moral authorities such as prophets, which presumably had higher moral standards than their peers.Illegitimate presumption! Priests, politicians, philosophers, prophets, and perverts in general, all profess to have higher moral standards than the rest of us, but so did Hitler and Trump.
Quote
presumptionThat definition seems to be using Bayesian inference, hence there is still a chance that it turns out to be false.
/prɪˈzʌm(p)ʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.
"underlying presumptions about human nature"
I was talking about moral authority instead of formal authority, which you seem to use as counter examples.
I think that we can safely presume that many of their peers have lower moral standard. While they might not be the majority, but collective actions of a group are often depends on its most vocal members.
"By their deeds shall ye know them" (Matthew 7:16) is probably the least questionable line in the entire Bible.
Agreed.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2020 17:56:54
I think that we can safely presume that many of their peers have lower moral standard.Lower than Hitler and Trump? Really?
Priests, politicians, and other parasites, assert their moral authority. "Proof by assertion" is not valid.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2020 03:44:04
I think that we can safely presume that many of their peers have lower moral standard.Lower than Hitler and Trump? Really?
Priests, politicians, and other parasites, assert their moral authority. "Proof by assertion" is not valid.
I was talking about moral authority instead of formal authority, which you seem to use as counter examples.I think even many followers of Hitler and Trump who view them as legitimate formal authorities don't view them as moral authorites. Many people are more morally bankrupt, but they don't come to prominence due to lack of power or influence.
By the way, I was talking about genocides done by ancient moral authorities, which makes slavery slipped away from list of immoral acts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul#Rejection
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2020 08:50:32
From the point of view of universal utopia, we can evaluate that killing as bad act because it wastes data processing capabilities. That evaluation may comes up unconsciously because it's hardwired in human brain. Some people may be able to suppress that thought due to brain plasticity, while some don't even have the same hard wiring to begin with, such as in psychopaths.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2020 16:57:10
True carnivores have no option, and humans who live in arctic regions are entirely dependent on killing highly intelligent species like whales and seals. I encouraged my kids to shoot and fish, with the proviso that they had to prepare and eat everything they killed. Result: three reasonably accomplished hunters (one a chef) and one vegetarian. No moral problem.
Normal humans don't like to see animals suffer, so we impose a legal imperative not to prolong the life of sick or injured animals unreasonably.
Some perverts claim supernatural authority for criminalising assisted suicide, others claim the same authority for mass killing and public executions. Priests, politicians and philosophers relish the suffering of others which is why they had no friends at school. Baffles me why we allow them any temporal authority.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2020 03:37:08
It's also worth noting that being conscious doesn't necessarily having high intelligence.At least there are two things required for consciousness or self awareness of an agent.
First is ability to represent itself in its internal model of its environment. As an illustration, if you put a map of your country on the floor, there will be a point on the map that is touching the actual point it refers to.
Quote
Take an ordinary map of a country, and suppose that that map is laid out on a table inside that country. There will always be a "You are Here" point on the map which represents that same point in the country.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem#Illustrations
In a real conscious agents, some part of the agent's data storage must represent some property of the agent itself.
The next is the existence of preference for one state over the others. One of the most common examples in animal world is pleasure over pain. Thus a map, even a dynamic one, is not conscious due to lack of preference.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2020 10:13:08
Quote
Another key feature of the human brain is the ability to make predictions, including predictions about the resultsIn the Wikipedia article, this cell type is also found in cetaceans and elephants.
of its own decisions and actions. Some scientists believe that prediction is the primary function of the cerebral cortex,
although the cerebellum also plays a major role in the prediction of movement.
Interestingly, we are able to predict or anticipate our own decisions. Work by physiology professor Benjamin
Libet at the University of California at Davis shows that neural activity to initiate an action actually occurs about a
third of a second before the brain has made the decision to take the action. The implication, according to Libet, is that
the decision is really an illusion, that "consciousness is out of the loop." The cognitive scientist and philosopher Daniel
Dennett describes the phenomenon as follows: "The action is originally precipitated in some part of the brain, and off
fly the signals to muscles, pausing en route to tell you, the conscious agent, what is going on (but like all good officials
letting you, the bumbling president, maintain the illusion that you started it all)."114
A related experiment was conducted recently in which neurophysiologists electronically stimulated points in the
brain to induce particular emotional feelings. The subjects immediately came up with a rationale for experiencing
those emotions. It has been known for many years that in patients whose left and right brains are no longer connected,
one side of the brain (usually the more verbal left side) will create elaborate explanations ("confabulations") for
actions initiated by the other side, as if the left side were the public-relations agent for the right side.
The most complex capability of the human brain—what I would regard as its cutting edge—is our emotional
intelligence. Sitting uneasily at the top of our brain's complex and interconnected hierarchy is our ability to perceive
and respond appropriately to emotion, to interact in social situations, to have a moral sense, to get the joke, and to
respond emotionally to art and music, among other high-level functions. Obviously, lower-level functions of
perception and analysis feed into our brain's emotional processing, but we are beginning to understand the regions of
the brain and even to model the specific types of neurons that handle such issues.
These recent insights have been the result of our attempts to understand how human brains differ from those of
other mammals. The answer is that the differences are slight but critical, and they help us discern how the brain
processes emotion and related feelings. One difference is that humans have a larger cortex, reflecting our stronger
capability for planning, decision making, and other forms of analytic thinking. Another key distinguishing feature is
that emotionally charged situations appear to be handled by special cells called spindle cells, which are found only in
humans and some great apes. These neural cells are large, with long neural filaments called apical dendrites that
connect extensive signals from many other brain regions. This type of "deep" interconnectedness, in which certain
neurons provide connections across numerous regions, is a feature that occurs increasingly as we go up the
evolutionary ladder. It is not surprising that the spindle cells, involved as they are in handling emotion and moral
judgment, would have this form of deep interconnectedness, given the complexity of our emotional reactions.
What is startling, however, is how few spindle cells there are in this tiny region: only about 80,000 in the human
brain (about 45,000 in the right hemisphere and 35,000 in the left hemisphere). This disparity appears to account for
the perception that emotional intelligence is the province of the right brain, although the disproportion is modest.
Gorillas have about 16,000 of these cells, bonobos about 2,100, and chimpanzees about 1,800. Other mammals lack
them completely.
Quote
Dr. Arthur Craig of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix has recently provided a description of the
architecture of the spindle cells.115 Inputs from the body (estimated at hundreds of megabits per second), including
nerves from the skin, muscles, organs, and other areas, stream into the upper spinal cord. These carry messages about
touch, temperature, acid levels (for example, lactic acid in muscles), the movement of food through the gastrointestinal
tract, and many other types of information. This data is processed through the brain stem and midbrain. Key cells
called Lamina 1 neurons create a map of the body representing its current state, not unlike the displays used by flight
controllers to track airplanes.
The information then flows through a nut-size region called the posterior ventromedial nucleus (VMpo), which
apparently computes complex reactions to bodily states such as "this tastes terrible," "what a stench," or "that light
touch is stimulating." The increasingly sophisticated information ends up at two regions of the cortex called the insula.
These structures, the size of small fingers, are located on the left and right sides of the cortex. Craig describes the
VMpo and the two insula regions as "a system that represents the material me."
Although the mechanisms are not yet understood, these regions are critical to self-awareness and complicated
emotions. They are also much smaller in other animals. For example, the VMpo is about the size of a grain of sand in
macaque monkeys and even smaller in lower-level animals. These findings are consistent with a growing consensus
that our emotions are closely linked to areas of the brain that contain maps of the body, a view promoted by Dr.
Antonio Damasio at the University of Iowa.116 They are also consistent with the view that a great deal of our thinking
is directed toward our bodies: protecting and enhancing them, as well as attending to their myriad needs and desires.
Very recently yet another level of processing of what started out as sensory information from the body has been
discovered. Data from the two insula regions goes on to a tiny area at the front of the right insula called the
frontoinsular cortex. This is the region containing the spindle cells, and tMRI scans have revealed that it is particularly
active when a person is dealing with high-level emotions such as love, anger, sadness, and sexual desire. Situations
that strongly activate the spindle cells include when a subject looks at her romantic partner or hears her child crying.
Anthropologists believe that spindle cells made their first appearance ten to fifteen million years ago in the as-yet
undiscovered common ancestor to apes and early hominids (the family of humans) and rapidly increased in numbers
around one hundred thousand years ago. Interestingly, spindle cells do not exist in newborn humans but begin to
appear only at around the age of four months and increase significantly from ages one to three. Children's ability to
deal with moral issues and perceive such higher-level emotions as love develop during this same time period.
The spindle cells gain their power from the deep interconnectedness of their long apical dendrites with many other
brain regions. The high-level emotions that the spindle cells process are affected, thereby, by all of our perceptual and
cognitive regions. It will be difficult, therefore, to reverse engineer the exact methods of the spindle cells until we have
better models of the many other regions to which they connect. However, it is remarkable how few neurons appear to
be exclusively involved with these emotions. We have fifty billion neurons in the cerebellum that deal with skill
formation, billions in the cortex that perform the transformations for perception and rational planning, but only about
eighty thousand spindle cells dealing with high-level emotions. It is important to point out that the spindle cells are not
doing rational problem solving, which is why we don't have rational control over our responses to music or over
falling in love. The rest of the brain is heavily engaged, however, in trying to make sense of our mysterious high-level
emotions.
And here is the description from Wikipedia:
Quote
Spindle neurons, also called von Economo neurons (VENs), are a specific class of mammalian cortical neurons characterized by a large spindle-shaped soma (or body) gradually tapering into a single apical axon (the ramification that transmits signals) in one direction, with only a single dendrite (the ramification that receives signals) facing opposite. Other cortical neurons tend to have many dendrites, and the bipolar-shaped morphology of spindle neurons is unique here.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron
Spindle neurons are found in two very restricted regions in the brains of hominids (humans and other great apes): the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the fronto-insular cortex (FI), but recently they have been discovered in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of humans.[1] Spindle cells are also found in the brains of a number of cetaceans,[2][3][4] African and Asian elephants,[5] and to a lesser extent in macaque monkeys[6] and raccoons.[7] The appearance of spindle neurons in distantly related clades suggests that they represent convergent evolution—specifically, as an adaptation to accommodate the increasing size of these distantly-related animals' brains.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Spindle-cell.png)
Cartoon of a normal pyramidal cell (left) compared to a spindle cell (right)
Quote
Spindle neuron concentrations
ACC
The largest number of ACC spindle neurons are found in humans, fewer in the gracile great apes, and fewest in the robust great apes. In both humans and bonobos they are often found in clusters of 3 to 6 neurons. They are found in humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, some cetaceans, and elephants.[16]:245 While total quantities of ACC spindle neurons were not reported by Allman in his seminal research report (as they were in a later report describing their presence in the frontoinsular cortex, below), his team's initial analysis of the ACC layer V in hominids revealed an average of ~9 spindle neurons per section for orangutans (rare, 0.6% of section cells), ~22 for gorillas (frequent, 2.3%), ~37 for chimpanzees (abundant, 3.8%), ~68 for bonobos (abundant/clusters, 4.8%), ~89 for humans (abundant/clusters, 5.6%).[17]
Fronto-insula
All of the primates examined had more spindle cells in the fronto-insula of the right hemisphere than in the left. In contrast to the higher number of spindle cells found in the ACC of the gracile bonobos and chimpanzees, the number of fronto-insular spindle cells was far higher in the cortex of robust gorillas (no data for Orangutans was given). An adult human had 82,855 such cells, a gorilla had 16,710, a bonobo had 2,159, and a chimpanzee had a mere 1,808 – despite the fact that chimpanzees and bonobos are great apes most closely related to humans.
Dorsolateral PFC
Von Economo neurons have been located in the Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of humans[1] and elephants.[5] In humans they have been observed in higher concentration in Brodmann area 9 (BA9) – mostly isolated or in clusters of 2, while in Brodmann area 24 (BA24) they have been found mostly in clusters of 2-4.[1]
Quote
Clinical significance
Abnormal spindle neuron development may be linked to several psychotic disorders, typically those characterized by distortions of reality, disturbances of thought, disturbances of language, and withdrawal from social contact[citation needed]. Altered spindle neuron states have been implicated in both schizophrenia and autism, but research into these correlations remains at a very early stage. Frontotemporal dementia involves loss of mostly spindle neurons.[18] An initial study suggested that Alzheimer's disease specifically targeted von Economo neurons; this study was performed with end-stage Alzheimer brains in which cell destruction was widespread, but later it was found that Alzheimer's disease doesn't affect the spindle neurons.
The research results mentioned above support assertion that humans have higher consciousness level than other animals. They also provide some ways to rank other animals based on their capacity to experience emotions.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/02/2020 23:41:56
The research results mentioned above support assertion that humans have higher consciousness level than other animals. They also provide some ways to rank other animals based on their capacity to experience emotions.
1. Please define consciousness and "level of consciousness"
2. Please show how you measured it in at least three species (a mammal, an insect, a fish)
3. Is religious intolerance indicative of rank in the same sense as altruism? Please list some non-human species that exhibit religious intolerance.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2020 15:19:55
Quote
con·scious·nessIn the context of morality, I've tried to give the proper description here.
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
Similar:
awareness
wakefulness
alertness
responsiveness
sentience
Opposite:
unconsciousness
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
Similar:
awareness of
knowledge of the existence of
alertness to
sensitivity to
realization of
cognizance of
mindfulness of
perception of
apprehension of
recognition of
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"
It's also worth noting that being conscious doesn't necessarily having high intelligence.At least there are two things required for consciousness or self awareness of an agent.
First is ability to represent itself in its internal model of its environment. As an illustration, if you put a map of your country on the floor, there will be a point on the map that is touching the actual point it refers to.QuoteTake an ordinary map of a country, and suppose that that map is laid out on a table inside that country. There will always be a "You are Here" point on the map which represents that same point in the country.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer_fixed-point_theorem#Illustrations
In a real conscious agents, some part of the agent's data storage must represent some property of the agent itself.
The next is the existence of preference for one state over the others. One of the most common examples in animal world is pleasure over pain. Thus a map, even a dynamic one, is not conscious due to lack of preference.
I also mentioned previously that consciousness is a multidimensional parameter, just like intelligence, health, and wealth.
Consciousness level of an agent depends on the accuracy and precision of the agent's model of reality, which are affected by many parameters such as memory capacity, memory reliability/error resistance, data processing speed, sensing and actuating power and precision.
To measure consciousness level, we can combine those parameters using some formula/algorithm and project them onto a specified axis. One convenient parameter to serve this purpose, as I pointed earlier, is the time span of plans an agent can make and execute effectively. An alternative can be made with emphasize on statistical probability, i.e. what's the chance an agent can successfully execute a specified plan for a defined time period.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2020 04:49:30
2. Please show how you measured it in at least three species (a mammal, an insect, a fish)Mammal, insects, and fishes are large groups with large in group variance. But I think we can still use the method I described above to measure their individual level of consciousness. We must also be aware of the distinction between effective and potential level of consciousness. A hunting shark is effectively more conscious than a human under general anesthetic. On the other hand, a human baby has higher level of potential consciousness than a smart dog.
3. Is religious intolerance indicative of rank in the same sense as altruism? Please list some non-human species that exhibit religious intolerance.
Religious intolerance can be attributed to incorrect model of reality in conscious agent's data prosessing unit.
I don't know any non-human animals showing behavior of religious intolerance in the strictest meaning. The closest thing I know is tribal intolerance which often leads to genocide and cannibalism in chimpanzees. But if the group size is enlarged to include interspecies relationships, then lions killing baby cheetahs and pack hunting of sharks can be mentioned here.
(https://www.thesuperfins.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/f-shark-hunt-together.jpg)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2020 15:18:41
Both are multidimensional parameters themselves, which can also be quantified independently.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2020 16:31:01
A shark can respond to a drop of blood in a swimming pool, which makes it billions of times more conscious than you or me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2020 22:09:12
Interestingly, none of the dictionary definitions has anything to do with intelligence or selfawareness. It's all about responding to, or being capable of responding to, a stimulus. Which is the characteristic of all living things.As I said, consciousness is a multidimensional parameter. Perhaps some species of sharks have higher sensitivity to certain chemicals in water compared to human. But they are not conscious about what happens on land, nor they are aware of killing asteroids coming toward the earth.
A shark can respond to a drop of blood in a swimming pool, which makes it billions of times more conscious than you or me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2020 22:23:47
While I agree that concept of consciousness is important in setting up moral rules, I prefer to approach the problem from the other direction. In this thread I have argued that moral rules are shortcuts or tools to help achieving some ultimate goals. Hence proper moral rules are those which effectively and efficiently direct available resources to get closer to that goals.
Making correct decisions in long term affairs requires immense amount of information and data processing capability, which are not available for many conscious agents. Thus short cut moral rules are needed to overcome the limitations. Of course those short cut rules don't always produce the best outcome, but we can rely on Pareto rules and hope that it will work most of the time.
IMO, the conscious level of an agent is useful to select apropriate moral rules for them. For a house cat or dog, not peeing or shitting all over the place might be enough. For little kids we can apply simple rules such as not to lie. Interestingly, white lie stories such as Santa Claus or tooth fairy might be helpful. Religions are sometimes adequate for ancient people. But as we get closer to technological singularity, we need more powerful moral rules to prevent large scale conflicts which can be devastating.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2020 22:32:46
I detect a fellow skeptic in the area of rights and privileges!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2020 23:33:22
Even in the common usage, consciousness have some levels.
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sharon_Edwards9/publication/11215540/figure/tbl2/AS:601712289124362@1520470797326/Words-used-to-describe-level-of-consciousness.png)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11215540_Using_the_Glasgow_Coma_Scale_analysis_and_limitations/figures?lo=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2020 04:13:15
I detect a fellow skeptic in the area of rights and privileges!If that's the case, I think you'll enjoy this performance of George Carlin describing rights and priviledges.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2020 12:00:59
Even in the common usage, consciousness have some levels.All of which are easily observed in all animals and even have analogs in the plant world. They do not distinguish between species.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2020 22:54:38
The list above only cover small portion of extended conscousness, which is relevant for medical treatment. Can we really say that an illiterate patient have the same level of self awareness as a medical doctor?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2020 00:49:25
As for consciousness, you seem now to be defining it as "something bigger than its definition". An amusing take on Russell's Paradox but not very helpful.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/02/2020 03:18:25
Very much so. You don't have to be literate to be a narcissist (Donald Trump struggles with words in lower case and has the style and vocabulary of a 6-year-old) or anorexic - two extremes of selfawareness. After 70 hours without sleep, few junior doctors are aware of anything, never mind themselves.
As for consciousness, you seem now to be defining it as "something bigger than its definition". An amusing take on Russell's Paradox but not very helpful.
Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective. Illiterate patients may not be aware that they have Lymphatic system in their body (or cerebellum, duodenum, or other internal organs).
If you want to stay with strict definitions already written in current dictionaries, you're welcome. But even now, extending the meaning of the word "consciousness" is not new.
Quote
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(disambiguation)
If we follow the pattern from the list of consiousness level above, we can conclude that higher level of consiousness reflects higher accuracy of an agent's internal model representing objective reality. Irresponsive agent makes its internal model doesn't follow the change of its surrounding, which makes it less accurate. We can call a state of consciousness above and below those on the list as super-consciousness and sub-consciousness, respectively, but they are level of consciousness nonetheless.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2020 13:05:03
Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective.Though barely literate and with no concept of reality, Trump is extremely effective in executing his plan to build a big wall and get re-elected. Who cares about reality when you can shout into a microphone?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2020 02:33:26
It only happens with the help of Trump enablers who seek for personal gains. But it won't last long if things continue that way. Objective reality has limited tolerance. When long term damages become more apparent, more people will start to realize it and try to make a change.Having inaccurate model of reality reduce the agent's consciousness level, since it would render their plan's execution less effective.Though barely literate and with no concept of reality, Trump is extremely effective in executing his plan to build a big wall and get re-elected. Who cares about reality when you can shout into a microphone?
Though many people have expressed concern that a great political power is lead by a toddler inside an old man body, history tells us that some real toddlers had been in that position.
https://www.goodorient.com/blog/child-emperors-in-china-history/
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2020 11:47:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2020 13:20:08
Scientists have continuously improved their understanding about consciousness. Here is one of newest results.Most people agree that consciousness plays a central role in morality. Hence understanding consciousness is necessary to discuss about morality productively. IMO anyone who claims that consciousness cannot be understood scientifically has commited some kind of arrogance, namely "if I can't understand something, noone else can."QuoteIn a wild new experiment conducted on monkeys, scientists discovered that a tiny, but powerful area of the brain may enable consciousness: the central lateral thalamus. Activation of the central lateral thalamus and deep layers of the cerebral cortex drives pathways in the brain that carry information between the parietal and frontal lobe in the brain, the study suggests.https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/3d-brain-models-crucial-stage-of-human-development
This brain circuit works as a sort-of “engine for consciousness,” the researchers say, enabling conscious thought and feeling in primates.
To zero in on this brain circuit, a scientific team put macaque monkeys under anesthesia, then stimulated different parts of their brain with electrodes at a frequency of 50 Hertz. Essentially, they zapped different areas of the brain and observed how the monkeys responded. When the central lateral thalamus was stimulated, the monkeys woke up and their brain function resumed — even though they were STILL UNDER ANESTHESIA. Seconds after the scientists switched off the stimulation, the monkeys went right back to sleep.
This research was published Wednesday in the journal Neuron.
“Science doesn’t often leave opportunity for exhilaration, but that’s what that moment was like for those of us who were in the room,” co-author Michelle Redinbaugh, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, tells Inverse.
https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(20)30005-2
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2020 13:44:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2020 13:48:48
But what we have here is an evil man pretending to be naïve. The damage done by his heroes lasted for decades.It takes a closer look to determine if he is indeed an inherently evil man. It's possible that he suffers some mental illness which makes him believes his own lies.
Whatever the cause is, it's a moral responsibility of the society in general to mitigate the damages had done.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2020 14:10:37
It would be a lot easier to understand something if you could define it. So far you have rejected the clinical, dictionary definition and asserted that the word means some abstract characteristic of living things that cannot be defined or measured, but can be used to rank the things that possess it. Not a fruitful starting point.If you carefully read my posts in this thread, I have tried to provide a useful definition of consciousness to discuss about morality several times already. I also showed that it is an extended version of clinical definition manifested in glasgow list. If the levels in the list is likened to a handful colors of the rainbow, then a concept of consciousness required to be useful in building moral rules is like the whole spectrum of electromagnetic wave.
It isn't defined as multidimensional but anydimensional. A thing is either conscious or notYour definition above makes consciousness less relevant to building moral rules.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 00:32:34
Any rule must have a purpose, to enhance or prevent something. If you construct moral rules to enhance cooperation and happiness, and prevent conflict and unhappiness, you have the means to test their effectiveness and permit evolution of the system in the light of your findings.
It is also worth remembering that we do not live in a static, perfect world. There will always be hard cases and exceptions, which need to be dealt with as such and not necessarily to impact the general framework. Simple case: you should pay your taxes. But if your house has just burnt down, your overriding imperative is to shelter your family, not to give the government money to squander on railway consultants. Simpler still: you shouldn't kill civilians, but there's no point in coming second in a fight.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 01:10:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 02:33:18
Only conscious agents can have something useful. That's why the concept of consciousness is important here. One tool can be useful to analyze the problem is anthropic principle.
A good universal moral rule must be useful for any conscious agent universally.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 02:46:54
It is also worth remembering that we do not live in a static, perfect world. There will always be hard cases and exceptions, which need to be dealt with as such and not necessarily to impact the general framework. Simple case: you should pay your taxes. But if your house has just burnt down, your overriding imperative is to shelter your family, not to give the government money to squander on railway consultants. Simpler still: you shouldn't kill civilians, but there's no point in coming second in a fight.A legitimate exception means that we acknowledge a higher priority moral rule than the one we are going to break. A mature society should provide the list of highest priority moral rules in hierarchical structure to help their members make a quick decisions when facing hard cases. Autonomous vehicles and other AI with significant impacts to society must also have that hierarchy incorporated into their algorithm.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 12:26:08
The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.In other words, the measure of consciousness is whatever Hamdani Yusuf says it is, unless it's measured by someone else, since there is no universal arbiter of the formula. Not sure how that advances our discussion .
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 12:30:41
A legitimate exception means that we acknowledge a higher priority moral rule than the one we are going to break
No, it means that expediency sometimes trumps morality, particularly where any other course of action would incapacitate the moral agent. Or as The Boss tells me "Smith & Wesson beats four aces" (she was raised in the Midwest).
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 12:38:27
I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?
Depends on context. The planet, Society, British society, Yorkshiremen, family and friends, family only, or oneself? Or how about some Good Samaritan altruism? As long as you don't invoke any deities, the answer is usually fairly straightforward since the consequences of any action tend to diminish with distance from the source.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2020 23:01:04
The concept of IQ has been around for more than a century without my involvement.The final assessment thus depends on the formula or algorithm used to combine those parameters into a single value useful to compare intelligence, at least in relative scale.In other words, the measure of consciousness is whatever Hamdani Yusuf says it is, unless it's measured by someone else, since there is no universal arbiter of the formula. Not sure how that advances our discussion .
Quote
An intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests designed to assess human intelligence.[1] The abbreviation "IQ" was coined by the psychologist William Stern for the German term Intelligenzquotient, his term for a scoring method for intelligence tests at University of Breslau he advocated in a 1912 book.[2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2020 23:37:07
The concept of IQ has been around for more than a century without my involvement.The concept has, but its only definition is "something to do with quizzes, with a normal distribution and a mean score of 100". The results you get for any particular test vary according to the language and culture within which you apply it!
And anyway, we aren't talking about intelligence, but asking for your definition of consciousness. A decent computer can probably score 200+ on the best IQ tests. Would that signify consciousness, or even intelligence?
I have massive respect for your contributions to this forum, but beware - everyone who invokes "consciousness" seems to end up digging a hole for himself to fall into!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2020 07:06:09
The concept has, but its only definition is "something to do with quizzes, with a normal distribution and a mean score of 100". The results you get for any particular test vary according to the language and culture within which you apply it!IQ test is specifically designed to measure human intelligence. Average human can be modeled as hardware and software which take inputs, process the data, and generate output. They are assumed to already have some commonly used software for data processing such as concept of number, letters, grammar, basic geometry, etc. Without proper software, even the best computer hardware can't solve many problems.
And anyway, we aren't talking about intelligence, but asking for your definition of consciousness. A decent computer can probably score 200+ on the best IQ tests. Would that signify consciousness, or even intelligence?
The ability to solve problems is adequate to score points on intelligence. For consciousness, there are additional requirements, such as self awareness.
Quote
Historically, IQ was a score obtained by dividing a person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of years and months. The resulting fraction (quotient) is multiplied by 100 to obtain the IQ score.[3] For modern IQ tests, the median raw score of the norming sample is defined as IQ 100 and scores each standard deviation (SD) up or down are defined as 15 IQ points greater or less.[4] By this definition, approximately two-thirds of the population scores are between IQ 85 and IQ 115. About 2.5 percent of the population scores above 130, and 2.5 percent below 70.[5][6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
Scores from intelligence tests are estimates of intelligence. Unlike, for example, distance and mass, a concrete measure of intelligence cannot be achieved given the abstract nature of the concept of "intelligence".[7] IQ scores have been shown to be associated with such factors as morbidity and mortality,[8][9] parental social status,[10] and, to a substantial degree, biological parental IQ. While the heritability of IQ has been investigated for nearly a century, there is still debate about the significance of heritability estimates[11][12] and the mechanisms of inheritance.[13]
IQ scores are used for educational placement, assessment of intellectual disability, and evaluating job applicants. Even when students improve their scores on standardized tests, they do not always improve their cognitive abilities, such as memory, attention and speed.[14] In research contexts, they have been studied as predictors of job performance[15] and income.[16] They are also used to study distributions of psychometric intelligence in populations and the correlations between it and other variables. Raw scores on IQ tests for many populations have been rising at an average rate that scales to three IQ points per decade since the early 20th century, a phenomenon called the Flynn effect. Investigation of different patterns of increases in subtest scores can also inform current research on human intelligence.
In other words, the measure of consciousness is whatever Hamdani Yusuf says it is, unless it's measured by someone else, since there is no universal arbiter of the formula. Not sure how that advances our discussion .The formula of the test can be fine tuned to approach desired result. The arbiter for the IQ test is job performance, which is useful for hiring managers.
Quote
Job performance
According to Schmidt and Hunter, "for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance is general mental ability."[15] The validity of IQ as a predictor of job performance is above zero for all work studied to date, but varies with the type of job and across different studies, ranging from 0.2 to 0.6.[122] The correlations were higher when the unreliability of measurement methods was controlled for.[10] While IQ is more strongly correlated with reasoning and less so with motor function,[123] IQ-test scores predict performance ratings in all occupations.[15] That said, for highly qualified activities (research, management) low IQ scores are more likely to be a barrier to adequate performance, whereas for minimally-skilled activities, athletic strength (manual strength, speed, stamina, and coordination) are more likely to influence performance.[15] The prevailing view among academics is that it is largely through the quicker acquisition of job-relevant knowledge that higher IQ mediates job performance. This view has been challenged by Byington & Felps (2010), who argued that "the current applications of IQ-reflective tests allow individuals with high IQ scores to receive greater access to developmental resources, enabling them to acquire additional capabilities over time, and ultimately perform their jobs better."[124]
In establishing a causal direction to the link between IQ and work performance, longitudinal studies by Watkins and others suggest that IQ exerts a causal influence on future academic achievement, whereas academic achievement does not substantially influence future IQ scores.[125] Treena Eileen Rohde and Lee Anne Thompson write that general cognitive ability, but not specific ability scores, predict academic achievement, with the exception that processing speed and spatial ability predict performance on the SAT math beyond the effect of general cognitive ability.[126]
The US military has minimum enlistment standards at about the IQ 85 level. There have been two experiments with lowering this to 80 but in both cases these men could not master soldiering well enough to justify their costs.
To serve similar purpose, measuring consciousness level can be useful to select public leaders and law makers, since their decisions affect many other people.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2020 17:27:48
So you assert that we should select lawmakers on the grounds of consciousness, but the only definition you have given seems to be "IQ plus selfawareness". Every animal I have encountered is self-aware. The extreme seems to be narcissism, which is obviously undesirable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/02/2020 04:51:20
All the quotes seem to suggest is that if you select people with a relevant test, they will perform better than average or those that fail the test. But the key is relevance. A blind man with an IQ of 130 probably won't make a good pilot. Bench pressing 100 kilos is quite a feat, but a footballer needs quite different feet.Unaided blind man has reduced awareness compared to otherwise normal men. Advanced technology can provide some ways to compensate the handicap, or even give more advantage, such as additional infrared, ultraviolet, and radar vision unavailable to the unaided normal human. An average man aided by a powerful AI directly connected to his brain may easily beat the smartest persons in many tasks requiring high intelligence.
So you assert that we should select lawmakers on the grounds of consciousness, but the only definition you have given seems to be "IQ plus selfawareness". Every animal I have encountered is self-aware. The extreme seems to be narcissism, which is obviously undesirable.
That's why I mentioned the need to consider distinctions between effective and potential level of consciousness.
If you are inside an autonomous vehicle, you would prefer that the system controlling the vehicle is a proven and reliable system with ability to create accurate model of reality around it, and the system has preference to keep you safe in it to get to your destination instead of getting you run into building or down a cliff.
If you selectively dismantle some aspects that build general consciousness, it's unsurprising that you will get undesired results. In the case of narcissism, the agent has inaccurate model of reality, which significantly reduces its measure of general consciousness.
Quote
Empirical studieshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#Empirical_studies
Within the field of psychology, there are two main branches of research into narcissism: (1) clinical and (2) social psychology.
These two approaches differ in their view of narcissism, with the former treating it as a disorder, thus as discrete, and the latter treating it as a personality trait, thus as a continuum. These two strands of research tend loosely to stand in a divergent relation to one another, although they converge in places.
Campbell and Foster (2007)[23] review the literature on narcissism. They argue that narcissists possess the following "basic ingredients":
Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others.[26]
Inflated: Narcissists' views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures that compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists' self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated.[27]
Agentic: Narcissists' views tend to be most exaggerated in the agentic domain, relative to the communion domain.[clarification needed][26][27]
Special: Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people.[28]
Selfish: Research upon narcissists' behaviour in resource dilemmas supports the case for narcissists as being selfish.[29]
Oriented toward success: Narcissists are oriented towards success by being, for example, approach oriented.[clarification needed][30]
The measure of general consciousness of an agent is its effectiveness to achieve long term goals. Many ways can be used, including increasing the input resolution, additional sensing methods, increasing memory capacity and data processing speed, having self error correcting mechanism, influencing other agents to help the cause, manipulating its environments, etc. Since the measure will contain a lot of uncertainty, then the result will be statistical in nature, instead of deterministic one.
So the key parameter for consciousness is the accuracy of internal model of the agent in representing parts objective reality which have significant impact to the achievement of the agent's goal in the long term.
The result of the general consciousness assessment of an agent is not used to justify right or priviledge of that agent, but instead to select appropriate set of moral rules which they can follow/obey effectively and efficiently to achieve desired results in the long term. Simply put, with great power comes great responsibility.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/02/2020 11:32:46
In the case of narcissism, the agent has inaccurate model of reality, which significantly reduces its measure of general consciousness.Sadly, Donald Trump has a more accurate model of reality and grasp of the controls than his morally superior opponents. It's much easier to manipulate the machinery of politics and the gullibility of the electorate if you really understand what you are doing, in the current context. He's not the first or the last self-centered demagogue to succeed in politics, even if he loses money in business.
Like Putin, his long-term goal is life presidency. He has a slight problem with the constitution preventing that, but the intermediate goal of re-election is clearly beyond doubt, and a constitutional amendment only requires the majority he already has in the Senate.
Quote
[Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others. Speculation. What we know is that they act as though they are better than others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2020 02:52:55
When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it? As far as I know, planets are not conscious agents. They don't have internal model of objective reality representing themselves in their environments. They don't have preference either. We can't say if the earth prefer current condition over Hadean period. Jupiter didn't seem to mind to be hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets.I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?
Depends on context. The planet, Society, British society, Yorkshiremen, family and friends, family only, or oneself? Or how about some Good Samaritan altruism? As long as you don't invoke any deities, the answer is usually fairly straightforward since the consequences of any action tend to diminish with distance from the source.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2020 10:36:25
The former usually takes form as being convinced by false premises and keeping away from error corrections.
The later usually are related to radical scepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism
Quote
Radical skepticism or radical scepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.[1] Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".[2]
Several Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato, Cratylus, Carneades, Arcesilaus, Aenesidemus, Pyrrho, and Sextus Empiricus have been viewed as having expounded theories of radical skepticism.
In modern philosophy, two representatives of radical skepticism are Michel de Montaigne (most famously known for his skeptical remark, Que sçay-je ?, 'What do I know?' in Middle French; modern French Que sais-je ?) and David Hume (particularly as set out in A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1: "Of the Understanding").
As radical skepticism can be used as an objection for most or all beliefs, many philosophers have attempted to refute it. For example, Bertrand Russell wrote “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2020 11:50:56
When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it? As far as I know, planets are not conscious agents. They don't have internal model of objective reality representing themselves in their environments. They don't have preference either. We can't say if the earth prefer current condition over Hadean period. Jupiter didn't seem to mind to be hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets.Reward and punishment as tools to enforce moral rules can only be applied to conscious agents, especially those with clear preferences. Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2020 21:41:27
When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it?Of course not! Since we haven't come up with a useful definition of consciousness, I couldn't possibly mean that! The planet is the physical context in which we act.
The "two common dangers" are actually one - philosophy. Like alcohol, it can be amusing in small doses but utterly destructive if you let it rule your life. Religion/relativism, whisky/beer, just different flavors, same poison.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2020 21:47:37
Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.The characteristic of many animals, especially humans, is their realisation that you can usually achieve more by collaboration than by competition. Thus we appreciate a sort of long-term integrated reward and most of us value that above immediate selfgratification. We use punishment and reward to bring into line those who don't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2020 21:49:26
If you don't want to call extended consciousness as I described previously as consciousness, that's fine. You can call it extended consciousness then. I've explain why consciousness can be useful in setting moral rules only if it is extended from clinical sense. A baby can be fully conscious clinically, but we can't expect them to follow moral rules intended for adults.When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it?Of course not! Since we haven't come up with a useful definition of consciousness, I couldn't possibly mean that! The planet is the physical context in which we act.
The "two common dangers" are actually one - philosophy. Like alcohol, it can be amusing in small doses but utterly destructive if you let it rule your life. Religion/relativism, whisky/beer, just different flavors, same poison.
Religious fundamentalism commits false positive error type; it accepts a hypothesis that turn out to be false. Whereas moral relativism commits false negative error type; it rejects any hypotheses, including the correct one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/02/2020 01:08:33
How can we punish earth that created earthquakes and kills millions directly and indirectly? Or asteroids for hitting earth?Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.The characteristic of many animals, especially humans, is their realisation that you can usually achieve more by collaboration than by competition. Thus we appreciate a sort of long-term integrated reward and most of us value that above immediate selfgratification. We use punishment and reward to bring into line those who don't.
There are some balance between collaboration and competition. It's due to economic law of diminishing marginal utility. When there are more available resource or opportunity, collaboration is preferred. But when there are too many conscious agents or the resource are scarce, competition would be preferred.
Technological advancement can increase the amount of available resources. But as long as they are finite, we must keep reproduction rate under control. Otherwise there would be too much redundancy, which would be a suboptimal situation.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2020 09:56:39
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2020 06:31:26
Religious fundamentalism commits false positive error type; it accepts a hypothesis that turn out to be false. Whereas moral relativism commits false negative error type; it rejects any hypotheses, including the correct one.The follow up question woud be: Is it possible to determine if something is true or false? how?
Descartes had identified that some scepticism is necessary to get to the truth, but there must be some limit to it, otherwise no knowledge can be produced.
Quote
(English:) Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[e] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.[h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
Quote
This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.
Quote
While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge,[m] I think, therefore I am,[e] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.
Quote
That we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 02:52:49
Quote
The Search for Truthhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#The_Search_for_Truth
Descartes, in a lesser-known posthumously published work dated as written ca. 1647[13] and titled La Recherche de la Vérité par La Lumiere Naturale (The Search for Truth by Natural Light),[14] wrote:
(Latin:) … Sentio, oportere, ut quid dubitatio, quid cogitatio, quid exsistentia sit antè sciamus, qu m de veritate hujus ratiocinii : dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum[e] : plane simus persuasi.
(English:) … [I feel that] it is necessary to know what doubt is, and what thought is, [what existence is], before we can be fully persuaded of this reasoning — I doubt, therefore I am — or what is the same — I think, therefore I am.[p]
So let's start to analyze this reasoning by definitions of existence, thinking, and doubting.
The dictionary says.
Quote
existence
/ɪɡˈzɪst(ə)ns,ɛɡˈzɪst(ə)ns/
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Quote
think
/θɪŋk/
verb
1.
have a particular belief or idea.
Quote
verbHere is my summary of Decartes' idea. To search for the truth, we need to have the ability to doubt. To doubt something, we must have internal model meant to represent objective reality, and we must realize that those two do not always agree. To think about objective reality, the thinker must have internal model meant to represent it. To possess an internal model which represent objective reality, it must exist in objective reality.
verb: doubt; 3rd person present: doubts; past tense: doubted; past participle: doubted; gerund or present participle: doubting
1.
feel uncertain about.
"I doubt my ability to do the job"
question the truth or fact of (something).
"who can doubt the value and necessity of these services?"
Sinonim: think something unlikely, have (one's) doubts about, question, query, be dubious, lack conviction, have reservations about
disbelieve or lack faith in (someone).
"I have no reason to doubt him"
Sinonim: disbelieve, distrust, mistrust, suspect, lack confidence in, have doubts about, be suspicious of, have suspicions about, have misgivings about, feel uneasy about, feel apprehensive about, call into question, query, question, challenge, dispute, have reservations about
feel uncertain, especially about one's religious beliefs.
Sinonim: be undecided, have doubts, be irresolute, be hesitant
So basically, this idea ends up relying on anthropic principle which I mentioned earlier in this thread. The same principle is also the basis for a universal moral standard, which is the subject of this thread.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 03:40:08
Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost.
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection.
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't.
Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down.
Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.
Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2020 06:24:38
Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost.Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.
Best to avoid philosophy and stick to science. Scientific knowledge is the residue of disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved. That's all there is. "Common" knowledge is the bunch of hypotheses, rules of thumb and tabulated data that we have found adequate for everyday use.
None of which has anything to do with morality. We obviously can't act in contradiction to the laws of physics, but morality is about how we should act within those constraints.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 08:23:17
Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.Decartes demonstrated by reductio ad absurdum, that if a thinker rejects its own existence, it leads to contradiction.
Quote
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Interpretation
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 08:44:04
Best to avoid philosophy and stick to science. Scientific knowledge is the residue of disprovable hypotheses that have not been disproved. That's all there is. "Common" knowledge is the bunch of hypotheses, rules of thumb and tabulated data that we have found adequate for everyday use.Why so? Scientific experiments can be costly, while available resources are finite. We must prioritize which ones to be done first. That's where philosophy comes into play.
None of which has anything to do with morality. We obviously can't act in contradiction to the laws of physics, but morality is about how we should act within those constraints.
How do you determine which act should be done, which shouldn't, morally speaking?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2020 11:19:25
If another does unto me as I would not like, an eye for an eye is just retribution.
As for the cost of scientific experiments, I think it was Harold Wilson who said "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Most scientific investigation derives from product failure, so the budget is set according to how many lives it might save to know what went wrong
"Blue sky" research has its own justification. Ronald Reagan asked, at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, how their work contributed to the defence of the nation. The response was "It is what makes the nation worth defending." Some curiosity-driven medical research is justified on a risk/benefit ratio: if it does little harm but might lead to a big reward in areas we haven't considered, let's investigate. Other non-failure research falls into the category of public art: we fly to the moon or launch orbital telescopes principally out of public interest.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2020 11:52:28
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Simples!Does this rule applicable universally, regardless of personality, gender, race, ideology, nationality, species?
If another does unto me as I would not like, an eye for an eye is just retribution.
How can this rule help to solve moral problems such as trolley problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2020 12:02:40
The trolley problem isn't a moral issue. It's one of statistics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2020 03:44:03
The moral imperative is universal as long as you accept the "eye for an eye" part. Ideology is philosophy and therefore is at best irrelevant and at worst poisonous. Species has some limitation as all animals have to eat things that were formerly alive, but AFAIK all "normal" humans prefer a clean kill, except for oysters.I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.
The trolley problem isn't a moral issue. It's one of statistics.
Golden rule has limitations when dealing with asymmetrical relationships, such as parents to kids, humans to animals, normal to disabled.
The eye on eye is even narrower, since it only deals with negative behavior. It only speaks about what shouldn't be done, while saying nothing about what should be done.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2020 03:51:18
Why so? Scientific experiments can be costly, while available resources are finite. We must prioritize which ones to be done first. That's where philosophy comes into play.
As for the cost of scientific experiments, I think it was Harold Wilson who said "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance". Most scientific investigation derives from product failure, so the budget is set according to how many lives it might save to know what went wrongWhat is the portion of US annual budget dedicated to scientific experiments? Why can't it be 100%?
"Blue sky" research has its own justification. Ronald Reagan asked, at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory, how their work contributed to the defence of the nation. The response was "It is what makes the nation worth defending." Some curiosity-driven medical research is justified on a risk/benefit ratio: if it does little harm but might lead to a big reward in areas we haven't considered, let's investigate. Other non-failure research falls into the category of public art: we fly to the moon or launch orbital telescopes principally out of public interest.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2020 10:44:27
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2020 10:46:20
I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.
Can you provide an example?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2020 02:30:04
The trolley problem.I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.
Can you provide an example?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2020 03:00:51
Because, as Lincoln pointed out, a country consists of a defensible border, and the irreducible function of government is to raise enough taxes to pay the army that defends it. The secondary functions like enforcing rights and prosecuting wrongs take up a fair bit of the budget, and it is generally preferable to hand out welfare payments rather than have the unemployed steal food. Then there's the cost of the greater glorification of the Fuhrer: whilst the Queen travels in a Range Rover or whatever aircraft the military has available (literally - if the Royal Flight is on operations, they charter Jim Smith's Air Taxi or join a BA scheduled flight) , El Presidente Trump is so unpopular that he needs a motorcade of 20 armoured Lincolns and umpteen motorbikes to go shopping. Next come the banks: crooks who are too big to fail, so must get their bonuses when there is nobody left to cheat. Whatever is left, can be spent on science, arts, or general bribery and chicanery.The resources are divided some way as to best preserve the existence of conscious system, according to the knowledge/understanding of the current system. If someday they are convinced that there is a better way to spend their resources to achieve their ultimate goal due to improved knowledge or change of their environment, they will change the budgetary structure/composition.
Preserving some myth to make so many people work together systematically has its own benefits, as was pointed out by Yuval Noah Harari in his book "Sapiens". But if the myth is already debunked and no longer believed by the member of the organization, they should invent a new myth or story which is more believable. Otherwise, there would be a risk of revolts, or at least dissents among the organization members, and the system won't work effectively anymore. That's where the cogito ergo sum comes into play, which provide the fundamental starting point that is certain and unshakable.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2020 09:16:30
The trolley problem.What's the moral question? You can do something or nothing. Doing something will result in one death, doing nothing will result in five deaths. One is less than five. Failing to act can be considered negligent or even complicit.
Such decisions have to be made from time to time. A classic was the sacrifice of the Calais garrison to delay the German advance towards Dunkirk in 1940. Fortunately the Allies were commanded by soldiers, who are paid to find solutions, not philosophers, who are paid to invent problems.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2020 09:21:49
spend their resources to achieve their ultimate goalThe ultimate goal of a politician is to be re-elected. This is achieved by judicious spending of other people's money, spouting meaningless slogans, and licking the arse of whoever can bring you the most votes.
Astute demagogues (Hitler, Thatcher, Blair, Trump) have no interest in promoting cooperative behaviour. Defending the electorate from "the enemy within" (Jews, coalminers...), or inventing a new external enemy (Argentinians, Iraquis, Mexicans...) can be a vote winner. The trick, of course, is to choose an enemy you can defeat.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/02/2020 01:15:45
The survey results show that slight modifications to the original trolley problem had made many people switch their desicions. It means that people in the survey have different priorities or knowledge about the problem. For moral relativists, it would make no difference which decision you'd take, even if your decision is made solely based on coin toss. But for the rest of us, there should be some basic principles to judge if an action is considered moral or not.The trolley problem.What's the moral question? You can do something or nothing. Doing something will result in one death, doing nothing will result in five deaths. One is less than five. Failing to act can be considered negligent or even complicit.
Such decisions have to be made from time to time. A classic was the sacrifice of the Calais garrison to delay the German advance towards Dunkirk in 1940. Fortunately the Allies were commanded by soldiers, who are paid to find solutions, not philosophers, who are paid to invent problems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/02/2020 01:21:51
Here is an example where eye for an eye doesn't work as moral guidance.The moral imperative is universal as long as you accept the "eye for an eye" part. Ideology is philosophy and therefore is at best irrelevant and at worst poisonous. Species has some limitation as all animals have to eat things that were formerly alive, but AFAIK all "normal" humans prefer a clean kill, except for oysters.I can see that you use a very narrow definition of morality, thus many problems most people regard as moral issues are not covered.
The trolley problem isn't a moral issue. It's one of statistics.
Golden rule has limitations when dealing with asymmetrical relationships, such as parents to kids, humans to animals, normal to disabled.
The eye on eye is even narrower, since it only deals with negative behavior. It only speaks about what shouldn't be done, while saying nothing about what should be done.
An old man rapes his own little kid many times over a period of ten years.
Here is another one.
A man borrow some money and use it for gambling. He dies before paying the debt.
A man kills his neighbor's dog for being noisy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/02/2020 02:55:37
It can only happen in a democratic society. Moreover, what would they do if they got reelected? Can they just rest in peace? If not, then it can't be their actual ultimate/terminal goal.spend their resources to achieve their ultimate goalThe ultimate goal of a politician is to be re-elected. This is achieved by judicious spending of other people's money, spouting meaningless slogans, and licking the arse of whoever can bring you the most votes.
Astute demagogues (Hitler, Thatcher, Blair, Trump) have no interest in promoting cooperative behaviour. Defending the electorate from "the enemy within" (Jews, coalminers...), or inventing a new external enemy (Argentinians, Iraquis, Mexicans...) can be a vote winner. The trick, of course, is to choose an enemy you can defeat.
Deception to gain political power only work if the constituents are gullible enough to believe it. They can systematically dumb down their people, but that would bring unwanted consequences in the long term.
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/02/2020 09:49:33
Sikhs developed their morals on a number of religions' commonalities.
Post by: Europan Ocean on 28/02/2020 09:51:05
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2020 15:34:36
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2020 15:42:48
Here is an example where eye for an eye doesn't work as moral guidance.An old man rapes his own little kid many times over a period of ten years.Let the punishment fit the crime. There has never been a problem recruiting a public hangman.
Quote
Here is another one.A man borrow some money and use it for gambling. He dies before paying the debt.
Here's another old Jewish saying (and it was good enough for Spock to use in the second TV series) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Never lend without security. Unless, of course, you are a bank that is "too big to fail", in which case the taxpayer will pay your bonus.
Quote
A man kills his neighbor's dog for being noisy.Wrong, of course. He should have spent a fortune getting a court order to have the dog destroyed by a professional. How else can lawyers make a living?
Cynical? Moi?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2020 16:03:39
It can only happen in a democratic society. Moreover, what would they do if they got reelected? Can they just rest in peace? If not, then it can't be their actual ultimate/terminal goal."All political careers end in failure" (Churchill). Or death (Calverd). It's a bit like skiing - you proceed to ever more difficult and dangerous runs until you break something. But what a ride!
Quote
Deception to gain political power only work if the constituents are gullible enough to believe it.Never underestimate the gullibility of the electorate. "Make America Great" my arse. WTF does that actually mean? Destroy the social fabric, support mass murder, pardon criminals, and put ignorant prejudiced scum on the Supreme Court bench. It's a vote winner!
Quote
They can systematically dumb down their people, but that would bring unwanted consequences in the long term.In Thatcher's case, dementia. In Blair's case, loadsamoney. The Nazi high command enjoyed feasts and adulation up to the point where the Red Army were literally breaking the door down. Cologne, Dresden, Hamburg...just show up and say something defiant over the smouldering ruins, and das volk will cheer as always.
Post by: Europan Ocean on 01/03/2020 11:45:57
So no drug dealer or pimp would vote Republican. Why not? Surely these are the very people who favour private enterprise and low taxes? Or are they hoping for state-funded addiction and prostitution in the Land of the Free?No, either party prosecutes such crimes. The Democrats for some reason gain the votes from the Mexican immigrants. Controlled immigration can be like gerrymandering.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2020 21:46:06
If UK politicians are anything to go by, those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex. So a few mixed criminals in any immigrant group won't have much net effect on politics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2020 05:52:37
A universal moral standard should cover all moral cases without exception, at least in principle. Its implementation is only limited by the laws of physics and the knowledge of conscious beings implementing it. It should be able to unambiguously answer moral problems such as many variations of trolley problem, as long as the cause and effect relationships in each case can be clearly defined. Other moral problems such as genome editing should also be answered without much trouble.
Quote
Human Nature lays out these tantalizing possibilities alongside some even more far-out applications, like Crispr-ing pigs to grow human organs. Then viewers spend time with Steven Hsu, the chief scientific officer at Genomic Prediction, a company that generates genetic scorecards for prospective parents’ IVF embryos. Hsu believes that using Crispr to create children free of disease will one day be routine, and that parents who leave their genetic recombination up to chance will be the ones deemed unethical by societies of the future.https://www.wired.com/story/crisprs-origin-story-comes-to-life-in-a-new-documentary/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2020 05:57:52
those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.If impeached presidents are useful as indicator, then the US would be a different story.
Post by: evan_au on 12/03/2020 08:59:29
Quote from: hamdani yusuf
How can this rule help to solve moral problems such as trolley problem?99.9% of the morality of the trolley problem is resolved by:
- An annual thorough inspection of the brakes, lights, windscreen wipers, etc...
- A several-times daily check of the engine, brakes etc when each new driver starts his/her shift.
- Keeping to the speed limit appropriate for the conditions
- Reporting any brake problems as soon as they occur, rather than waiting until there are 6 people tied to the tracks.
Quote
The concept of IQ has been around for more than a centuryEQ or "Emotional Quotient" has been around for much less time, but it relates to an emotional connection with people, rather than an intellectual connection.
Whether a leader can be emotionally connected to millions of people is an open question...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2020 10:12:50
99.9% of the morality of the trolley problem is resolved by:I don't know how you can come up with the number. It seems like you only considered the original version of trolley problem where it happens accidentally. But there are some variations where it is deliberately set up by some villains such as in superhero movies.
- An annual thorough inspection of the brakes, lights, windscreen wipers, etc...
- A several-times daily check of the engine, brakes etc when each new driver starts his/her shift.
- Keeping to the speed limit appropriate for the conditions
- Reporting any brake problems as soon as they occur, rather than waiting until there are 6 people tied to the tracks.
I already mentioned that there are many variations of trolley problem, from changes in minor detail to almost entirely different setup such as transplant problem. The changes could be simply the number of persons in each track, personal relationship with some persons on the track, the knowledge of personality of some people on the track, the necessity of actively sacrificing one person to save the many, etc. Other variations replace some of the persons with pets or something else valuable.
The core question is how to set a proper order of priority between different options when both of them have negative/undesired impacts. In other word, it eventually asks for a function to be optimized by some algorithm based on some moral standards. A more general problem would also includes options with positive/desired impacts.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2020 11:06:31
Evan has made a valid point. Negligence is a moral issue.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2020 11:11:39
The US is weird in many ways, beginning with pinning the wrong colors on their political parties and ending up with electing a drooling idiot as president, despite his coming second in the popular vote. Impeachment for sexual shenanigans is quite absurd: any modern French or British politician would say "so what?" as long as there was no compromise of national security.those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.If impeached presidents are useful as indicator, then the US would be a different story.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2020 04:25:33
EQ or "Emotional Quotient" has been around for much less time, but it relates to an emotional connection with people, rather than an intellectual connection.
Whether a leader can be emotionally connected to millions of people is an open question...
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Quote
The Oxford Dictionary definition of emotion is "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others."[22] Emotions are responses to significant internal and external events.[23]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Definitions
Emotions can be occurrences (e.g., panic) or dispositions (e.g., hostility), and short-lived (e.g., anger) or long-lived (e.g., grief).[24] Psychotherapist Michael C. Graham describes all emotions as existing on a continuum of intensity.[25] Thus fear might range from mild concern to terror or shame might range from simple embarrassment to toxic shame.[26] Emotions have been described as consisting of a coordinated set of responses, which may include verbal, physiological, behavioral, and neural mechanisms.[27]
Emotions have been categorized, with some relationships existing between emotions and some direct opposites existing. Graham differentiates emotions as functional or dysfunctional and argues all functional emotions have benefits.[28]
In some uses of the word, emotions are intense feelings that are directed at someone or something.[29] On the other hand, emotion can be used to refer to states that are mild (as in annoyed or content) and to states that are not directed at anything (as in anxiety and depression). One line of research looks at the meaning of the word emotion in everyday language and finds that this usage is rather different from that in academic discourse.[30]
In practical terms, Joseph LeDoux has defined emotions as the result of a cognitive and conscious process which occurs in response to a body system response to a trigger.[31]
IMO, emotion emerged as a product of evolution due to the advantages it brings by speeding up response to some particular situations. Minute details in a situation may change very rapidly, but the outline of the situation usually have longer period. In science fiction movie, an example I can think of is the battle mode and caring mode of Baymax in Big Hero 6. In battle mode, even a slight movement can be interpreted as telegraphing punches, which might be responded fiercely.
The same stimulus may get very different response when occurs in different state of emotion.The correct application of emotion is useful for organims' survival such as in fight or flight situation.
A simpler version of mode changes can be seen in sonar usage of bats who change the sonar pulses to become more frequently when charging a prey compared to normal flight. Cost and benefit of those modes determine when to activate them, although it's more likely happens instinctively. It just happens that the bats with correct instinct are more likely to survive and thrive compared to those who don't.
Instinctive switching of modes/emotional state it can be overridden by higher level of consiousness through reason, understanding of cause and effect, and preference to different results. Once again it can be shown that emotion is useful as a tool or instrumental goal which in many situation can help the achievement of the terminal goal. But in more complex situations it can backfire and give unwanted results instead.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2020 08:01:34
While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.It is generally assumed that given the same amount of information/knowledge, people with higher intelligence are more likely and quickly to solve problems compared to those with lower intelligence. So some knowledge and wisdom are excluded from measurement of intelligent. We can get high score in IQ test without knowing about Maxwell's equations or history of USA. Our physical prowess don't seem to matter either.
On the other hand, extended consciousness takes all of those (or lack of those) into account, as long as they significantly affect the ability of consious agents to achieve their goals.
Quote
A disability is any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or interact with the world around them. These conditions, or impairments, may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or a combination of multiple factors. Impairments causing disability may be present from birth or occur during a person's lifetime.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability
Gullibility or lack of critical thinking would significantly reduce the measure of consciousness level of agents, although it may be insignificant to the measure of their intelligence. This often happens to people who were discouraged to question the authorities in the early stage of their life.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2020 16:48:38
While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.
Brain-implanted rats and human addicts will solve the problem of getting the next fix rather than getting the next meal. This behaviour may seem illogical to you, but if you use it to determine consciousness, you are applying your arbitrary values to another entity in a different environment, so it's subjective. Think about a parent who knowingly sacrifices himself to save a child: same outcome (self destruction) for the same stimulus (feeling good).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2020 11:05:40
Brain-implanted rats and human addicts will solve the problem of getting the next fix rather than getting the next meal. This behaviour may seem illogical to you, but if you use it to determine consciousness, you are applying your arbitrary values to another entity in a different environment, so it's subjective. Think about a parent who knowingly sacrifices himself to save a child: same outcome (self destruction) for the same stimulus (feeling good).The difference is the outcome in the long run. The sacrifice of parents are compensated by the survival of children who inherit most of parent's characteristics, and probably some improvements, and acumulated knowledge of the society. Without adequate compensation, self destruction is always a bad behavior.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2020 12:17:16
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2020 09:04:26
The compensation may be relief of chronic pain, emotional suffering, or obvious looming disaster. Or simply to give a lifetime's accumulated wealth to one's children instead of wasting it on terminal "care". I fully intend to take my own life rather than suffer pain and indignity.With adequate knowledge, we should be able to kill pain without unintended side effects.
Quote
Who authorised any of the aforementioned old perverts to judge "adequate"?The conscious agents who are still alive in the future, just like we judge actions of people from previous generations.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2020 11:27:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2020 02:48:45
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul#Rejection
Quote
Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:
When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.
Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul goes to war and defeats the Amalekites. Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full, he informs Saul that God has rejected him as king due to his disobedience. As Samuel turns to go, Saul seizes hold of his garments and tears off a piece; Samuel prophesies that the kingdom will likewise be torn from Saul. Samuel then kills the Amalekite king himself. Samuel and Saul each return home and never meet again after these events (1 Samuel 15:33-35).
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2020 10:13:19
Not much evidence of an acceptable moral standard in the statute books, nor the bible, I fear.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2020 09:07:59
Now there's a problem! Some laws are made by politicians or perverts for their own aggrandisement, some for the sake of social cohesion, and some as an emergency provision. The case you quote suggests personal aggrandisement: the war was over and the prophecy was to "blot out the remembrance", i.e. to re-educate, not eradicate, the population.Here is the more complete quote.
Not much evidence of an acceptable moral standard in the statute books, nor the bible, I fear.
Quote
Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:I don't know how you translate that into re-education. Let's scrutinize this.
When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.
Quote
Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in fullSo, the instructions are to kill all the men (including the king), women, children and livestock (either poor or best quality). Saul did kill all the men (except the king), women, children and livestock (except the best quality), thus Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2020 12:03:42
,Quoteyou shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven;I don't know how you translate that into re-education.
Worth studying post-1945 Japanese and German laws and history books to see how it can be done under relatively benign occupation. There are for instance several historic German aircraft that fly regularly in films and airshows in the UK and USA with their original markings, but have to be repainted without the swastika to fly in German airspace. Also worth noting how revolutionaries like to destroy the statues of former dictators, and today's students take umbrage at images of their colleges' colonialist founders and benefactors. Evacuating Dunkirk was a remarkable achievement, but was it really a victory? And what was WWI all about?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2020 11:12:24
Quote
The trolley problem demonstrates just how dire the coronavirus pandemic is becoming — with a touch of surrealist humor, of course.https://mashable.com/article/trolley-problem-coronavirus-meme/
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET4zE5XWsAIr98S?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET4kG75WsAorZVU?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET42ftBVAAAvAli?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET4_ErAU0AAjVbv?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ET082FjWkAA9h6-?format=jpg&name=small)
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2020 12:17:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/04/2020 09:47:16
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/23/41068/
Quote
So. I was reading the London Review of Books the other day and came across this passage by the philosopher Kieran Setiya:
Some of the most striking discoveries of experimental philosophers concern the extent of our own personal inconsistencies . . . how we respond to the trolley problem is affected by the details of the version we are presented with. It also depends on what we have been doing just before being presented with the case. After five minutes of watching Saturday Night Live, Americans are three times more likely to agree with the Tibetan monks that it is permissible to push someone in front of a speeding train carriage in order to save five. . . .
I’m not up on this literature, but I was suspicious. Watching a TV show for 5 minutes can change your view so strongly?? I was reminded of the claim from a few years ago, that subliminal smiley faces had huge effects on attitudes toward immigration—it turns out the data showed no such thing. And I was bothered, because it seemed that a possibly false fact was being used as part of a larger argument about philosophy. The concept of “experimental philosophy”—that’s interesting, but only if the experiments make sense.
Quote
And, just to be clear, I agree that there’s nothing special about an SNL video or for that matter about a video at all. My concern about the replication studies is more of a selection issue: if a new study doesn’t replicate the original claim, then a defender can say it’s not a real replication. I guess we could call that “the no true replication fallacy”! Kinda like those notorious examples where people claimed that a failed replication didn’t count because it was done in a different country, or the stimulus was done for a different length of time, or the outdoor temperature was different.Trolley problem and its variations used as tools to find moral principles have their benefits as well as limitations. At least they give some sense of practicality by placing us in a possible real world situations which require us to make moral decisions, instead of just imagining abstracts to weigh in which moral principles should be prioritized over the others. But they also introduce uncertainty about cause and effect relationship of available actions in some people's mind. Some people tried to find third option to break the dilemma.
The real question is, what did they find and how do these findings relate to the larger claim?
And the answer is, it’s complicated.
First, the two new studies only look at the footbridge scenario (where the decision is whether to push the fat man), not the flip-the-switch-on-the-trolley scenario, which is not so productive to study because most people are already willing to flip the switch. So the new studies to not allow comparison the two scenarios. (Strohminger et al. used 12 high conflict moral dilemmas; see here)
Second, the two new studies looked at interactions rather than main effects.
Instead of making things clear to help us make firm decisions, the variations may have added more complexity like shown in this comic.
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/106
(https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/trolleyMadness1.png)
(https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/trolleyMadness2.png)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/04/2020 10:42:54
https://psmag.com/economics/is-the-trolley-problem-derailing-the-ethics-of-self-driving-cars
Quote
"The Trolley Problem"—as the above situation and its related variations are called—is a mainstay of introductory ethics courses, where it is often used to demonstrate the differences between utilitarian and Kantian moral reasoning. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) judges the moral correctness of an action based solely on its outcome. A utilitarian should switch the tracks. Just do the math: One dead is better than five, in terms of outcomes. Kantian, or rule-based, ethics relies on a set of moral principles that must be followed in all situations, regardless of outcome. A Kantian might not be able to justify switching the track if, say, their moral principles hold actively killing someone to be worse than being a bystander to death.
Quote
The rise of autonomous vehicles has given the thought experiment a renewed urgency. If a self-driving car has to choose between crashing into two different people—or two different groups of people—how should it decide which to kill, and which to spare? What value system are we coding into our machines?
These questions about autonomous vehicles have, for years, been haunting journalists and academics. Last month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released the results of its "Moral Machine," an online survey of two million people across 200 countries, demonstrating their preferences for, well, who they'd prefer a self-driving car to kill. Should a car try to hit jaywalkers, rather than people following the rules for crossing? Senior citizens rather than younger people? People in better social standing than those less well-regarded?
Quote
One concern I have is with regard to how the moral machine project has been publicized is that, for ethicists, looking at what other cultures think about different ethical questions is interesting, but [that work] is not ethics. It might cause people to think that all that ethics is is just about surveying different groups and seeing what their values are, and then those values are the right ones. I'm concerned about moral relativism, which is already very troubling with our world, and this may be playing with that. In ethics, there's a right and there's a wrong, and this might confuse people about what ethics is. We don't call people up and then survey them.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/04/2020 12:56:39
We have to make decisions every day based on incomplete information, but in real life you rarely get the next bit of information in time to change your mind, which is why the question asked in a court of enquiry is always prefaced with "Given what you knew at the time, why did you....." Or to quote Sully "That is excellent flying. Now, knowing exactly what was going to happen, how many times did you simulate the emergency approach before you got it right?" "Thirteen". Roll credits.
The selfdriving "moral machine" is nonsense. Page One of the highway code says, in effect, "never drive faster than you can stop in the distance you can see". Being wholly unemotional , never distracted and never tired, the selfdriving car is fully aware of its stopping distance so never has to make a choice. If a pedestrian chooses to run into the road in less than the stopping distance, that's his problem, not the car's.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2020 08:46:40
Cogito ergo sum is just one of an infinite number of possible axioms. It's not a strong foundation.Decartes demonstrated by reductio ad absurdum, that if a thinker rejects its own existence, it leads to contradiction.QuoteAt the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Interpretation
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17[v])
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[35] As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)
The cogito ergo sum provide subjective certainty as a starting point. To get to objective certainty, we need to collect and assemble more information and knowledge to build an accurate and precise model of objective reality.
The video is titled "The Self - A Thought Experiment".Spoiler: showQuoteProfessor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/04/2020 09:38:28
But a philosopher would set that aside, allowing an infinitely expanding list (on the basis that cogito ergo sum applies also to lists). Now look yourself up in the list. You are doing something that isn't already on the list, so we have to add that to the description of you, ad infinitum... The problem becomes one of mathematics: you can't define "you" on the basis of that particular model. It's an inherently crap model because it imposes divergency on any proposed solution.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2020 10:42:29
"The Trolley Problem"—as the above situation and its related variations are called—is a mainstay of introductory ethics courses, where it is often used to demonstrate the differences between utilitarian and Kantian moral reasoning. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) judges the moral correctness of an action based solely on its outcome. A utilitarian should switch the tracks. Just do the math: One dead is better than five, in terms of outcomes. Kantian, or rule-based, ethics relies on a set of moral principles that must be followed in all situations, regardless of outcome. A Kantian might not be able to justify switching the track if, say, their moral principles hold actively killing someone to be worse than being a bystander to death.I wonder what a Kantian would think if the 6 people on the track are equally valuable to him, e.g. all of them are his own twin kids. Will he let 5 of them die for his principle?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2020 10:58:44
Typical philosopher's problem. Based on a dangerously faulty premise! The list of everything in the universe must include the list itself, but the existence of the list is itself a fact that must now be added to the list, so we must add the fact that we have added a fact to the list.....
But a philosopher would set that aside, allowing an infinitely expanding list (on the basis that cogito ergo sum applies also to lists). Now look yourself up in the list. You are doing something that isn't already on the list, so we have to add that to the description of you, ad infinitum... The problem becomes one of mathematics: you can't define "you" on the basis of that particular model. It's an inherently crap model because it imposes divergency on any proposed solution.
In real life, we always consider practicality. Not all data have equal significance to the end result. Some may cancel each other. They may also have some form of redundancy, which we can exploit in data compression.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/247535cef4b9b94eabeb16908cf72436cd01d0c9)
This continued fraction can be used as illustration.
In many situations we don't need infinite precision. We can often make good decision with finite information.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2020 11:28:11
Likewise for moral rules. I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality. Due to incomplete information and limited resource to perform actions, we need to deal with probability theory. Something is morally good if it can be demonstrated to increase the probability of preserving consciousness and bad if it can be demonstrated to decrease the probability of preserving consciousness. Without adequate support, we can't decide if something is morally good or bad.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/04/2020 14:59:32
In many situations we don't need infinite precision. We can often make good decision with finite information.Precision isn't the problem. It's the more fundamental issue of the properties of a set which is member of itself - maths, not philosophy or morals!
Post by: alancalverd on 29/04/2020 15:13:48
I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.I bet you can't define any of those words!
How about moral rules being the lubricant of society?
An ideal hermit doesn't need any rules of behavior towards others, but the moment you introduce a second person into a finite universe you have introduced the possibility of damaging conflict if each pursues an entirely selfcentered existence. Some rules of behaviour are therefore necessary if both are to prosper and collaborate (collaboration generally produces greater prosperity). If you generalise from obviously pragamatic limits (I won't kill you because that will reduce the manpower available for hunting) towards a hypothetical society (murder is bad) you are building a moral code.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/05/2020 11:05:55
I bet you can't define any of those words!We can look up the dictionary to find the definition of each words. Some words may have different meanings according to context. The meaning of words may change over time following evolution of languages.
I usually used the words according to the definitions found in dictionary. I also have explained why the definition of consciousness in narrow clinical context is inadequate to build argumentation about morality, and how we can extend it to make it useful here. If you think there are better words to represent what I mean, please tell me.
Without delving too deeply into the definition of morality or ethics, I think we can usefully approach the subject through "universal". The test is whether any person considered normal by his peers, would make the same choice or judgement as any other in a case requiring subjective evaluation.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/05/2020 22:41:04
their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.I can't think of better words to represent what you mean because I have no idea what you mean!
When Moses wrote "thou shalt not commit adultery" I rather think he was trying to preserve peace among a tribe. Maybe he knew what consciousness is, and could distinguish between objective reality and some less desirable environment for it, but I don't see these words, or any substitute for them, in Exodus!
Post by: evan_au on 04/05/2020 23:49:48
Quote from: hamdani yusuf
for moral rules... I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.Many species have been observed to have rules of moral behavior that work for them.
But we can't easily define consciousness in humans, let alone define what it means for other species (even familiar ones like the domesticated dog).
- Of course, the anthropocentric chauvinists default to "consciousness is unique to humans..."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 05:26:12
How about moral rules being the lubricant of society?Moral rules are not limited to be the lubricant of society. They also cover individual affairs, such as keeping oneself sober and healthy, and avoid suicidal behaviors.
What's so moral about mass suicide anyway? Here is an example where a lubricant of society gone wrong.
Quote
Mass murder in Jonestownhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones#Mass_murder_in_Jonestown
Houses in Jonestown, Guyana, the year after the mass murder-suicide, 1979
Later that same day, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown,[94] 304 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning, mostly in and around the settlement's main pavilion.[95] This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life (murder + suicide, though not on American soil) in a deliberate act until the September 11 attacks.[96] The FBI later recovered a 45-minute audio recording of the suicide in progress.[97]
On that tape, Jones tells Temple members that the Soviet Union, with whom the Temple had been negotiating a potential exodus for months, would not take them after the airstrip murders. The reason given by Jones to commit suicide was consistent with his previously stated conspiracy theories of intelligence organizations allegedly conspiring against the Temple, that men would "parachute in here on us," "shoot some of our innocent babies" and "they'll torture our children, they'll torture some of our people here, they'll torture our seniors." Jones's prior statements that hostile forces would convert captured children to fascism would lead many members who held strong opposing views to fascism to view the suicide as valid. [98]
With that reasoning, Jones and several members argued that the group should commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking cyanide-laced grape-flavored Flavor Aid. Later-released Temple films show Jones opening a storage container full of Kool-Aid in large quantities. However, empty packets of grape Flavor Aid found on the scene show that this is what was used to mix the solution, along with a sedative. One member, Christine Miller, dissents toward the beginning of the tape.[98]
When members apparently cried, Jones counseled, "Stop these hysterics. This is not the way for people who are socialists or communists to die. No way for us to die. We must die with some dignity." Jones can be heard saying, "Don't be afraid to die," that death is "just stepping over into another plane" and that it's "a friend." At the end of the tape, Jones concludes: "We didn't commit suicide; we committed an act of revolutionary suicide protesting the conditions of an inhumane world."[98]
According to escaping Temple members, children were given the drink first by their own parents; families were told to lie down together.[99] Mass suicide had been previously discussed in simulated events called "White Nights" on a regular basis.[83][100] During at least one such prior White Night, members drank liquid that Jones falsely told them was poison.[83][100]
Further questions could be raised, what kind of society are we talking about? Is it restricted to human society? Can the scope be extended to other animals, such as a raft of penguins? Can it be extended further to unicellular organisms? Can it be extended even further to inanimate objects?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 06:13:26
I wasn't talking about a set which is a member of itself. I posted the video to show that the more information we have, the more objective we can become.In many situations we don't need infinite precision. We can often make good decision with finite information.Precision isn't the problem. It's the more fundamental issue of the properties of a set which is member of itself - maths, not philosophy or morals!
The cogito ergo sum provide subjective certainty as a starting point. To get to objective certainty, we need to collect and assemble more information and knowledge to build an accurate and precise model of objective reality.To overcome subjectivity, our model of objective reality doesn't necessarily contain complete information of itself. It only needs to contain representation of itself in the model. A windows desktop is a commonly seen example.
(https://www.thewindowsclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/this-pc-windows-8-1.jpg)
I've also described this in another thread.
The progress to build better AI and toward AGI will eventually get closer to the realization of Laplace demon which is already predicted as technological singularity.QuoteThe better we can predict, the better we can prevent and pre-empt. As you can see, with neural networks, we’re moving towards a world of fewer surprises. Not zero surprises, just marginally fewer. We’re also moving toward a world of smarter agents that combine neural networks with other algorithms like reinforcement learning to attain goals.https://pathmind.com/wiki/neural-networkQuoteIn some circles, neural networks are thought of as “brute force” AI, because they start with a blank slate and hammer their way through to an accurate model. They are effective, but to some eyes inefficient in their approach to modeling, which can’t make assumptions about functional dependencies between output and input.
That said, gradient descent is not recombining every weight with every other to find the best match – its method of pathfinding shrinks the relevant weight space, and therefore the number of updates and required computation, by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, algorithms such as Hinton’s capsule networks require far fewer instances of data to converge on an accurate model; that is, present research has the potential to resolve the brute force nature of deep learning.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 06:42:21
We can start with a narrow and simple definition of consciousness which is widely accepted, such as in clinical context. Immediately we will realize that it is too narrow to be useful for determining moral rules. We clearly need to extend it as I've shown in previous posts here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg591376#msg591376Quote from: hamdani yusuffor moral rules... I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality.Many species have been observed to have rules of moral behavior that work for them.
But we can't easily define consciousness in humans, let alone define what it means for other species (even familiar ones like the domesticated dog).
- Of course, the anthropocentric chauvinists default to "consciousness is unique to humans..."
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg592256#msg592256
Human is the only currently known extant biological entity with the ability to create artificial consciousness. Ray Kurzweil has argued that consciousness doesn't even have to be biological.
Quote
Given that superintelligence will one day be technologically feasible, will people choose to develop it? This
question can pretty confidently be answered in the affirmative. Associated with every step along the road to
superintelligence are enormous economic payoffs. The computer industry invests huge sums in the next
generation of hardware and software, and it will continue doing so as long as there is a competitive pressure
and profits to be made. People want better computers and smarter software, and they want the benefits these
machines can help produce. Better medical drugs; relief for humans from the need to perform boring or
dangerous jobs; entertainment—there is no end to the list of consumer-benefits. There is also a strong military
motive to develop artificial intelligence. And nowhere on the path is there any natural stopping point where
technophobics could plausibly argue "hither but not further."
—NICK BOSTROM, “HOW LONG BEFORE SUPERINTELLIGENCE?” 1997
It is hard to think of any problem that a superintelligence could not either solve or at least help us solve.
Disease, poverty, environmental destruction, unnecessary suffering of all kinds: these are things that a
superintelligence equipped with advanced nanotechnology would be capable of eliminating. Additionally, a
superintelligence could give us indefinite lifespan, either by stopping and reversing the aging process through
the use of nanomedicine, or by offering us the option to upload ourselves. A superintelligence could also
create opportunities for us to vastly increase our own intellectual and emotional capabilities, and it could
assist us in creating a highly appealing experiential world in which we could live lives devoted to joyful
gameplaying, relating to each other, experiencing, personal growth, and to living closer to our ideals.
—NICK BOSTROM, “ETHICAL ISSUES IN ADVANCED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE," 2003
Will robots inherit the earth? Yes, but they will be our children.
—MARVIN MINSKY, 1995
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 10:16:30
Quote
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while being a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life.[1][2][3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
The theory holds that moral reasoning, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for ethical behavior,[4] has six developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[5] Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgment far beyond the ages studied earlier by Piaget, who also claimed that logic and morality develop through constructive stages.[6][5] Expanding on Piaget's work, Kohlberg determined that the process of moral development was principally concerned with justice and that it continued throughout the individual's life, a notion that led to dialogue on the philosophical implications of such research.[7][8][2]
The six stages of moral development occur in phases of pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional morality. For his studies, Kohlberg relied on stories such as the Heinz dilemma and was interested in how individuals would justify their actions if placed in similar moral dilemmas. He analyzed the form of moral reasoning displayed, rather than its conclusion and classified it into one of six stages.[2][9][10][11]
Quote
Kohlberg's six stages can be more generally grouped into three levels of two stages each: pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional.[9][10][11] Following Piaget's constructivist requirements for a stage model, as described in his theory of cognitive development, it is extremely rare to regress in stages—to lose the use of higher stage abilities.[16][17] Stages cannot be skipped; each provides a new and necessary perspective, more comprehensive and differentiated than its predecessors but integrated with them.[16][17]
Kohlberg's Model of Moral Development
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)
The understanding gained in each stage is retained in later stages, but may be regarded by those in later stages as simplistic, lacking in sufficient attention to detail.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2020 10:20:54
The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows[1]:
Quote
A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Quote
From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg/800px-Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=30644)
Post by: alancalverd on 05/05/2020 11:40:29
Moral rules are not limited to be the lubricant of society. They also cover individual affairs, such as keeping oneself sober and healthy, and avoid suicidal behaviors.As long as I don't burden others, I can see no wrong in getting drunk, overeating or killing myself by these or other means. Thus no first-order moral implications: the key is whether or not I burden others by my actions, which would indeed break the protective film of lubricant. In a civilised society these actions are not illegal, though they may exclude you from some aspects of a social contract through "contributory negligence".
You might compare Jonestown with Masada, where 1000 defenders committed suicide after a 2 year siege rather than be enslaved by the Romans. In the Jonestown case it was pretty clear that the defenders had committed crimes against others so the moral implications are clear, even if their personal judgement was suspended in favour of the ravings of a priest. At Masada the defenders had committed no wrong but made a strategic decision based on the known proclivities of the Romans who had been occupying the country for a couple of hundred years.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/05/2020 12:22:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2020 11:25:02
I can't think of better words to represent what you mean because I have no idea what you mean!I recommend you to read Ray Kurzweil's book Singularity is Near. You'll get a clear picture of what I mean there. What amazed me is that the book was already written in 2004, which shows me how insightful the author is.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2020 13:13:47
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.Moral rules are not limited to be the lubricant of society. They also cover individual affairs, such as keeping oneself sober and healthy, and avoid suicidal behaviors.As long as I don't burden others, I can see no wrong in getting drunk, overeating or killing myself by these or other means. Thus no first-order moral implications: the key is whether or not I burden others by my actions, which would indeed break the protective film of lubricant. In a civilised society these actions are not illegal, though they may exclude you from some aspects of a social contract through "contributory negligence".
You might compare Jonestown with Masada, where 1000 defenders committed suicide after a 2 year siege rather than be enslaved by the Romans. In the Jonestown case it was pretty clear that the defenders had committed crimes against others so the moral implications are clear, even if their personal judgement was suspended in favour of the ravings of a priest. At Masada the defenders had committed no wrong but made a strategic decision based on the known proclivities of the Romans who had been occupying the country for a couple of hundred years.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/05/2020 14:18:38
Wilhelm (their cousin) is stinking rich with no debts, and has four adult children with big student loans to repay, and the same genetic condition as Joachim.
According to your ethics, W should top himself ASAP but J must stay in the gutter (and avoid being hit by a bus) until the Good Lord calls him to rest.
I disagree.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2020 16:56:57
There have been already studies similar to the usage of consciousness level to determine morality, such as Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development.We can find a pattern there where more developed moral stages show more inclusiveness and longer term goals. It is unsurprising since they require more thinking capabilities.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2020 17:09:10
Johan (brother of Heinz) has a painful terminal illness with no hope of recovery. He has spent all his money on failed treatment and is now living on the street.Can you tell me the reason?
Wilhelm (their cousin) is stinking rich with no debts, and has four adult children with big student loans to repay, and the same genetic condition as Joachim.
According to your ethics, W should top himself ASAP but J must stay in the gutter (and avoid being hit by a bus) until the Good Lord calls him to rest.
I disagree.
What do you mean by top himself?
My comment on suicide sets the minimum requirement, but additional terms and conditions may apply according to the situation at hand. Imagine what would happen when the minimum requirement is not met. What if you are a character in the world of walking dead, not knowing any survivor who is not suicidal.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/05/2020 17:34:44
My conclusion follows from your requirement:
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.
Nobody else will benefit from J's death, but W's kids will inherit his fortune.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2020 05:23:32
Nobody else will benefit from J's death, but W's kids will inherit his fortune.The existence of any human beings have their own costs and benefits to the society. Lost of one's life means there are more available resources for the others. But it also means lost of his/her contributions. In principle, we can calculate the balance, and find out which option brings more benefit for achieving the universal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2020 08:17:52
Indeed the practical problem with decriminalising assisted suicide is to ensure that nobody is coerced towards death for the benefit of others. So here's a good moral problem: how do you distinguish between a truly voluntary Will (that includes the costs and reasonable profit of whoever assists - I've always wanted to own a comfortable suicide hostel) and excessive pressure from potential beneficiaries?
In my scenario J had nothing, contributed nothing, and simply lived off scraps in dustbins, so would not be permitted to kill himself by your code of ethics, whereas W's death would profit several people and could therefore be permitted or even encouraged by society. That's all wrong, surely?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2020 08:25:21
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemmaIt's unfortunate that Kohlberg's theory doesn't help us in making a hard moral decision. It doesn't say what condition would make one option better than its alternative.
The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows[1]:QuoteA woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?QuoteFrom a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=30644)
The reason why someone choose an option is indeed important to make sure that they are reliable when facing similar problems in the future. But not knowing which option is better given particular situations makes it useless as practical guidance. It is prone to be abused by someone with some knowledge in moral theories to serve their own interest.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2020 08:40:18
There is no universal goal in the case of suicide. The goal is to end or avert personal suffering by the most certain and final means.I think you've misunderstood my statement. Here is the more complete sentences in my post that you've cut.
Indeed the practical problem with decriminalising assisted suicide is to ensure that nobody is coerced towards death for the benefit of others. So here's a good moral problem: how do you distinguish between a truly voluntary Will (that includes the costs and reasonable profit of whoever assists - I've always wanted to own a comfortable suicide hostel) and excessive pressure from potential beneficiaries?
In my scenario J had nothing, contributed nothing, and simply lived off scraps in dustbins, so would not be permitted to kill himself by your code of ethics, whereas W's death would profit several people and could therefore be permitted or even encouraged by society. That's all wrong, surely?
Like any other rules, moral rules are also made to serve some purpose. For example, game rules are set to make the game more interesting for most people, so the game will be kept being played. That's why we get something like hands ball and off side rules in foot ball, or rocade and en passant in chess.The consiousness in my post refers to the existence of known/verified conscious being in the universe, not a particular subjective conscious agent. Hence if the trend of technological advancement can be relied upon, my assertion would be:
Likewise for moral rules. I conclude that their purpose is to preserve the existence of consciousness in objective reality. Due to incomplete information and limited resource to perform actions, we need to deal with probability theory. Something is morally good if it can be demonstrated to increase the probability of preserving consciousness and bad if it can be demonstrated to decrease the probability of preserving consciousness. Without adequate support, we can't decide if something is morally good or bad.
Something is morally good if it can be demonstrated to increase the probability of the achievement of singularity, and bad if it can be demonstrated to decrease it.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2020 12:00:53
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.
Nobody apart from J will benefit from his suicide, so you say that is wrong, but W's children might encourage W to commit suicide for their benefit, which you say is right.
I beg to differ - and so does the law!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 10:01:27
My concern was in relation to thisWhatever J consumed to stay alive would become available for someone else. There would be less waste to the environment.IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.
Nobody apart from J will benefit from his suicide, so you say that is wrong, but W's children might encourage W to commit suicide for their benefit, which you say is right.
I beg to differ - and so does the law!
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2020 10:24:16
I think your moral code says that no matter how wretched, awful, unremittingly painful and pointless one's existence, suicide is only permitted if it benefits someone else. In my book, that is a disgusting attitude. Whose life is it?
Anyway, let's run with it. The kamikaze pilot has sworn to die for the greater glory of the Emperor. He has several choices, including defecting to the enemy, deliberately missing his target and crashing into the sea, killing a thousand enemy sailors, or even turning back to his base and wiping out the rest of the squadron. What would you do, and what would be the greater moral good? You may tackle the simpler problem of the suicide bomber if you wish.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 11:24:15
Here is the most extreme case I can think of. A gamma ray burst suddenly attack earth killing all known conscious being, except you who is currently in a spaceship toward Mars.
You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive. You'll need to improve yourself to be better at survival. You'll need to improve your knowledge and make better tools to help you survive. You may need to modify yourself, either genetically or by merging with robotics. You may need to create backup/clones to eliminate a single point failure. You may spread to different places and introduce diversity in the system to prevent common mode failure.
Once you have backup, your own survival is no longer the highest priority. It enables altruism so it's ok to sacrifice yourself if it can improve the chance that your duplicates will continue to survive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 11:40:25
J was living out of waste bins. His suicide will only benefit the population of urban foxes.In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.
I think your moral code says that no matter how wretched, awful, unremittingly painful and pointless one's existence, suicide is only permitted if it benefits someone else. In my book, that is a disgusting attitude. Whose life is it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2020 11:43:35
Anyway, let's run with it. The kamikaze pilot has sworn to die for the greater glory of the Emperor. He has several choices, including defecting to the enemy, deliberately missing his target and crashing into the sea, killing a thousand enemy sailors, or even turning back to his base and wiping out the rest of the squadron. What would you do, and what would be the greater moral good? You may tackle the simpler problem of the suicide bomber if you wish.Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2020 12:26:33
In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.But that would be the case for any suicide. So it's a universally good thing to do. I think we agree.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2020 12:34:14
Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.
The essence of effective command is that the cannon fodder know nothing of value to the enemy. That way, prisoners become a burden rather than an asset.
Wars end when one side has won. Your solution presumes at least that the moral right is owned by the target.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 09:19:50
IMO, death is a technical problem, which should be solved technically.In your case, someone elses get benefit from J's death, although it may not be felt significant. There would be more O2 and less CO2. More space. Less disease vector. Less sh1t and urine. If J's existence can't compensate the burden he brings to the others, then letting him go would be a better option, especially when he himself doesn't want to live anymore.But that would be the case for any suicide. So it's a universally good thing to do. I think we agree.
I don't think that suicide is a universally good thing to do. Imagine if everyone who thinks that suicide is a universally good thing to do, does commit suicide. That would leave a universe without conscious beings who thinks that suicide is a universally good thing to do. Thus we see anthropic principle at play here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Quote
The anthropic principle is a philosophical consideration that any data we collect about the universe is filtered by the fact that, in order for it to be observable in the first place, it must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it.It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.
IMO, suicidal behavior can only be acceptable if we know that there are other conscious beings which are not suicidal, and get some benefit from our death.Consider an extreme situation that I posted here.
To get the most universal moral rule, we can test them against various situations, and see which rules stand out all of them. In many ordinary situations, most common moral rules would pass. Fundamental rules must still be followed in some extreme cases, such as trolley problems and Heinz dilemma. If an exception can be justified when dealing with those extreme cases, that particular rule is not universally applicable.
Here is the most extreme case I can think of. A gamma ray burst suddenly attack earth killing all known conscious being, except you who is currently in a spaceship toward Mars.
You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive. You'll need to improve yourself to be better at survival. You'll need to improve your knowledge and make better tools to help you survive. You may need to modify yourself, either genetically or by merging with robotics. You may need to create backup/clones to eliminate a single point failure. You may spread to different places and introduce diversity in the system to prevent common mode failure.
Once you have backup, your own survival is no longer the highest priority. It enables altruism so it's ok to sacrifice yourself if it can improve the chance that your duplicates will continue to survive.
Evaluation of a moral action is done by analysing its costs and benefits. Losing someone's life means losing a computing resource and some actuating capability which can contribute to the achievement of a universal goal. A universal goal is likely to be achieved by those who acknowledge it, hence they can actively strive for it effectively and efficiently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 09:37:54
My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.Given the knowledge of what would happen in the future, the option is obvious. He should defect to the enemy. Giving them information he have to help ending the war as quickly as possible.
The essence of effective command is that the cannon fodder know nothing of value to the enemy. That way, prisoners become a burden rather than an asset.
Wars end when one side has won. Your solution presumes at least that the moral right is owned by the target.
Those pilot may not know the complete information. Thus they could make different decisions based on information hidden from them. Due to this hidden information, a morally good person can make a decision which eventually give bad results.
A doctor can give a common prescription to a patient with common symptoms of a common disease. But if the patient has a very rare condition unknown by the doctor which makes the prescription lethal, it doesn't make the doctor morally bad even if the patient die from taking it.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2020 12:57:53
It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.Unless your objective in life is to kill others (like a bee, a kamikaze or a suicide bomber) or to avoid an unpleasant future, in which case it can be 100% effective.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2020 13:06:39
My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.You suggested that defection would be the morally correct decision as it would shorten the war.
The Calais garrison was ordered to fight to the last man to protect the retreat to Dunkirk. Obvious suicide. They could have surrendered or even defected to clearly superior forces, allowing the Nazis to reach Dunkirk, wipe out the Allied armies, and thus shorten WWII by about 3 years. In what way would that have been morally correct?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2020 13:08:54
Quote
IMO, death is a technical problem, which should be solved technically.]No, it's the non-technical solution to the problem of overcrowding, mass starvation, and loss of capacity for independent survival.
Quote
You are the last conscious being in the universe. Your most fundamental moral duty is to survive.Duty to whom?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 21:41:15
The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.It should be obvious that suicidal behavior is self defeating.Unless your objective in life is to kill others (like a bee, a kamikaze or a suicide bomber) or to avoid an unpleasant future, in which case it can be 100% effective.
To prevent unpleasant future, we can collectively build a system which can represent objective reality accurately and precisely, thus we can distribute available resources to achieve what we desire effectively and efficiently.
The fact that you're still alive to write this post is an evidence that you don't really think that suicide is a universally good moral action.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 22:41:34
It depends on which side you are in. If your side's ultimate goal isn't compatible with universal moral values, you better leave as soon as possible.My answer above didn't take presumptions. It was made based on known fact about what would happen until long after the war ended.You suggested that defection would be the morally correct decision as it would shorten the war.
The Calais garrison was ordered to fight to the last man to protect the retreat to Dunkirk. Obvious suicide. They could have surrendered or even defected to clearly superior forces, allowing the Nazis to reach Dunkirk, wipe out the Allied armies, and thus shorten WWII by about 3 years. In what way would that have been morally correct?
What would happen if Hirohito didn't surrender?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2020 22:44:03
No, it's the non-technical solution to the problem of overcrowding, mass starvation, and loss of capacity for independent survival.All of those are technical problems which could be solved technically. They are due to lack of good planning which makes available resources couldn't be distributed properly to achieve desired result effectively and efficiently.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2020 22:56:00
To prevent unpleasant future, we can collectively build a system which can represent objective reality accurately and precisely,We already have a system that represents reality. It's called reality. And we don't seem very good at dealing with it.
Quote
The fact that you're still alive to write this post is an evidence that you don't really think that suicide is a universally good moral action.So the fact that I'm not completely penniless is evidence that I don't think it is morally good to donate to charity, eh? Come on, mate, you can do better than that! Moral does not mean compulsory.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2020 23:03:34
What would happen if Hirohito didn't surrender?My father, with around 400,000 others, would have invaded Japan, and after several years of war and millions more deaths one side would have imposed martial law on the other.
Post by: Colin2B on 11/05/2020 23:20:10
The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.
Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2020 05:00:52
So it means that bee's death after stinging enemy is an unintended consequence, rather than desired result. A better result for them is when they can repel the enemy without killing themselves.The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.
Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2020 05:24:39
Duty to whom?To future conscious beings who will bring singularity into reality.
Starting from cogito ergo sum, we can observe our surroundings and infer that we came from our parents, who in turn have came from their parents and so forth. They have carried out their duty to enable our existence. This can be extrapolated to the future.
With technological singularity, the transition to future concious beings do not necessarily involve death. It can be done smoothly without abrupt termination of an agent's consiousness and starting a new one from scratch. A new copy of conscious agent can be built already fully equipped with all necessary knowledge to explore the universe.
Post by: Colin2B on 12/05/2020 06:53:29
So it means that bee's death after stinging enemy is an unintended consequence, rather than desired result. A better result for them is when they can repel the enemy without killing themselves.Much better. When the hive is attacked by a predator such as a wasp, the guard bees will often use a technique called balling. A large number of them will surround the wasp forming a ball with the wasp at the centre, they will then use their standard heat generating technique of dislocating their wings and vibrating the wing muscles to generate heat - much like we do when shivering. The temperature at the centre of the ball is enough to kill the wasp.
Individual bees will sting a wasp and it is thought that the alarm pheromone released by stinging brings in other bees to attack, hence the ball. I’m not sure about this because newly emerged queens will seek out other queens and sting them to death, they also sting unemerged queens, still in their cells, through the cell wall and this doesn’t seem to initiate balling. That said, worker bees will ball and kill spare queens.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2020 09:30:00
We already have a system that represents reality. It's called reality. And we don't seem very good at dealing with it.What I mean is something we can use to predict the future and simulate what would be the consequence if we do some actions so we can choose the options which would eventually bring us desired results. For example, we already have sequenced complete DNA of corona virus, but the tests for vaccine still need a long time. The system could speed up the trial and error process so we can get the result much faster.
Quote
Research is happening at breakneck speed. About 80 groups around the world are researching vaccines and some are now entering clinical trials.https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51665497
The first human trial for a vaccine was announced last month by scientists in Seattle. Unusually, they are skipping any animal research to test its safety or effectiveness
In Oxford, the first human trial in Europe has started with more than 800 recruits - half will receive the Covid-19 vaccine and the rest a control vaccine which protects against meningitis but not coronavirus
Pharmaceutical giants Sanofi and GSK have teamed up to develop a vaccine
Australian scientists have begun injecting ferrets with two potential vaccines. It is the first comprehensive pre-clinical trial involving animals, and the researchers hope to test humans by the end of April
However, no-one know how effective any of these vaccines will be.
When will we have a coronavirus vaccine?
A vaccine would normally take years, if not decades, to develop. Researchers hope to achieve the same amount of work in only a few months.
Most experts think a vaccine is likely to become available by mid-2021, about 12-18 months after the new virus, known officially as Sars-CoV-2, first emerged.
That would be a huge scientific feat and there are no guarantees it will work.
Four coronaviruses already circulate in human beings. They cause common cold symptoms and we don't have vaccines for any of them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2020 09:33:09
So the fact that I'm not completely penniless is evidence that I don't think it is morally good to donate to charity, eh?It is evidence that you think there is something more important than donating to charity.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/05/2020 11:26:35
their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive.Off topic, but this is something that has always bothered me.
A barbed sting is not an obvious evolution as it does not confer any advantage on the first animal to evolve it, as it will die the fort time it deploys the weapon (maybe this is relevant - see the discussion on kamikaze!). Only queens reproduce, and their barbs are much smaller - they can sting multiple times - so somehow they have evolved a creature that is significantly different from themselves, but AFAIK the difference is due to the early nutrition of the grubs. Balling is used against other insects attacking the hive, as you say, but the sting is presumably used for single insect combat where its deployment is pyrrhic, or against the main enemy of the hive, mammals.
So a physical characteristic has evolved that benefits the society at the cost of the individual and destroys those that use it. This beats all the "chicken and egg" questions, and seriously questions the human uniqueness of consciousness, whatever that means.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2020 05:37:47
- moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.
At a glance, they seem to be applicable for consequentialist ethics only, and not rule based ethics. But that's not the case, since rule based ethics merely elevate "obedience to some arbitrary rules" as the desired conditions. Those rules in turn need justification from a more fundamental principle.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/05/2020 08:38:53
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/05/2020 11:29:18
Desired by whom? If you don't class genocide or rape as a moral action, you have led yourself into a circular argument: a moral action must be desired by a moral person, that is a person whose actions are moral...….Desired by the conscious beings evaluating those actions, based on moral standards that they believe to be true. If they turn out to be in conflict with the universal moral standard, then they must have made one or more false assumptions.
Genetic algorithm can help us to solve complex problems with many variables and incomplete information. Take several populations where genocide or rape are believed to bring desired result for them. Take other populations which think otherwise. See which populations end up closer to the universal moral standard.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/05/2020 17:04:32
You can't claim that any of these offensive groups are in conflict with the Universal Moral Standard until you have defined the UMS, so we are still in a circular argument!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/05/2020 11:17:19
The Nazis had a huge parliamentary majority. "Death to the infidel" is believed by millions, some of whom consider rape to be their prerogative. "Stone the Catholics" is a moral imperative for many Protestants.I've stated in the opening of this thread.
You can't claim that any of these offensive groups are in conflict with the Universal Moral Standard until you have defined the UMS, so we are still in a circular argument!
I consider this topic as a spinoff of my previous subjectSo, I define universal moral standard as a moral standard which can help to achieve the universal ultimate goal, which I discuss in separate thread.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.0
It is split up because morality itself is quite complex and can generate a discussion too long to be covered there.
I've also opened another thread to discuss how to achieve that universal ultimate goal technically.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77747.0
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2020 08:53:23
Another requirement to be a moral rule is that its goal is to improve wellbeing of conscious beings, although it may be implicit due to hidden assumptions. Rules of games don't meet this criterion, hence they are not moral rules.
Some assumptions made while setting a moral rule might be proven false, which make the rule to be immoral. For example, human sacrifice to appeas gods, caste system, kamikaze, etc.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2020 13:05:09
Samuel Johnson's definition of a net as "a reticulated assemblage of holes separated by string" was absurd but at least it was linear.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2020 14:09:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2020 16:00:22
Still circular! You have now defined a moral rule as one that is not immoral!Read again carefully. I just showed that something intended to be moral can become immoral when it's based on false assumptions.
Samuel Johnson's definition of a net as "a reticulated assemblage of holes separated by string" was absurd but at least it was linear.
The emergence of subjective morality is due to different sets of incomplete information accessible by different conscious agents/groups.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2020 16:06:26
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2020 17:16:04
human sacrifice to appeas gods, caste system, kamikaze,None of these assumptions has been falsified. The sun still rises over Essex even though virgin sacrifices are no longer possible, but that may be because the gods were sufficiently appeased by the few that our ancestors were able to find. The caste system persists, despite being outlawed. Kamikaze did exactly what it was intended to do - sink American ships with a kill ratio of hundreds to one, which is why it is still practised by idiots.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/05/2020 11:02:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/05/2020 11:38:05
I think we've already proven that volcanic eruptions, earthquake, storm, drought, famine, eclipse are caused by natural phenomena, instead of gods' wrath.human sacrifice to appeas gods, caste system, kamikaze,None of these assumptions has been falsified. The sun still rises over Essex even though virgin sacrifices are no longer possible, but that may be because the gods were sufficiently appeased by the few that our ancestors were able to find. The caste system persists, despite being outlawed. Kamikaze did exactly what it was intended to do - sink American ships with a kill ratio of hundreds to one, which is why it is still practised by idiots.
We also have proven that people from lower caste can be as good as those from higher caste, invalidating assumption of inherent quality difference among them.
Have you heard that the soul of wartime heroes will live again in Yasukuni shrine?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/05/2020 12:41:13
His wonders to perform
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm
You may well believe in physics, but I'll bet a majority of the world's population believe in a deity, castes, karma, reincarnation, Valhalla (or the Japanese equivalent thereof) and all kinds of bullshit.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/05/2020 14:59:58
Post by: alancalverd on 23/05/2020 00:01:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/05/2020 07:21:42
Romina Ashrafi: Outrage in Iran after girl murdered ‘for eloping’ - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-52811631
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/05/2020 07:24:59
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2020 10:27:32
I have a car that is more aware of things that matter to it (obstacles to reversing) than I am, and has cumulative experience of time and temperature that tell me when to change the oil, way more accurately than I can judge.
This isn't "science trying to understand consciousness" but somebody trying to define it.
We have a stream of inputs, as the man says. We have a process for determining whether those inputs are pleasurable, potentially useful, or deleterious. If that is consciousness, it's no different from an artificial neural program and is clearly possessed to some extent by all living things and a few artefacts. That thought leads me to a distinction between living cells (which have some degree of active response to a threat) and viruses, which seem to be entirely passive in defence.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2020 23:13:22
Quote
The main idea [of the ideal observer theory] is that ethical terms should be defined after the pattern of the following example: "x is better than y" means "If anyone were, in respect of x and y, fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal, he would prefer x to y.[1]I think this view is aligned with mine on this subject.
This makes ideal observer theory a subjectivist[2] yet universalist form of cognitivism. Ideal observer theory stands in opposition to other forms of ethical subjectivism (e.g.moral relativism, and individualist ethical subjectivism), as well as to moral realism (which claims that moral propositions refer to objective facts, independent of anyone's attitudes or opinions), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true in any sense), and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all).
Adam Smith and David Hume espoused versions of the ideal observer theory. Roderick Firth laid out a more sophisticated modern version.[3] According to Firth, an ideal observer has the following specific characteristics: omniscience with respect to nonmoral facts, omnipercipience, disinterestedness, dispassionateness, consistency, and normalcy in all other respects. Notice that, by defining an Ideal Observer as omniscient with respect to nonmoral facts, Firth avoids circular logic that would arise from defining an ideal observer as omniscient in both nonmoral and moral facts. A complete knowledge of morality is not born of itself but is an emergent property of Firth's minimal requirements. There are also sensible restrictions to the trait of omniscience with respect to nonmoral facts. For instance, to make a moral judgment about a case of theft or murder on Earth it is not necessary to know about geological events in another solar system.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/06/2020 23:35:41
"x is better than y" means "If anyone were, in respect of x and y, fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal, he would prefer x to y.
Setting aside the potentially contentious definition of "normal", we have an operational problem here.
Your ideal observer has chosen x. Ask him why he chose x. "It is better for.....me/you/humanity/the environment/the economy..." At some point he has made a choice of beneficiary. Every animal is ultimately in competition with some other individual or species, so no decision can be universally beneficial.
Morality is unavoidably arbitrary until you place a decision in an agreed (but equally arbitrary!) wider context.
Quote
For instance, to make a moral judgment about a case of theft or murder on Earth it is not necessary to know about geological events in another solar system.If the thief was Robin Hood? But suppose Mr Hood stole from an honest and successful businessman and gave the money to an indolent wastrel? Just a few more layers, and we will indeed be looking at volcanoes in Ursa Minor.
Contextual legitimacy is very topical. Churchill was undoubtedly racist, but he is memorialised for recruiting other racists (notably deGaullle, Truman and Stalin) to fight an expensive and apparently hopeless war against Nazism. Why stop at Rhodes' statue? Shouldn't we tear down Oriel College and scrap the Rhodes Scholarships? Should we use autobahns and Italian railways?
My own opinion is that we should learn from history (there is no other valid source of knowledge) but build on the present, whatever our opinion of the past. I have no time for tokenism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2020 04:36:00
Your ideal observer has chosen x. Ask him why he chose x. "It is better for.....me/you/humanity/the environment/the economy..." At some point he has made a choice of beneficiary. Every animal is ultimately in competition with some other individual or species, so no decision can be universally beneficial.As long as the considerations are partial, we violate the requirement for an ideal observer, which makes subsequent reasoning invalid.
Morality is unavoidably arbitrary until you place a decision in an agreed (but equally arbitrary!) wider context.
Just a few more layers, and we will indeed be looking at volcanoes in Ursa Minor.What do you mean by this?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/06/2020 13:24:00
Quote
For instance, to make a moral judgment about a case of theft or murder on Earth it is not necessary to know about geological events in another solar system.and expanded Robin Hood to that level of absurdity.
So given that all considerations are actually partial, either because we have to find them inside a finite horizon or because we have to choose between competing priorities, the concept of an ideal observer is useless.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2020 03:34:48
So given that all considerations are actually partial, either because we have to find them inside a finite horizon or because we have to choose between competing priorities, the concept of an ideal observer is useless.The fact that we haven't yet had an ideal observer doesn't necessarily means that the concept is useless. Instead, it should urge us to build one. Or at least something that's functionally get closer to an ideal observer over time.
The fact that we can't express the value of pi in decimal number with infinite precision doesn't mean that it's useless. In many practical cases, 3 decimal digits is enough. Not all bits of information have the same significance.
I discuss this issue in another thread.
The progress to build better AI and toward AGI will eventually get closer to the realization of Laplace demon which is already predicted as technological singularity.QuoteThe better we can predict, the better we can prevent and pre-empt. As you can see, with neural networks, we’re moving towards a world of fewer surprises. Not zero surprises, just marginally fewer. We’re also moving toward a world of smarter agents that combine neural networks with other algorithms like reinforcement learning to attain goals.https://pathmind.com/wiki/neural-networkQuoteIn some circles, neural networks are thought of as “brute force” AI, because they start with a blank slate and hammer their way through to an accurate model. They are effective, but to some eyes inefficient in their approach to modeling, which can’t make assumptions about functional dependencies between output and input.
That said, gradient descent is not recombining every weight with every other to find the best match – its method of pathfinding shrinks the relevant weight space, and therefore the number of updates and required computation, by many orders of magnitude. Moreover, algorithms such as Hinton’s capsule networks require far fewer instances of data to converge on an accurate model; that is, present research has the potential to resolve the brute force nature of deep learning.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2020 19:04:09
I was working with a vet a couple of years ago. A woman brought in a very sorry-looking pigeon that she had just rescued from a sparrowhawk in her garden. The pigeon was beyond redemption so the nurse despatched it, went back to the counter and said "I have euthanised the pigeon. Now what is the hawk going to feed her babies?" Even if the pigeon had survived, some human had to make a choice of beneficiary, and being neither pigeon nor hawk, her choice was entirely arbitrary.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2020 09:11:49
But your ideal observer will still have to make an arbitrary choice of beneficiary for any decision. Not the same as choosing an adequate approximation for pi. 22/7 may be OK for buying bricks, 3.142 for grinding a crankshaft, but nobody has to choose between 2, 7.631 or 19 as the only options. Here's a simple example from real life.If you train an AI, the first result would be random, unless you put initial bias into it. But with accumulation of good quality data (data which accurately represent objective reality), the results become better over time.
I was working with a vet a couple of years ago. A woman brought in a very sorry-looking pigeon that she had just rescued from a sparrowhawk in her garden. The pigeon was beyond redemption so the nurse despatched it, went back to the counter and said "I have euthanised the pigeon. Now what is the hawk going to feed her babies?" Even if the pigeon had survived, some human had to make a choice of beneficiary, and being neither pigeon nor hawk, her choice was entirely arbitrary.
You might notice that without bias of human experts, AlphaGo Zero can beat AlphaGo. And more generalized Alpha Zero can beat AlphaGo Zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_Zero#Comparison_with_predecessors
If your action can not demonstrably increase nor reduce the probability of achieving universal terminal goal, then it is morally neutral. In that case, we should take action/inaction which preserve resources.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2020 11:10:26
The only way you can preserve resources is by suicide, because every other action increases entropy and thus decreases the resources and options available to others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2020 23:21:54
Your argument still depends on determining the universal terminal goal.I discuss it in separated thread.
Problem is that you can't try a computer for war crimes, especially if it is partially self-trained, nor execute it pour encourager les autres.That's true for current computer.
The only way you can preserve resources is by suicide, because every other action increases entropy and thus decreases the resources and options available to others.By doing nothing instead of stupid/useless things you can preserve resource.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2020 23:40:36
The only way you can preserve resources is by suicide, because every other action increases entropy and thus decreases the resources and options available to others.If you think you have nothing at all to contribute to the achievement of the universal terminal goal, most probably you haven't thought thoroughly enough. Even a half brained person can still contribute by giving us valuable knowledge of how brains work. https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20191119/they-had-half-their-brains-removed-heres-what-happened-after
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2020 18:35:44
Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2020 16:10:06
Even when I'm doing nothing, I'm consuming food that could be eaten by someone or something else, and exhaling carbon dioxide.That's true. To compensate those resource consumptions, you must make some contribution to the achievement of universal terminal goal.
Quote
Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!Keeping the existence of the last conscious being.
Any conscious being can be considered as a modified copy of it, hence there is some value in keeping their existence.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/06/2020 20:42:54
And here's another version of the trolley problem. Two men are attacking one man, and look certain to kill him. You have a gun. What do you do?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2020 03:27:07
That's very Buddhist, but doesn't address the everyday moral question of whether to kill a conscious being for food, or to prevent oneself being killed.That's just what we'll get by examining the definition of the words goal, terminal, and universal.
And here's another version of the trolley problem. Two men are attacking one man, and look certain to kill him. You have a gun. What do you do?
Goal requires the existence of at least one conscious being.
Terminal requires the perspective from distant future.
Universal requires that no additional arbitrary constraint is applied beyond those already attached to the words goal and terminal.
The problems with everyday morality are usually related to incomplete information, hence we must make decisions based on information at hand. That includes gathering new information until we are confident to take actions, which depends on the risk (probability and severity) and criticality/urgency of the situation.
In your case, the lack of necessary information is obvious, so getting more information is required. It is urgent to stop the killing since it is an irreversible process, at least for now. So unless we have other significant information, stopping the killing is in high priority. The next action to take would depend on the additional information we get afterward.
Justification for killing a conscious being for food comes from the assumption that the killing would make the achievement of universal terminal goal more likely than not killing.
Preventing oneself being killed is based on the assumption that we can contribute more while we are alive rather than dead.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2020 11:21:53
I will probably eat hundreds of chickens in my lifetime, and then die. Does that increase or decrease progress towards your universal goal?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2020 13:02:57
But in my example the only sure way to stop the killing without possibly getting yourself killed, is to shoot somebody.You could give a warning shot. It depends on your shooting skill, but you could shoot without killing someone.
With a lot of factors affecting the result, the decision depends on the detail.
Quote
I will probably eat hundreds of chickens in my lifetime, and then die. Does that increase or decrease progress towards your universal goal?It depends on your other actions while you're alive. If there is nothing else than eating chickens, then clearly you have decreased the progress by unnecessarily consuming resources which could otherwise be used for more useful things.
Being vegan is usually more resource saving. Advancement in food technology could someday provide necessary nutrition more efficiently. Eating food is just an instrumental goal. If someday we can function properly without eating food, we should stop this wasteful process.
By simply participating in an ordinary economic society, most likely you have positive contributions for the achievement of the universal terminal goal. At the frontline of the progress are those who generate new knowledge to solve problems faced by the system of conscious beings. The next are those who support them by providing basic needs to make it possible for them to perform their functions. These are done by applying the accumulated knowledge shared by the society. This distinction is not a rigid dichotomy, since someone who at one time is on the frontline may be on the next line at another time. Those on the second line are also supported by those on the third line and so on.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2020 23:22:04
The sole function of a commercial-breed chicken is to be eaten. Developed over millennia from fairly rare forest dwellers, they are now the most numerous warmblooded creatures on earth. My next development project will, I hope, be to enhance chicken fattening for the benefit of vegans by harvesting wild locusts to feed to chickens, and thus reduce the damage to vegetable crops - now there's a moral conundrum!
As for a "wasteful" process, my aunt remarked, during a celebratory feast, "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens".
Quote
Goal requires the existence of at least one conscious being.Sadly, that doesn't state what your UTG is, and actually makes it undefinable. Here I am as a conscious being, but I have no way of reviewing or judging anything from the standpoint of the near future, never mind the distant one! The only references I have are historical data and personal aspirations.
Terminal requires the perspective from distant future.
Universal requires that no additional arbitrary constraint is applied beyond those already attached to the words goal and terminal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2020 07:31:27
So I give a warning shot and the two vigilantes who have apprehended a mass murderer, let him go. Is this in tune with the universal moral standard?How do you know that the men are vigilantes who have apprehended a mass murderer? You didn't tell me back then.
I didn't mention anything about letting anyone go.
In your case, the lack of necessary information is obvious, so getting more information is required. It is urgent to stop the killing since it is an irreversible process, at least for now. So unless we have other significant information, stopping the killing is in high priority. The next action to take would depend on the additional information we get afterward.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2020 07:42:51
The sole function of a commercial-breed chicken is to be eaten. Developed over millennia from fairly rare forest dwellers, they are now the most numerous warmblooded creatures on earth. My next development project will, I hope, be to enhance chicken fattening for the benefit of vegans by harvesting wild locusts to feed to chickens, and thus reduce the damage to vegetable crops - now there's a moral conundrum!Will you eat synthetic chicken meat which has exactly the same physical and chemical structure as the natural one, but never became part of a living animal?
As for a "wasteful" process, my aunt remarked, during a celebratory feast, "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2020 08:04:45
Goal requires the existence of at least one conscious being.
Terminal requires the perspective from distant future.
Universal requires that no additional arbitrary constraint is applied beyond those already attached to the words goal and terminal.
Sadly, that doesn't state what your UTG is, and actually makes it undefinable. Here I am as a conscious being, but I have no way of reviewing or judging anything from the standpoint of the near future, never mind the distant one! The only references I have are historical data and personal aspirations.Here is how I stated it.
Keeping the existence of the last conscious being.
A good chess player can review the position from the opponent's point of view many steps ahead. It requires a huge mental capacity in terms of processing speed, memory size, and memory fidelity. That's why artificial intelligence run on supercomputer can win against best human player. Human player can use some memorized trick/hash table as shortcut to reduce computational load, but that can also be done by AI.
A bigger mental capacity would be required to review real world situation from the standpoint of distant future. That's why we need to build AGI with mental capacity as big as we can get. Until then, we must use any leverage we can get, such as moral rules which are demonstrably useful in most of the time as shortcut in making moral decisions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2020 23:17:59
Do you think that killing millions of chicken for food is morally different than preventing them from existence by not farming them in the first place?The sole function of a commercial-breed chicken is to be eaten. Developed over millennia from fairly rare forest dwellers, they are now the most numerous warmblooded creatures on earth. My next development project will, I hope, be to enhance chicken fattening for the benefit of vegans by harvesting wild locusts to feed to chickens, and thus reduce the damage to vegetable crops - now there's a moral conundrum!Will you eat synthetic chicken meat which has exactly the same physical and chemical structure as the natural one, but never became part of a living animal?
As for a "wasteful" process, my aunt remarked, during a celebratory feast, "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens".
How about killing them for fun?
Do you think that killing millions of humans for their resources is morally different than preventing them from existence by contraception?
How about killing them for fun?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/07/2020 10:47:19
Time does not go backwards. It is the difference between "before" and "after". Not making babies (of any species) is qualitatively different from killing those you have made.
I consider killing for fun to be morally repugnant, but I can throughly enjoy hunting for food or killing vermin. This week's target is a couple of squirrels that are destroying my fruit crop and eyeing up the nuts, trout fishing is an afternoon well spent, and my neighbours enjoy shooting for the pot whenever the opportunity arises.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2020 15:38:39
The principle of universal terminal goal ought to be applied unconditionally. Only the instrumental goals can be flexible according to the information and situation at hand.
Which is the better : before or after? What is the consideration for your judgement?
What makes killing for fun generally bad?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/07/2020 23:42:01
Which is the better : before or after? What is the consideration for your judgement?It would be decidedly perverse to take any action intended to make "after" worse than "before" for whoever is intended to be the beneficiary of that action. The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard.
Quote
What makes killing for fun generally bad?It contravenes the principle of "do unto others as you would wish them to do to you". You can generalise that to "behave as you would wish others to behave", which is a universally applicable moral principle even though it may not produce the same result when applied by different people. In this specific case I taught my kids to enjoy the hunt, take pride in a clean kill, and only eat whatever you would be happy to kill for yourself. Result: three good hunters and a vegetarian.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2020 04:43:28
Do you think that killing millions of chicken for food is morally different than preventing them from existence by not farming them in the first place?
Time does not go backwards. It is the difference between "before" and "after". Not making babies (of any species) is qualitatively different from killing those you have made.
Which is the better : before or after? What is the consideration for your judgement?
It would be decidedly perverse to take any action intended to make "after" worse than "before" for whoever is intended to be the beneficiary of that action. The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard.In whose point of view that killing chickens is better than preventing them from existence?
In whose point of view that it's worse?
Quote
The moral problem is to choose the beneficiary (me or the squirrels?) and the requirement to choose negates the possibility of a universal moral standard.According to universal moral standard, solution to moral problems are determined by the benefits for the last conscious being.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2020 04:55:24
It contravenes the principle of "do unto others as you would wish them to do to you". You can generalise that to "behave as you would wish others to behave", which is a universally applicable moral principle even though it may not produce the same result when applied by different people.The golden rule is based on the assumption that conscious beings, especially humans, have similar needs and preferences. When they are actually different, the rule breaks down. The rule has nothing to say about non-reciprocal actions/decisions, such as using resource for space exploration, GMO, cloning, stem cell research, abortion, clean/renewable energy sources, suicide, veganism. The limitations disqualify it from being a universal moral standard.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/07/2020 11:06:28
The rule has nothing to say about non-reciprocal actions/decisions, such as using resource for space exploration,if it's a shared resource, you can apply the rule. If it isn't, there's no moral question.
Quote
GMOif it can benefit everyone, apply the rule. If you have an exclusive patent on an essential product that will dominate the market, apply the rule
Quote
cloning,An economic issue, not a moral one. Why bother to clone anything apart from bananas and potatoes?
Quote
stem cell research,ditto. AFAIK most of it is aimed at fixing the mess God made of human biology.
Quote
abortion,apply the rule. Would I want to be born into this situation?
Quote
clean/renewable energy sources,An economic issue, not a moral one. If the longterm yield exceeds the nonrenewable input, the only question is one of payback period on the investment
Quote
suicide,no problem: by definition you are not doing unto others.
Quote
veganism.provided you keep it to yourself, not a moral issue. It only affects others if you complain about their cooking. Old Morecambe and Wise cannibal joke: "I really don't like your mother" "Just eat the chips."
Post by: alancalverd on 08/07/2020 11:14:44
In whose point of view that killing chickens is better than preventing them from existence?carnivores
Quote
In whose point of view that it's worse?vegetarians.
Quote
Will you eat synthetic chicken meat which has exactly the same physical and chemical structure as the natural one, but never became part of a living animal?I've been eating some superb vegeburgers (Tesco own brand) and can strongly recommend Linda McCartney's "vegetarian Peking duck" - absolutely delicious.
However I would prefer to take a serious animal pest like a locust and turn it into something edible. It's difficult to prove that mass-produced wild locust meat is fit for human consumption and can be stored safely, so the chicken (or pig) intermediate looks like a good idea that can be implemented quickly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2020 04:42:12
Let's review the word moral again.
Quote
moral
/ˈmɒr(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: moral
1.
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.
2.
holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/07/2020 16:26:41
I have a hypothetical tin of Universal White Paint that will stick to anything, but the label says "cannot be used to make things black". It would be ridiculously pedantic to claim that it is therefore not Universal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/07/2020 04:42:08
I disagree. Point by point I have shown that the golden rule is applicable where a moral judgement must be made, and where it cannot be applied the judgement is not a moral one anyway.It is not universal because it can not judge if a decision is universally good or bad.
I have a hypothetical tin of Universal White Paint that will stick to anything, but the label says "cannot be used to make things black". It would be ridiculously pedantic to claim that it is therefore not Universal.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/07/2020 14:46:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2020 09:15:44
There being nothing else that matters in the universe but me and them, if I always do unto others as I would wish them to do to me, I have applied a universal principle which I have define as leading to good decisions.What do you mean by them?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/07/2020 12:17:22
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2020 13:20:39
Everyone who isn't me.Are non-human organisms included?
What about non-biological entities?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/07/2020 18:24:40
Nonbiological entities don't generally "do unto" me. Active NBEs like wind and waves can harm me, but there's damn all I can do about it apart from studying and avoiding them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 04:29:41
There is a serious moral problem here. Nonhuman organisms are covered by statute law that, inter alia, demands that you must not torture a sick pet, trapped or shot vermin, laboratory rat, or any animal that you want to eat, by prolonging its suffering, but it is an offence to end the suffering of another human, however much he asks you to. Given the authority, I would extend the "clean kill" requirement to any human who asks for mercy killing or assisted suicide, and I want the same consideration extended to me.How can that be called universal?
Nonbiological entities don't generally "do unto" me. Active NBEs like wind and waves can harm me, but there's damn all I can do about it apart from studying and avoiding them.
You haven't addressed non-biological entities with some forms of intelligence and consciousness. They could be like superorganism or holobiont, and could form a collective intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superorganism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holobiont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
National/state governments, international organizations, corporations such as Google, Facebook, and Tesla are just some examples. Some important functions in those entities are still done by human individuals, but we can safely say that most works are already done by machines.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 10:07:18
Whilst a corporation is a legal artefact that can be prosecuted as though it were an individual and is expected to behave as a moral individual, it has no inherent right of survival. I have formed and dissolved corporations for my own convenience - it is simply a vehicle for identifying a transient group of people with the intention to work and trade as one entity.
It is illegal in civilised countries to own a human or to mistreat any other animal, but you can buy, sell, mutilate or starve a corporation precisely because it is inanimate and insensate and exists only as a legal fiction.
Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.
Do you want me to apologise to the rock I just tripped over? Or to the EU that I despised so much that I voted against feeding it? Actually, that last one meets the criterion of "doing unto me", which is why it was so despicable, but it is a legal construct that employs human parasites. Like the Communist Party and the Catholic Church, when parasites are employed by an evil organisation they tend to behave immorally - an inversion of the natural order where parasites change the behavior of the host. Hence the clear distinction between corporations and their members.
And remember that alongside "do unto others" there is the equally important "an eye for an eye". Nothing wrong with retributive justice.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 12:39:50
You haven't defined intelligence or consciousness, nor explained why I should give a damn about a machine I can switch off. As for organisations, the only things that have any moral consequence are the people in them.I have, although you just don't accept them.
Biological entities can also be killed. It's not a reason to ignore them.
That might be true for current situation. But that may change in the future. It depends on how you define people, i.e. what is the boundary conditions to determine if something is appropriately called people?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 12:42:25
Whilst a corporation is a legal artefact that can be prosecuted as though it were an individual and is expected to behave as a moral individual, it has no inherent right of survival. I have formed and dissolved corporations for my own convenience - it is simply a vehicle for identifying a transient group of people with the intention to work and trade as one entity.Is there anything which has inherent right of survival? Where does the right come from?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 12:46:30
It is illegal in civilised countries to own a human or to mistreat any other animal, but you can buy, sell, mutilate or starve a corporation precisely because it is inanimate and insensate and exists only as a legal fiction.What makes civilised countries morally better than uncivilised countries?
Don't you think that they are also legal fictions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 13:06:39
Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.In the light of universal terminal goal, one of your moral duty to them is to not break them down willy nilly.
Modern humans make decisions based on the information they get from news and social media, among some other sources such as their own experience. Those data feeds are increasingly controlled by algorithms running in the cloud servers utilizing artificial intelligence. Their influence on human individuals might be more significant than influence of other human individuals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 13:10:43
Do you want me to apologise to the rock I just tripped over? Or to the EU that I despised so much that I voted against feeding it? Actually, that last one meets the criterion of "doing unto me", which is why it was so despicable, but it is a legal construct that employs human parasites. Like the Communist Party and the Catholic Church, when parasites are employed by an evil organisation they tend to behave immorally - an inversion of the natural order where parasites change the behavior of the host. Hence the clear distinction between corporations and their members.I'm not the one who promoted golden rule as a universal moral standard.
What makes a human parasite?
What makes an organization evil?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2020 13:14:37
And remember that alongside "do unto others" there is the equally important "an eye for an eye". Nothing wrong with retributive justice.What's the retributive justice for a rapist?
A homeless man who sleeps in a public space?
A homeless man who sleeps in a private space?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:18:34
There are acceptable reasons for killing biological entities. In a finite environment, biology is competitive, and the definition of an animal is a biological entity that cannot synthesise its own body parts from inorganic materials, which means that for the most part we kill other BEs to eat.You haven't defined intelligence or consciousness, nor explained why I should give a damn about a machine I can switch off. As for organisations, the only things that have any moral consequence are the people in them.I have, although you just don't accept them.
Biological entities can also be killed. It's not a reason to ignore them.
Quote
That might be true for current situation. But that may change in the future. It depends on how you define people, i.e. what is the boundary condition to determine if something is appropriately called people?If its parents were classified as homo sapiens.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:21:54
Is there anything which has inherent right of survival? Where does the right come from?It is conferred (or not) by other living things. In most cases the right is conferred on an entire species but can be set aside for individuals that threaten or inconvenience me.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:29:28
A lack of corruption, a legal system based on the notion of the state serving the citizen, and equality before the law.
What makes civilised countries morally better than uncivilised countries?
Quote
Don't you think that they are also legal fictions?no. A country is a bounded area with a consistent legal system. I can see New Zealand on the map and on the ground, and as long as the inhabitants maintain an adequate military force to defend it, it will probably remain a civilised country in fact. Likewise northern Europe. Most of the English-speaking world, with the obvious exception of the USA, at least has civilised pretensions.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:38:45
That's an economic choice, not a moral duty. I can scrap stuff for which I have no further use (or so The Boss tells me - I quite like living in a science museum!)Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.In the light of universal terminal goal, one of your moral duty to them is to not break them down willy nilly.
Quote
Modern humans make decisions based on the information they get from news and social media, among some other sources such as their own experience. Those data feeds are increasingly controlled by algorithms running in the cloud servers utilizing artificial intelligence. Their influence on human individuals might be more significant than influence of other human individuals.Anyone who trusts "social media " (whatever that is) above his own judgement is a fool. My decisions are based on need, experience, and corroborated or verifiable data. I've had viral diseases, and have a good friend who suffered from the currently fashionable one, so my present behavior is based on that knowledge, not what President Cummings would like you to believe.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:42:52
I am.
I'm not the one who promoted golden rule as a universal moral standard.
Quote
What makes a human parasite?Opportunity to profit from the hard work and money of others without doing anything useful.
Quote
What makes an organization evil?Anything from endemic corruption and incompetence to outright antisocial behavior.
[/quote]
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2020 13:51:31
What's the retributive justice for a rapist?Prison, with the option of suicide.
Quote
A homeless man who sleeps in a public space?Not a crime as long as no damage is done and he cleans up afterwards.
Quote
A homeless man who sleeps in a private space?Not a crime as long as no damage is done and he cleans up afterwards. We had a local hero who slept in a hedgerow and one day rescued the landowner's child from a fire. The landowner offered him a roof for life but he said he preferred the open air, so the landowner gave him the hedge. Reads like a fairytale but the whole story was well known, as was he (he helped on several farms and played darts in the pub) and his camp site.
There is an adequate system of fines and community service for those who make a mess. Pity it isn't applied more rigorously, because it's a breach of the golden rule.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:07:16
There are acceptable reasons for killing biological entities. In a finite environment, biology is competitive, and the definition of an animal is a biological entity that cannot synthesise its own body parts from inorganic materials, which means that for the most part we kill other BEs to eat.Can humans be classified as animal?
If its parents were classified as homo sapiens.What gives homo sapiens such privilege? What if a human specimen has no parent, e.g. by growing a syntetic zygote in an artificial womb?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:11:28
Why it's called inherent in the first place?Is there anything which has inherent right of survival? Where does the right come from?It is conferred (or not) by other living things. In most cases the right is conferred on an entire species but can be set aside for individuals that threaten or inconvenience me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:28:04
What makes lack of corruption, a legal system based on the notion of the state serving the citizen, and equality before the law, morally better? Does the king/queen equal peasants?A lack of corruption, a legal system based on the notion of the state serving the citizen, and equality before the law.
What makes civilised countries morally better than uncivilised countries?QuoteDon't you think that they are also legal fictions?no. A country is a bounded area with a consistent legal system. I can see New Zealand on the map and on the ground, and as long as the inhabitants maintain an adequate military force to defend it, it will probably remain a civilised country in fact. Likewise northern Europe. Most of the English-speaking world, with the obvious exception of the USA, at least has civilised pretensions.
Can you see Mongolia or Switzerland from ISS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landlocked_country
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Landlocked_countries.svg/660px-Landlocked_countries.svg.png)
What makes the result of this war more than legal fictions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Pacific
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:39:09
A multibillionaire buys all Lithium on earth and then send them to the sun for fun. You can imagine the next story.That's an economic choice, not a moral duty. I can scrap stuff for which I have no further use (or so The Boss tells me - I quite like living in a science museum!)Most of my work is done by a car, a plane, and a whole bunch of electronic instruments. I generally look after them (the instruments don't like being left out in the rain, but the car and plane are less likely to get damaged if I leave them in a field) and they look after me, but as a sane adult I don't have any moral duty to them.In the light of universal terminal goal, one of your moral duty to them is to not break them down willy nilly.QuoteModern humans make decisions based on the information they get from news and social media, among some other sources such as their own experience. Those data feeds are increasingly controlled by algorithms running in the cloud servers utilizing artificial intelligence. Their influence on human individuals might be more significant than influence of other human individuals.Anyone who trusts "social media " (whatever that is) above his own judgement is a fool. My decisions are based on need, experience, and corroborated or verifiable data. I've had viral diseases, and have a good friend who suffered from the currently fashionable one, so my present behavior is based on that knowledge, not what President Cummings would like you to believe.
More information is generated than a human individual can verify each day. We are often forced to make decision based on unverified information due to time constraint.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:42:45
Anything from endemic corruption and incompetence to outright antisocial behavior.What makes them evil? What makes them different from something else which are not evil?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2020 03:51:28
Prison, with the option of suicide.That's not an eye for an eye.
People's tolerance from privacy breaching varies widely.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:27:32
Can humans be classified as animal?.
There are only two kinds of living things: animal and plant. If you can't photosynthesise, you are an animal.
Quote
What gives homo sapiens such privilege? What if a human specimen has no parent, e.g. by growing a syntetic zygote in an artificial womb?Arbitrary choice. Most animals tend to favor their own species, though it has always puzzled me why people think young furry quadrupeds are cute. A synthetic zygote is just that.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:30:47
Why it's called inherent in the first place?Because it is a consequence of species, therefore inherited sui generis et prima facie.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:37:17
What makes lack of corruption, a legal system based on the notion of the state serving the citizen, and equality before the law, morally better?The state thus meets the "do unto others" criterion
Quote
Does the king/queen equal peasants?Yes. Primus inter pares is a good concept. Walking through a barracks in Stockholm one day I noticed a rather nicely appointed office. My Swedish colleague said "That's where the king works three days a week as head of the armed forces." Being hereditary, the commander in chief has no internal political agenda and the military defends the people, not the president.
Quote
Can you see Mongolia or Switzerland from ISS?Yes, but the borders are more obvious from the road.
Quote
What makes the result of this war more than legal fictions?As with any war, it ended with (new) defended boundaries enclosing internally consistent legal systems.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:48:44
[ That's capitalism. I'd have a serious word with the fool who sold him the last gram for less than an infinite amount of money.
A multibillionaire buys all Lithium on earth and then send them to the sun for fun. You can imagine the next story.
Quote
More information is generated than a human individual can verify each day. We are often forced to make decision based on unverified information due to time constraint.We are quite good at processing the information that affects us, and experience helps us guess or trust what we cannot verify. All we know about "social media" is that it is populated by and directed at people of lesser morals and intelligence than ourselves.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:49:54
They breach the Golden RuleAnything from endemic corruption and incompetence to outright antisocial behavior.What makes them evil? What makes them different from something else which are not evil?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2020 13:54:37
The Jewish interpretation of that scripture is "to the value of an eye for an eye". This allows the State to administer retributive justice that is not completely irreversible on appeal, unlike the Shariah interpretation that recommends amputation of the offending organ - at least in the case of theft.Prison, with the option of suicide.That's not an eye for an eye.
I'm very much in favor of encouraging longterm prisoners to commit suicide. Solves their problems and ours.
Quote
People's tolerance from privacy breaching varies widely.Which is why trespass and the invasion of privacy is mostly a civil tort, not a criminal offence.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/07/2020 11:50:30
A multibillionaire buys all Lithium on earth and then send them to the sun for fun. You can imagine the next story.
Just remembered - no need to imagine!
Back in the 1980s the Bunker Hunt brothers decided to corner the world market in silver by judiciously buying any ingot that came on the market.
Jewellery is quite an elastic market. If a style or metal goes out of fashion, it gets reworked or recycled within the trade, and the customer is paying for workmanship, not metal content, so there was little effect there. The principal use of silver was in x-ray film, consuming several tons each day, and an increasingly essential rather than fashionable commodity.
As the silver price began to rise, the market responded first by investing in silver recovery (since most x-ray images are of people who have either died or recovered, film has little clinical value after a couple of years) then by improving film chemistry to reduce the silver content by up to 90%, then finally by switching to digital imaging. The Bunker Hunts lost their money.
So by all means dump the lithium in the sun. It will stimulate they hydrogen economy and get rid of mobile phones, so people will start talking to their families again.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2020 04:24:32
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2020 11:17:08
The basic concept of money as "virtual work" is too useful to abandon: you get money by working and you give it to other people to work for you, thus the builder doesn't have to make his own bricks or grow his own food, and civilisation ( = specialisation) evolves because cash transactions are simpler than barter.
So where does it all go wrong? I think the video makes a sound point. As long as banks take in spare cash and lend it with interest, an expanding economy or even a static economy with some built-in inflation makes sense - the banks just provide security for depositors and make large transactions easier . The question nowadays is why would anyone deposit money in a bank if interest is negligible, and why would bankers lend sensibly if (a) they don't need to have the assets on deposit and (b) they can print more money if the debt isn't repaid?
I think the moral question is why governments bailed out private banks instead of nationalising them. In any other business, if you lose money the shareholders have to stump up more or lose their investment. If you really are providing a national strategic asset, you must expect the government to take at least a compulsory controlling share and sack a few directors if you can't pay your debts.
So the sensible thing to do with money is to spend it, or invest directly in other folks' businesses. My financial hero is Dave Fishwick - google "Bank of Dave".
Post by: gravitymall on 27/07/2020 21:05:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/07/2020 05:55:41
I don't think so, I believe morality is entirely a human concept due to evolutionary pressuresCan non-human organisms come up with a concept similar to morality?
What makes human special?
Post by: OliVDB on 28/07/2020 19:27:49
Now, what makes humans special is a set of tools: a language that's capable of abstraction, the ability to understand and use the notions of future and past (which includes funeral rites, for example), and the conscience of our own mortality. We're less special now that it's been proved that other species are displaying some of these traits (some biologists argue that dolphins do have an actual language, and there's solid evidence that some species of squid transmit to their offspring knowledge from past experiences without having the kids go through these same experiences), but having the whole "toolbox" is what allowed the human species to become what it has become.
And when it comes to the universal moral standard, there's a "golden rule" that's present in all religions of the world, even in highly unrelated ones such as native pre-Colombian American religions and Buddhism that can be summed up as "don't do to others what you don't want done to you". In Abrahamic religions, that's the Ten Commandments. Sure, it's often disregarded, twisted or straight out rejected, but it's the closest thing to an universal rule we have. I mean, as soon as a semblant of society appears, it's not difficult to understand that if you don't go and hit your neighbour, that neighbour won't hit you back, and everyone will be happier.
The thing that muddles up the situation is that every culture embeds it in a set of values that are not always compatible with what's present in other cultures. For example, Protestant morale considers material wealth as a gift from God because you're a true believer and hard worker, so if you own a Bugatti or live in a gigantic villa, you're good. Meanwhile, the Orthodox Christian faith looks down on material wealth, and will consider as "moral" a person who suffers and keeps their faith strong as they're mending for their sins. And that's already a key difference between two branches of Christianity, if you compare it with Hindu or traditional Inuit morale, it's going to be even more difficult to see that there is a common point in these seemingly incompatible moral codes; yet, there is one: "don't do to others what you don't want done to you".
Post by: alancalverd on 28/07/2020 23:31:47
But none of this is specific to humans. Most animals and many birds mourn their dead, but have the intelligence not to waste their time imagining life after death or turning grief into a ritual. Visiting the place of death may be prompted by a more rational investigation: is he really not functioning anymore? is it sensible to leave him and move on?
There is no doubt that all animals and birds have a language: careful analysis shows subtle and consistent variations in their utterances that clearly mean something to the listener. It now turns out that many if not all fish communicate by sound.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/08/2020 06:56:42
Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:The protection of information is not limited to physical protection. It should also be protected from illegitimate access which can lead to lost of data integrity.
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
The moral rules can be classified into this strategy. They protect the bigger systems from detrimental effects caused by conscious agents who become part of them.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/08/2020 15:51:33
Would you like your personal information shared with people you have not authorised to see it? If not, you have a moral and statutory duty to keep other people's data secret.
Would you like your personal financial records, laboratory notes, or whatever, modified without your knowledge or consent? If not, you have a moral and statutory duty to protect whatever comes your way by virtue of corporate data or trade secrets.
How you keep such secrets is a technical matter, not a moral one, though the test of "reasonable best practice" can be applied to any form of lock and key.
The dilemma arises when you become privy to a secret that you believe to be illegal or contrary to the public interest. Fortunately the UK state has seen fit not to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act where there would be evidence of illegitimacy in that secret, and at a lower level, no contract is enforceable if it involves illegal action or payment.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/08/2020 04:26:44
I consider this topic as a spinoff of my previous subjectI started this thread with definition in the hope to prevent unnecessary debates due to informal fallacies which makes it inefficient.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.0
It is split up because morality itself is quite complex and can generate a discussion too long to be covered there.
Before we start the discussion, it might be useful to have some background information to save our time and energy to prevent unnecessary debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoralityQuoteMorality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
I hope this topic can start a discussion which can eventually produce satisfactory answer to the question .
This is from Google.
Quote
noun: moralityFinding a universal morality requires that we don't add arbitrary restrictions into our definition of morality, such as:
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
It's only applicable to certain tribe, culture, nationality, species, molecular structure.
How good or how bad a behaviour of an agent is is evaluated by its effect to the achievement of the terminal goal of the agent. A behaviour is good if it helps achieving the terminal goal, and bad if it prevents/hinders the achievement of the terminal goal. Hence a universal morality is closely related to the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/08/2020 23:20:08
You can't require morality to span across species. What is good for homo sapiens is not good for malarial plasmodia. I doubt that lions and wildebeeste would agree on a definition of a terminal goal, though they might concur, for different reasons, on the desirability of a clean kill.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2020 09:05:12
There you go again, presuming the validity of a terminal goal concept and not specifying what the TG might be.I have started a whole thread specifically dedicated to address that.
This thread is dedicated to discuss about universal terminal goal and try to answer the what and why questions on it. Related to this thread, I also started another threads to discuss some consequences and necessary instrumental goals to help achieving that universal terminal goal. But course of discussion led me to answer the what question there too, which makes them overlap.In other word, the universal terminal goal is to protect conscious being from existential threats. The death of the last conscious being means that there could be no goals anymore and everything becomes indifferent.Keeping the existence of the last conscious being.
Please remind me, in one paragraph, of your universal terminal goal, and whether we agreed on it!
Any conscious being can be considered as a modified copy of it, hence there is some value in keeping their existence.
You can't require morality to span across species. What is good for homo sapiens is not good for malarial plasmodia. I doubt that lions and wildebeeste would agree on a definition of a terminal goal, though they might concur, for different reasons, on the desirability of a clean kill.As long as you can still find the answer why something has to be so, that something is not the terminal goal. To eat, as well as to not being eaten are just instrumental goals.
Competition, such as evolutionary arms race can be viewed as a tool to achieve better systems faster. That's why NASA doesn't want to have single supplier, even when there was a clear winner.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/08/2020 10:29:38
Competition, such as evolutionary arms race can be viewed as a tool to achieve better systems faster. That's why NASA doesn't want to have single supplier, even when there was a clear winner.
Astronaut Alan Shepard was asked what he thought about in the moments before launch. His reply: "The four million moving parts, each built by the lowest bidder".
It isn't a simple matter of competition anyway. Quite often the lowest bidder is clearing old stock or making a last-ditch bid to stay solvent, so you need backup. Not sure if it still applies, but in the 1970s small Japanese enterprises used to form redundant networks where every component was sourced from suppliers who were also customers for other companies in the network. This meant that the failure of a new product did not inevitably result in the failure of any member of the network or the network itself, reducing the risk of innovation. An interesting comparison of collaboration versus competition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2020 07:59:07
I started this thread with definition in the hope to prevent unnecessary debates due to informal fallacies which makes it inefficient.Universal morality is a tool to achieve the universal terminal goal. It can protect conscious beings from harms caused by other conscious beings. It is comparable with administrative controls in the hierarchy of risk control.
This is from Google.Quotenoun: morality
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
a particular system of values and principles of conduct.
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.
Finding a universal morality requires that we don't add arbitrary restrictions into our definition of morality, such as:
It's only applicable to certain tribe, culture, nationality, species, molecular structure.
How good or how bad a behaviour of an agent is is evaluated by its effect to the achievement of the terminal goal of the agent. A behaviour is good if it helps achieving the terminal goal, and bad if it prevents/hinders the achievement of the terminal goal. Hence a universal morality is closely related to the universal terminal goal.
(https://mk0sitematecomxqlxyi.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Hierarchy-of-risk-control-4.png)
Describing universal morality can be viewed as one of instrumental goals among many others to help achieving the universal terminal goal.
Other terminologies essential in discussing universal morality are consciousness itself, which I discussed here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg606314#msg606314
and individuality, which I discussed here.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg608885#msg608885
The problem of individuality is very important to clarify if we want to build argumentation about morality. People often limit their scope of individuality to commonly found cases, which are biological human individuals. Some have expanded its definition to include other biological animal. But very few seem to be willing to expand it further to other systems, such as non-biological entities.
Even if we restrict individuality to only include biological entities, we still face problems, e.g:
- people with multiple personality disorder.
- conjoined twins
- double headed animals
- half brained person (e.g. the other half has been removed due to a disease)
- biological colony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)#Modular_organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
- symbionts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen
- parasites
- cancer cells
- organelles
How should we count the number of individus when being presented with those things? The problem arise if we treat individuality as a discrete thing. Using the concept of individuality as mentioned in my previous post can help solve this problem.
If we look back to biological evolutionary process, multicellular organisms are products of cells letting go some of their individuality to form a bigger system which gains some individuality. Those cells lose some basic functionalities so they can no longer survive when set free in an open environment. But they can develop special functionalities which are useful for the bigger system they are being part of, such as photosensitivity, nervous system, circulatory system, armor for protection, food digestion, chemical weaponry. Similar story also happened when ancestor of mitochondria were engulfed by archaea to form eukaryotic organisms. Another similar story is the formation of ant or bee colonies.
The case of modern human has similarity too. Many of them have very specialised skill set which make no longer capable to survive in the wilderness for long duration. They depend on their society. How many people still grow/hunt their own food, build their own house, knit their own clothes, or heal their own wound?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2020 11:14:46
IMO, any actions can be classified morally into 3 categories :The desired condition to be achieved from following universal moral rules is the universal terminal goal, which I discuss deeper in another thread.
- moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.
- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.
At a glance, they seem to be applicable for consequentialist ethics only, and not rule based ethics. But that's not the case, since rule based ethics merely elevate "obedience to some arbitrary rules" as the desired conditions. Those rules in turn need justification from a more fundamental principle.
A universal utopia, if there is one, would be classified as a meme. And just like any other memes, it will compete for its existence in memory space, whether in people's minds or computer's storage devices.In the link below I tried to scrutinize my idea using philosophical razors to test its feasibility.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg588164#msg588164
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/08/2020 11:22:02
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Quote
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."[1]
Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
Some examples I can recall are:
- Human sacrifice of the Aztech to appease Gods and prevent natural disaster and give humanity life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
- Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah#Sacrifice_of_daughter
Post by: alancalverd on 27/08/2020 10:44:50
Quote
Jephthah is referenced once in the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:32 where he is commended for his faith.Thus demonstrating that Paul was even more stupid than Jephthah.
Christianity continues to baffle me.
Anyway James Bond's empirical formula is a consequence of Hanlon's Principle: "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."
Post by: alancalverd on 27/08/2020 10:58:50
- moral actions lead to desired conditions. The desired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.desired by whom? We both fancy the same woman. I know enough about her to start a conversation that leads to marriage, wherein I treat her badly. You are a good bloke who would treat her well but don't know where to begin.
Quote
- immoral actions lead to undesired conditions. The undesired result can be achieved more reliably with better information.Nevertheless, life goes on and you find the girl of your next-best dream. We both cheat on our wives. One of us, being ill-informed, ends up with an undesired disease and an expensive divorce, the other takes precautions and lives happily ever after.
Quote
- amoral actions are indefferent to resulting conditions. The reliability of result isn't affected by any amount of information.Flying from A to B is an amoral action, but the reliability of the result depends on a huge amount of prior information, beginning with the precise location of B....
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/08/2020 10:24:32
And what happened when the Aztecs stopped sacrificing humans? They were wiped out by the Christians.What do you think would happen if they didn't stop sacrificing humans? Would it prevent them from being wiped out by the Christians?
Actions and information may have various significance to the issue that we are dealing with.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/08/2020 10:42:18
desired by whom? We both fancy the same woman. I know enough about her to start a conversation that leads to marriage, wherein I treat her badly. You are a good bloke who would treat her well but don't know where to begin.Desired by a conscious system. Besides the universal morality that we are trying to find in this thread, we can find many non-universal moralities. Here are some examples: human individu, family, tribal societies, companies, national governments, international organizations, companies.
We need to extend our understanding of conscious systems beyond arbitrary boundaries placed by historical/evolutionary accidents, such as the fact that homo sapiens are the only known extant naturally occuring species that currently have adequate mental capacity to understand how the world is working, relatively speaking. The rising of AGI may change that pretty soon.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/08/2020 11:06:42
desired by whom? We both fancy the same woman. I know enough about her to start a conversation that leads to marriage, wherein I treat her badly. You are a good bloke who would treat her well but don't know where to begin.Desired by a conscious system.
And in this example, both you and I are presumed to be conscious, whatever that means.
If you aren't very careful, you will end up defining a moral action as an action that is moral!
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2020 09:40:22
What do you think would happen if they didn't stop sacrificing humans? Would it prevent them from being wiped out by the Christians?They obviously thought so, but were persuaded otherwise by the Christian invaders, who then killed them. QED.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/09/2020 05:58:20
And in this example, both you and I are presumed to be conscious, whatever that means.I have described consciousness in this thread as well as my other threads discussing about universal terminal goal.
Since they haven't seem enough, here is a simplified description by stating absolute minimum requirements for a system to be called conscious.
- It has internal structures which represent states of itself and its environment.
- That internal structures can change according to the change of the environment.
In biological organisms, that internal structures can be found in the form of neural networks which can function as memory storage. In computers, that internal structures are computer memory which may take various forms, such as mechanical, magnetic, optic, and electronic media.
If that internal structures can not change according to the change of the environment, the system can not be conscious. For example, a human specimen in coma or recently died, and unpowered computer.
If you aren't very careful, you will end up defining a moral action as an action that is moral!It's a circular reference which is unhelpful and reveal no information. It cannot tell if an action or behavior is moral or immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/09/2020 09:30:19
All living things have "internal structures which represent states of itself and its environment..... that.....can change according to the change of the environment". So a tree that undermines my house is a conscious being and I need to take its life goals into account when deciding whether to poison it. After all, it is older than me and represents an even older species, so it surely has some rights that surpass mine?
Memory storage and neural networks are not the same, but let's ignore the distinction for the moment. My satnav responds to changes in the environment much more quickly than a human navigator. Does it have any moral rights or duties? The GPS in my plane does even better: it updates itself with danger areas and prohibited areas, and if I press the "go home" button it will take me there by the quickest safe permitted route from anywhere in the world - but is it making a moral decision?
The concept of morality has no value unless it helps us make an optimum choice, but apart from the Golden Rule, I can see no other universally valid description of optimal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/09/2020 10:26:39
Post by: alancalverd on 03/09/2020 10:56:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/09/2020 12:50:25
Quote
Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logical conclusion.[1]Here we need to utilize Rand's razor, which simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg588164#msg588164
Deductive reasoning goes in the same direction as that of the conditionals, and links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
Deductive reasoning ("top-down logic") contrasts with inductive reasoning ("bottom-up logic") in the following way; in deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules which hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left (there is no epistemic uncertainty; i.e. unrecognized parts of the currently available set; all parts of the currently available set are available and recognized).[2] In inductive reasoning, the conclusion is reached by generalizing or extrapolating from specific cases to general rules, i.e., there is epistemic uncertainty (unrecognized parts of the currently available set).[3] However, the inductive reasoning mentioned here is not the same as induction used in mathematical proofs – mathematical induction is actually a form of deductive reasoning.
We can start by clearly state the definitions of key terms, which are morality and universal. Those lead us to universal terminal goal which I discuss in separate thread. Definition of those terms lead us to clarify the terms of consciousness and individuality/identity. We need to avoid as far as possible making unnecessary/baseless assumptions, as per Occam's razor.
Second approach is by inductive reasoning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Quote
Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, for the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one's experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.Here we start from many specific cases or examples of observed moral rules, and then derive general principles from them. We need to describe similarities as well as difference among them. We also need to state our underlying assumptions as explicitly as possible to avoid unnecessary informal fallacies in the discussion.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/09/2020 14:23:27
There is a serious point lurking in the distance. We have discussed the liability of a driverless vehicle causing an accident, and there is an emerging debate about the use of AI in medical diagnosis. If a surgeon removed the wrong kidney under a faulty instruction from a machine, where is the moral and hence legal liability?
The law seems to be reasonably consistent: humans use machines, not the other way around, and humans make decisions. The decision to engage autopilot or rely on an AI diagnosis, immediately confers liability on the person who made that decision, not on the machine or the machine designer, unless the machine is explicitly sold as "life critical". So for all practical purposes we can ignore the consciousness, whatever that is, of any person or thing other than the primary agent, in deciding whether an action is moral. Thus the Golden Rule is all you need.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/09/2020 10:34:26
For inductive reasoning, we can start from many specific cases or examples of observed moral rules, and then derive general principles from them. We need to describe similarities as well as difference among them. So far, we can find some proposed rules in this thread: Golden rule, utilitarianism, and nihilism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/09/2020 11:01:47
The law seems to be reasonably consistent: humans use machines, not the other way around, and humans make decisions. The decision to engage autopilot or rely on an AI diagnosis, immediately confers liability on the person who made that decision, not on the machine or the machine designer, unless the machine is explicitly sold as "life critical". So for all practical purposes we can ignore the consciousness, whatever that is, of any person or thing other than the primary agent, in deciding whether an action is moral. Thus the Golden Rule is all you need.Let's scrutinize your proposal using Rand's razor. What's your irreducible axioms?
Why it's important to follow the golden rule? What would happen if it's not obeyed? Why would it be bad?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2020 12:40:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2020 06:22:18
No axioms apart from the Golden Rule itself. Humans being intellectually strong but physically weak, we survive and prosper by collaboration. If we generally treat others as we would wish to be treated, we get along and achieve stuff because our collaboration lacks resentment.I interpret your answer as following:
Golden rule is good because it can help humans to survive and prosper by collaboration effectively.
If it's not obeyed, then human's chance to survive would be reduced. In other word, human would face higher risk of extinction, which is bad.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2020 06:25:55
The Tyranny of Merit | Do We Deserve What We Get? Michael Sandel & Cosmic Skeptic
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2020 10:23:48
In other word, human would face higher risk of extinction, which is bad.Only for humans. We are of no cosmic significance, and as far as other species are concerned we are mostly either food, competition for food, or predators.
If we take an objective view, the death of an individual is not "bad" but inevitable, so why would the death of an entire species be a Bad Thing?
We try to avoid suffering but sensible people accept that if all else fails, death ends suffering.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2020 11:19:20
Only for humans. We are of no cosmic significance, and as far as other species are concerned we are mostly either food, competition for food, or predators.Not yet. But with exponential rate of technological advancement, we (or our descendants) could become significant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
We need to pass through the great filter to achieve that.
Any action which lead to the extinction of a species is viewed as bad action (and become lesson learned) by other species who don't want to go extinct.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2020 14:13:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/09/2020 04:26:20
I don't recall anyone mourning the loss of smallpox, and the extinction of malarial plasmodia doesn't have any obvious prospective downside. If the dinosaurs hadn't died out, would we even exist?
Extinct species didn't adequately do good things to prevent them from extinctions.
(https://img.libquotes.com/pic-quotes/v1/larry-niven-quote-lbq1b5u.jpg)
Alternatively, their descendants have evolved into different species which are better at survival.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/09/2020 23:02:18
Not sure about the space thing. The survival of a species is only of importance to
(a) the last member of that species, who will die anyway but doesn't want to be lonely
(b) those species that eat it
(c) those species that depend on it to keep their predators and parasites in check
Extinction is of no importance to extant members of the species itself. If there are no humans in 100 years' time, that won't affect my life at all. Indeed if we are all wiped out tomorrow, provided the death is swift and painless, it won't worry me today.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/09/2020 04:49:40
Where Do Moral Laws Come From? (Greg Koukl Response)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/09/2020 19:08:58
Best AnswerSo, if your deductive reasoning doesn't lead you to an answer which comes up as a logical necessity from your premises, then there must be something missing. The error can be a formal logical fallacy, which is easier to detect. It can also be an informal one, which is usually subtler.
Quote (selected)
Modify
Remove
Re: Is there a universal moral standard?
« Reply #577 on: 07/09/2020 10:34:26 »
The advantage of deductive reasoning is that your answer would be a logical necessity, as long as you provide correct premises and proceed with valid procedures. To guarantee correctness of the premises, we need to list them down in detail with unambiguous definitions, and compare them with known observation result of objective reality. Hence in order to refute the conclusion, all you need to do is point out which premise is incorrect. You would then can fix it to get the correct answer.
Previously I've shown that answering question of universal morality deductively requires a well defined universal terminal goal, which in turn needs a well defined consciousness and individuality.
I think that traditional usage of the words consciousness and individuality are too narrow to be useful in searching for universal morality. They are loaded by arbitrary constraints set by humans (which are evolutionary accidents), which makes them less suitable for non-human conscious beings, thus making them non-universal.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2020 00:03:10
Previously I've shownAsserted, not shown!
Since we have no way of knowing what non-humans think about anything, we have no test of the absolute universality of any moral standard. The best we can achieve is whatever appeals to humans, and as we know that humans are very varied, we have to assume in the first instance that each of us is no worse a sample of the population than any other individual. So we can begin with the Golden Rule and test its universality by asking others if they agree that it is a Good Thing.
I haven't come across anyone who disagrees or could not apply it to judge his own actions. So I propose that "do unto others...." is the practical universal moral standard until proved otherwise.
This is entirely consistent with the way we do science. We adopt a practical measurement standard like the time it takes for the sun to reach its zenith, until it turns out to be too imprecise for our needs so we move to siderial time, thence to a standard clock, and so forth. The question we ask at each stage of development is "what are you going to use it for?" and it's pretty clear that the only use you can have for a moral standard is to judge the morality/expediency ratio of a human action, so there's no point in extending your definition to the actions of nonhuman entities, all of which are considered to be 100% expedient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2020 00:16:55
humans . They are enforced through some form of reward and punishment.
Moral rules can't protect a system from non-conscious members/parts, such as in natural disasters. Moral rules can't protect a system from non-members, such as in alien invasion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2020 01:08:51
Since we have no way of knowing what non-humans think about anything, we have no test of the absolute universality of any moral standard. The best we can achieve is whatever appeals to humans, and as we know that humans are very varied, we have to assume in the first instance that each of us is no worse a sample of the population than any other individual.You don't seem to follow the recent progress in neuroscience and artificial intelligence, as well as molecular biology. They suggest that consciousness and individuality comes in many layers with various magnitude in each layers.
No dictionary explicitly limits
the definition of morality to humans. Since you do, you need to define what constitute humans, and what's not. What's the boundary conditions between them. Was Neanderthals included?
By your definition, rules for post humans can't be called morality, hence they would need to invent a new word to represent similar meaning.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2020 17:10:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/10/2020 09:03:29
I have described consciousness in this thread as well as my other threads discussing about universal terminal goal.In my previous posts I've also mentioned another requirement for consciousness which is relevant to morality, which is having internal/subjective preferences. It would follow that conscious systems have the capacity to build two virtual maps internally, which are described in is and ought problem, or known as Hume's guillotine.
Since they haven't seem enough, here is a simplified description by stating absolute minimum requirements for a system to be called conscious.
- It has internal structures which represent states of itself and its environment.
- That internal structures can change according to the change of the environment.
Another criteria for a conscious system to apply morality is the capacity to manipulate its environment, which is represented in "is map" in its memory system to get closer to its "ought map", which is affected by its internal/subjective preferences.
The role of moral rules with reward and punishment are then to modify internal/subjective preferences of conscious systems to make them aligned with the goal of larger systems they are being part of (e.g. their family, tribe, company, nation). Primitive forms of those manipulation are done by inflicting pain and pleasure which can be directly felt. The next forms are done by causing fear and giving hope, which can only work for conscious systems with capability of understanding cause and effect, so they can predict/anticipate future condition when some information about the present is given.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/10/2020 09:32:53
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a34165311/crows-are-self-aware-like-humans/
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-research-finds-crows-can-ponder-their-own-knowledge
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2020/09/25/Scientists-observe-conscious-processes-in-crow-brains/3741601042088/
Quote
"Nerve cells that represent visual input without subjective components are expected to respond in the same way to a visual stimulus of constant intensity," Nieder said. "Our results, however, conclusively show that nerve cells at higher processing levels of the crow's brain are influenced by subjective experience, or more precisely, produce subjective experiences."
The latest findings, published Friday in the journal Science, suggest consciousness may be more widespread throughout the animal kingdom and its origins farther back on the evolutionary timeline than previously thought.
The oldest common relative between humans and crows lived some 320 million years ago. It's possible consciousness arose then, during the geologic period known was the Carboniferous. It's also possible consciousness developed independently in a variety of animal lineages.
"In any case, the capability of conscious experience can be realized in differently structured brains and independently of the cerebral cortex," Nieder said.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6511/eabc5534
Quote
Basic principles of bird and mammal brainsIt's often suggested that primates advantage to get higher consciousness are due to bipedalism and having opposable thumbs which can help them manipulate things. But those things are also found in birds, although with reversed role between front and rear "legs". So in a hypothetical world where all primates go extinct, it's possible that their role as the most conscious organisms on earth would be taken over by birds.
Mammals can be very smart. They also have a brain with a cortex. It has thus often been assumed that the advanced cognitive skills of mammals are closely related to the evolution of the cerebral cortex. However, birds can also be very smart, and several bird species show amazing cognitive abilities. Although birds lack a cerebral cortex, they do have pallium, and this is considered to be analogous, if not homologous, to the cerebral cortex. An outstanding feature of the mammalian cortex is its layered architecture. In a detailed anatomical study of the bird pallium, Stacho et al. describe a similarly layered architecture. Despite the nuclear organization of the bird pallium, it has a cyto-architectonic organization that is reminiscent of the mammalian cortex.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/10/2020 09:34:57
But it is so common that it infringes on your definition of consciousness. Every servo system from a simple wing leveller to a full GPS-coupled track follower and autolander has a "soll" map, "ist" sensors, and the mechanism to minimise the difference without overstressing the entity it is controlling.
You might however define consciousness as the ability to depart from the map and make useful compromises when faced with an overriding or conflicting demand. If my passenger is taken ill I can press on, divert, attempt to fix the problem, or tell him to shut up because we have more serious threats (ice, low fuel...) to our survival. Pigeons, swallows and butterflies have the same ability.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2020 12:41:32
I decided to split the discussion because they play different roles in each thread. In Universal utopia thread, universal consciousness acts as the objective/target to be achieved as the universal terminal goal. The reasoning relies on anthropic principle and basic deductive logics, which also gave us cogito ergo sum.
On the other hand, this thread treats consciousness as criteria to select appropriate moral rules for various conscious systems. We can't apply the same moral rules for babies, toddlers, teenagers, and adults. The same also applies to non-biological conscious systems. We apply different rules to a full self driving car than to a non-fsd car.
In AI, moral rules work similarly to reward function in reinforcement learning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement_learning
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg/250px-Reinforcement_learning_diagram.svg.png)
In the diagram above, the agent represents conscious system whose behavior is to be influenced by moral rules. The interpreter represents the authority who wrote those moral rules and capability to enforce them by giving reward and punishment according to agent's behavior. The interpreter supposed to have higher conscious level than the agent, as we can see from the relationship between parents and their children, teachers and pupils, government and people, generals and soldiers, philosophers and disciples, business owners and their employees, pet owners and their pets, programmers and AI softwares. In not so far away future, an AGI could act as the interpreter for narrower AIs, or even people by taking many roles of governments.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/10/2020 13:57:31
We apply different rules to a full self driving car than to a non-fsd car.I would have thought Asimov's Laws of Robotics would apply to both. The problem with FSDs is to define "reasonable behavior" where a conflict arises. Real life is more complicated than the trolley problem because cars don't run on rails and civil law distinguishes between species.
Simple choice: hit the human or hit the dog? Your driving instructor probably told you to aim for the dog because they can accelerate quicker than humans. There is no exception for philosophers, priests or politicians, though in Utopia they would all wear camouflage, so simply avoiding the dog would be an adequate defence.
Hit the dog or hit the cat? Legally you must report colliding with a dog because they are considered "valuable property" and the owner may even be liable for the damage to your car if the dog was not under control,. But if you run over a cat, it is considered to be a wild animal of unprotected species, even if it is chipped, and you don't need to report it.
But is it safe to stop at all? Your FSD car may be proceeding at a reasonable pace and able to stop on sheet ice, but the truck or bus behind you, can't.
Suddenly, it all gets a bit more difficult.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2020 14:28:25
There is no exception for philosophers, priests or politiciansMany moral rules applicable to kids are still applicable to adults. They may only set minimum requirement of consciousness level, but doesn't have maximum limit.
Legally you must report colliding with a dog because they are considered "valuable property" and the owner may even be liable for the damage to your car if the dog was not under control,.That depends on the country where you are in.
But is it safe to stop at all? Your FSD car may be proceeding at a reasonable pace and able to stop on sheet ice, but the truck or bus behind you, can't.This encourages the development of virtual universe I discussed in another thread, which is needed to minimize surprises.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/10/2020 17:41:19
Sometime in the last century I signed up for the Open University foundation course in Humanities. The first term was about distinguishing between homo sapiens and other animals, and after 3 months, they had not come up with a single valid distinction. Being desperate to hand in my term essay, I asked the first person I met at work the next day. Without a moment's hesitation he said "Man records anything that is too trivial to remember".
Now read on....although it will be a bit trivial!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/10/2020 00:15:58
There is an article describing evolution of human intelligence that I'd like to share.
https://theconversation.com/when-did-we-become-fully-human-what-fossils-and-dna-tell-us-about-the-evolution-of-modern-intelligence-143717
Here are some interesting quotes.
Quote
Bones of primitive Homo sapiens first appear 300,000 years ago in Africa, with brains as large or larger than ours. They’re followed by anatomically modern Homo sapiens at least 200,000 years ago, and brain shape became essentially modern by at least 100,000 years ago. At this point, humans had braincases similar in size and shape to ours.
Assuming the brain was as modern as the box that held it, our African ancestors theoretically could have discovered relativity, built space telescopes, written novels and love songs. Their bones say they were just as human as we are.
Quote
We inherited our humanity from peoples in southern Africa 300,000 years ago. The alternative – that everyone, everywhere coincidentally became fully human in the same way at the same time, starting 65,000 years ago – isn’t impossible, but a single origin is more likely.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/10/2020 06:13:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/10/2020 09:09:00
Many things people thought as fundamental may turn out to be not fundamental at all. Instead, they are merely instrumental, whose applicability depends on situations at hand, which are influenced by their positions in space and time.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/10/2020 10:45:06
I think you will find the Golden Rule underpins most if not all moral codes, but "tribal" loyalty can oppose it when there is a conflict between us and them. Sometimes the conflict is real (competition for essential resources) but the most damaging conflicts are those invented by the usual parasites.
Full marks for the Cultural Evolution video. Collaboration is essential for human survival, and specialisation makes civilisation efficient, thus increasing the speed of cultural evolution. I have time to develop medical devices because someone else hunts my food, and my inventions may keep him alive!
Assertions about the relationship between intelligence and size of human brains are unscientific nonsense. Anyone who has seen a 1960's computer will tell you that however you measure the ability of a machine to process data, it isn't related to size,
Writing isn't the only means of recording the trivial. Cave art, folk song and wampum have survived for millennia. But the food processing techniques that the natives tried to teach Burke and Wills were too important to be written down - you "just grew up knowing how to do it".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2020 07:24:47
The role of moral rules with reward and punishment are then to modify internal/subjective preferences of conscious systems to make them aligned with the goal of larger systems they are being part of (e.g. their family, tribe, company, nation). Primitive forms of those manipulation are done by inflicting pain and pleasure which can be directly felt. The next forms are done by causing fear and giving hope, which can only work for conscious systems with capability of understanding cause and effect, so they can predict/anticipate future condition when some information about the present is given.
Moral rules can be considered as a subset or a special case of reward function to modify a conscious agent's response to various stimuli/inputs.
Reward and punishments are indirect methods to execute back propagation process in neural network training, which adjust the weights of each neural connection. They are only needed if there is no known practical method to modify the behaviour of conscious agent, such as rewiring brain circuitry. Some drugs may have limited usage with temporary effect, but there could be unknown side effects in long term. Similar case for surgery of some organs to modify hormone activations. They work indirectly. Direct brain connection may offer some help, but it needs extreme cautions for unwanted consequences if the users are not aware of the universal terminal goal.
Traditional reward and punishment rely on the facts that most consious agents in existence was products of biological natural selection who posses desire to preserve their lives. The pain and pleasure signalings are methods to achieve that. So do fear and hope.
Most currently existing intelligent machines are not designed to put their existence as one of highest priority in their job. They are considered expendable. That's why we don't apply reward and punishment to modify their misaligned behaviors. Direct readjustment of their memory or weight of artificial neural connections are much more effective and efficient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2020 13:00:32
Ancient moral rules that are considered obsolete are usually abandoned due to their ineffectiveness or inefficency, compared to other moral rules that are still practiced now. For example, human sacrifice is demonstrably ineffective to prevent famine or natural disaster. Slavery is now considered as inefficient way of acquiring labor, due to rebellious tendency of oppressed human individuals. Using machinery is a more efficient alternative.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2020 22:48:55
Most currently existing intelligent machines are not designed to put their existence as one of highest priority in their job. They are considered expendable.
This article shows a clear example of the above statement.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37062/china-conducts-test-of-massive-suicide-drone-swarm-launched-from-a-box-on-a-truck
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2020 22:55:45
For example, human sacrifice is demonstrably ineffective to prevent famine or natural disaster.Somehow in 21st century we can still find groups of people who believe that executing gays can prevent natural disaster which makes it a moral action, based on stories written in old scriptures.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2020 11:47:20
In order to survive, those memes need to preserve conscious agents that bear them. But as long as there exist some backup copies, some sacrifices are acceptable. That's why we can still find moral rules such as altruism, patriotism, and martyrdom, which is effectively harmful to some of their conscious agents.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2020 14:20:09
Most currently existing intelligent machines are not designed to put their existence as one of highest priority in their job.Depends on your definition of intelligence. Mine is "the ability to surprise". A machine that prioritises the execution of one function above all else, cannot surprise its maker.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2020 14:22:09
In order to survive, those memes need to preserve conscious agents that bear them.Beware! You are in danger of anthropomorphising an a posteriori observation!
Those behaviors, parasites, etc., that do not destroy their hosts, may propagate, and behaviors that are propagated are called memes by those of a pretentious disposition.. That's all there is to it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/10/2020 10:37:03
Depends on your definition of intelligence. Mine is "the ability to surprise". A machine that prioritises the execution of one function above all else, cannot surprise its maker.Water has the ability to surprise most people. We don't usually call it intelligent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/10/2020 10:42:54
My intention is to take general patterns from observations.In order to survive, those memes need to preserve conscious agents that bear them.Beware! You are in danger of anthropomorphising an a posteriori observation!
Those behaviors, parasites, etc., that do not destroy their hosts, may propagate, and behaviors that are propagated are called memes by those of a pretentious disposition.. That's all there is to it.
Standard definition of meme exclude genetic information.
Quote
meme
/miːm/
noun
1.
an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.
2.
an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by internet users, often with slight variations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/10/2020 10:57:55
I think you will find the Golden Rule underpins most if not all moral codes, but "tribal" loyalty can oppose it when there is a conflict between us and them. Sometimes the conflict is real (competition for essential resources) but the most damaging conflicts are those invented by the usual parasites.If you want to redefine or narrow down the scope of morality to only cover things related to golden rule, then a lot of things most people consider as moral/immoral behaviors will be considered non-moral issues. I've mentioned some limitations of golden rule in previous post.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/10/2020 12:46:36
Water has the ability to surprise most people. We don't usually call it intelligent.No. Although the behavior of ice is not fully understood, it is absolutely consistent and predictable. That's not the same as surprising, except to those who have never seen it before.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/10/2020 16:45:09
What about a quantum number generator whose wave equation is continuously changed by another quantum number generator, and so on until nobody can predict what the outcome will be?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/10/2020 21:59:17
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/10/2020 13:11:30
Here is the definition of intelligence accorsing to dictionary.
Quote
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.Usually, it represents problem solving or information processing capability, but doesn't take into account the ability to manipulate its environment nor self awareness.
AlphaGo is considered intelligent since it can solve problem of playing go better then human champion. Alpha zero is even more intelligent since it can beat Alpha Go 100:0.
Even though they don't have the ability to move any piece of go.
On the other hand, consciousness covers more factors into account. For example, if you got paralyzed so you can't move your arms and legs, you are considered less conscious than your normal state, even though you can still think clearly.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/10/2020 16:14:58
But inventing any of those games is entirely the product of an intelligence, and from time to time you have to disengage the autopilot, which can fly by the rules a lot more accurately than any human, and make an intelligent decision about a circumstance that isn't covered by the rules.
Quote
if you got paralyzed so you can't move your arms and legs, you are considered less conscious than your normal stateconsidered by whom? Not by any anesthetist I know.
.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/10/2020 16:44:31
Go has formal rules and can thus be played by a machine with no intelligence.Of course, but machine without intelligence would lose all of the time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/10/2020 16:48:33
considered by whom? Not by any anesthetist I know.By anyone who want to use consciousness to put burden of responsibility upon a conscious agent.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/10/2020 23:11:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2020 08:11:26
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2020 08:28:58
Less able, certainly, but not less conscious. I am as fully aware of my environment and able to make decisions as anyone else, but I think my footballing days may be over and I can't bowl a cricket ball as fast as I used to. Does that make me less conscious than a teenager?Here is Levels of Consciousness in Medicine : Patient Awareness, Alertness, and Wakefulness
https://www.verywellhealth.com/level-of-consciousness-1132154
Quote
Level of consciousness (LOC) is a medical term for identifying how awake, alert, and aware of their surroundings someone is.1 It also describes the degree to which a person can respond to standard attempts to get his or her attention. Consistent medical terms describing a person's level of consciousness help in communication between care providers, particularly when the level of consciousness fluctuates over time.Inability to respond to a stimulation is clinically considered as reduced consciousness. If you can't move your muscle to respond to your care providers, although you are still fully aware of the stimuli, you are considered less conscious than normal. Reduced consciousness can also happen when we are drunk or sleepy which make us have slower response and harder to think.
Quote
Classifications of Coma
The states of coma and stupor may also be subdivided into levels or classifications that further clarify a person's degree of unresponsiveness. Several systems have been developed in order to standardize these classifications, which improves communication among healthcare providers and also aids in research. The most commonly used classification systems are the Grady Coma Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale.
The Grady Coma Scale rates a coma in grades from I to V.5 The grades are determined based on a person's state of awareness and response to stimuli, such as response to the person's name being called, light pain, and deep pain. Grade I indicates confusion, while V indicates no response to stimuli (coma).
The Glasgow Coma Scale uses a score to identify the level of consciousness, from 1 to 15, with 15 being a normal state of consciousness. This scale takes into account verbal, motor, and eye responses to stimuli in determining the overall score.
Quote
There are also psychological terms used to describe consciousness (fully aware of one's intentions), in contrast to the subconscious (often describes deeper intentions), and preconscious (related to memory). There are also several other theories and definitions of consciousness describing stages of sleep, levels of self-awareness, and the relationship between humans and matter. While all of these definitions are certainly valid, they are not used to define medical states of consciousness.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2020 11:29:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/10/2020 13:09:23
is it limited to sensory and information processing abilities, i.e. excluding actuation abilities?
Is memory loss considered as reduced consciousness?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2020 16:04:23
"These things will not save your life: the sky above you, the runway behind you, the fuel you left in the pump, and anything that has already happened." But consciousness of the present, likely future and immediate options is essential!
Post by: Halc on 30/10/2020 16:22:02
There are machines with no intelligence that can trounce me in Go. I'm not very good at it.Go has formal rules and can thus be played by a machine with no intelligence.Of course, but machine without intelligence would lose all of the time.
These machines just blindly execute algorithms programmed into them by expert Go players, similar to how the mechanical Dr Nim machine (a toy sold in the stores) that would defeat the average human Nim player.
On the other hand, the best Go computer was an intelligent device which had no specific algorithm at all programmed into it. Given only the rules, it learned to play the game the same way you and I do, with experience, and in short time it could defeat any opponent. The same computer could learn (and win) any such game, but Go was its stronghold because the game is particularly resistant to expression of a strategy in any set of instructions. I mean, Reversi is pretty trivial to learn. I'm quite good at that one, but I stand little chance against any reasonable machine, intelligent or not since the limited fanout makes hard look-ahead an optimal strategy for a simple algorithm.
Here is Levels of Consciousness in Medicine : Patient Awareness, Alertness, and WakefulnessWhy would you reach for a definition like that one for a thread on morals? My front yard motion detector is more conscious than I am by that definition since it never sleeps or lowers its awareness. Does it thus carry more moral responsibility than I do?
https://www.verywellhealth.com/level-of-consciousness-1132154
Post by: alancalverd on 31/10/2020 18:19:17
Which is why I never play computer games.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 04:22:46
Whatever your definition of consciouness, a conscious person is one whose brain responds in some way to a stimulus. So loss of memory wouldn't count:"what is your name" "I don't know" indicates full consciousness with lack of memory, and is surprisingly common.That would require motoric ability preserved to move one's mouth.
Would you consider a brain in the vat as a conscious being?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Braininvat.jpg/280px-Braininvat.jpg)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 04:50:14
Why would you reach for a definition like that one for a thread on morals? My front yard motion detector is more conscious than I am by that definition since it never sleeps or lowers its awareness. Does it thus carry more moral responsibility than I do?Yes, particularly for detecting motion. I mentioned before that consciousness is a multidimentional parameter. One agent might be better at one thing but worse at another things, compared to its peers.
For a motion detector which is no longer functioning as required, the "punishment" would be a replacement by another device, or partial replacement of its parts or rewriting of its algorithm.The role of moral rules with reward and punishment are then to modify internal/subjective preferences of conscious systems to make them aligned with the goal of larger systems they are being part of (e.g. their family, tribe, company, nation). Primitive forms of those manipulation are done by inflicting pain and pleasure which can be directly felt. The next forms are done by causing fear and giving hope, which can only work for conscious systems with capability of understanding cause and effect, so they can predict/anticipate future condition when some information about the present is given.
Moral rules can be considered as a subset or a special case of reward function to modify a conscious agent's response to various stimuli/inputs.
Reward and punishments are indirect methods to execute back propagation process in neural network training, which adjust the weights of each neural connection. They are only needed if there is no known practical method to modify the behaviour of conscious agent, such as rewiring brain circuitry. Some drugs may have limited usage with temporary effect, but there could be unknown side effects in long term. Similar case for surgery of some organs to modify hormone activations. They work indirectly. Direct brain connection may offer some help, but it needs extreme cautions for unwanted consequences if the users are not aware of the universal terminal goal.
Traditional reward and punishment rely on the facts that most consious agents in existence was products of biological natural selection who posses desire to preserve their lives. The pain and pleasure signalings are methods to achieve that. So do fear and hope.
Most currently existing intelligent machines are not designed to put their existence as one of highest priority in their job. They are considered expendable. That's why we don't apply reward and punishment to modify their misaligned behaviors. Direct readjustment of their memory or weight of artificial neural connections are much more effective and efficient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2020 14:45:52
As Musk pointed out, current human system is heavily limited in output bandwidth. That's one of the reasons why he founded Neuralink to create direct brain interface.
If only we had working direct brain interface already, this discussion might be finished in just a few seconds instead of years.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/11/2020 16:30:01
Would you consider a brain in the vat as a conscious being?You are probably used to "black box" systems analysis. The brain in brine or whatever is a black box with, as your diagram suggests, input and output wires. If the output differs from the input, it is active. If the output differs from the input in a way that isn't linearly predictable, it is intelligent. Sadly, that definition includes the present occupants of the White House and Number 10, but as The Boss keeps telling me, being intelligent and being right are not the same thing.
Active and intelligent are useful adjectives. I'm still not sure that the word "conscious" has any great value.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2020 09:09:56
The dog's behavior is not entirely surprising either. Especially if you have some future version of neuralink implanted on its head, or you are a veterinarian.Traditionally, an agent is considered intelligent if it can solve problem, especially when it's better than expectation. A dog who can get you newspaper is considered intelligent.
Here is the definition of intelligence accorsing to dictionary.Quotethe ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.Usually, it represents problem solving or information processing capability, but doesn't take into account the ability to manipulate its environment nor self awareness.
AlphaGo is considered intelligent since it can solve problem of playing go better then human champion. Alpha zero is even more intelligent since it can beat Alpha Go 100:0.
Even though they don't have the ability to move any piece of go.
On the other hand, consciousness covers more factors into account. For example, if you got paralyzed so you can't move your arms and legs, you are considered less conscious than your normal state, even though you can still think clearly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
Quote
Artificial intelligence (AI), is intelligence demonstrated by machines, unlike the natural intelligence displayed by humans and animals. Leading AI textbooks define the field as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of successfully achieving its goals.[3] Colloquially, the term "artificial intelligence" is often used to describe machines (or computers) that mimic "cognitive" functions that humans associate with the human mind, such as "learning" and "problem solving".[4]
As machines become increasingly capable, tasks considered to require "intelligence" are often removed from the definition of AI, a phenomenon known as the AI effect.[5] A quip in Tesler's Theorem says "AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."[6] For instance, optical character recognition is frequently excluded from things considered to be AI,[7] having become a routine technology.[8] Modern machine capabilities generally classified as AI include successfully understanding human speech,[9] competing at the highest level in strategic game systems (such as chess and Go),[10] autonomously operating cars, intelligent routing in content delivery networks, and military simulations.[11]
Quote
Computer science defines AI research as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of successfully achieving its goals.[3] A more elaborate definition characterizes AI as "a system's ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation."[70]
A typical AI analyzes its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success.[3] An AI's intended utility function (or goal) can be simple ("1 if the AI wins a game of Go, 0 otherwise") or complex ("Perform actions mathematically similar to ones that succeeded in the past"). Goals can be explicitly defined or induced. If the AI is programmed for "reinforcement learning", goals can be implicitly induced by rewarding some types of behavior or punishing others.[a] Alternatively, an evolutionary system can induce goals by using a "fitness function" to mutate and preferentially replicate high-scoring AI systems, similar to how animals evolved to innately desire certain goals such as finding food.[71] Some AI systems, such as nearest-neighbor, instead of reason by analogy, these systems are not generally given goals, except to the degree that goals are implicit in their training data.[72] Such systems can still be benchmarked if the non-goal system is framed as a system whose "goal" is to successfully accomplish its narrow classification task.[73]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
Quote
The AI effect occurs when onlookers discount the behavior of an artificial intelligence program by arguing that it is not real intelligence.[1]
Author Pamela McCorduck writes: "It's part of the history of the field of artificial intelligence that every time somebody figured out how to make a computer do something—play good checkers, solve simple but relatively informal problems—there was a chorus of critics to say, 'that's not thinking'."[2] AIS researcher Rodney Brooks complains: "Every time we figure out a piece of it, it stops being magical; we say, 'Oh, that's just a computation.'"[3]
Quote
"The AI effect" tries to redefine AI to mean: AI is anything that has not been done yet
A view taken by some people trying to promulgate the AI effect is: As soon as AI successfully solves a problem, the problem is no longer a part of AI.
Pamela McCorduck calls it an "odd paradox" that "practical AI successes, computational programs that actually achieved intelligent behavior, were soon assimilated into whatever application domain they were found to be useful in, and became silent partners alongside other problem-solving approaches, which left AI researchers to deal only with the "failures", the tough nuts that couldn't yet be cracked."[4]
When IBM's chess playing computer Deep Blue succeeded in defeating Garry Kasparov in 1997, people complained that it had only used "brute force methods" and it wasn't real intelligence.[5] Fred Reed writes:
"A problem that proponents of AI regularly face is this: When we know how a machine does something 'intelligent,' it ceases to be regarded as intelligent. If I beat the world's chess champion, I'd be regarded as highly bright."[6]
Douglas Hofstadter expresses the AI effect concisely by quoting Larry Tesler's Theorem:
"AI is whatever hasn't been done yet."[7]
When problems have not yet been formalised, they can still be characterised by a model of computation that includes human computation. The computational burden of a problem is split between a computer and a human: one part is solved by computer and the other part solved by a human. This formalisation is referred to as human-assisted Turing machine.[8]
AI applications become mainstream
Software and algorithms developed by AI researchers are now integrated into many applications throughout the world, without really being called AI.
Michael Swaine reports "AI advances are not trumpeted as artificial intelligence so much these days, but are often seen as advances in some other field". "AI has become more important as it has become less conspicuous", Patrick Winston says. "These days, it is hard to find a big system that does not work, in part, because of ideas developed or matured in the AI world."[9]
According to Stottler Henke, "The great practical benefits of AI applications and even the existence of AI in many software products go largely unnoticed by many despite the already widespread use of AI techniques in software. This is the AI effect. Many marketing people don't use the term 'artificial intelligence' even when their company's products rely on some AI techniques. Why not?"[10]
Marvin Minsky writes "This paradox resulted from the fact that whenever an AI research project made a useful new discovery, that product usually quickly spun off to form a new scientific or commercial specialty with its own distinctive name. These changes in name led outsiders to ask, Why do we see so little progress in the central field of artificial intelligence?"[11]
Nick Bostrom observes that "A lot of cutting edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labelled AI anymore."[12]
Quote
Saving a place for humanity at the top of the chain of being
Michael Kearns suggests that "people subconsciously are trying to preserve for themselves some special role in the universe".[14] By discounting artificial intelligence people can continue to feel unique and special. Kearns argues that the change in perception known as the AI effect can be traced to the mystery being removed from the system. In being able to trace the cause of events implies that it's a form of automation rather than intelligence.
A related effect has been noted in the history of animal cognition and in consciousness studies, where every time a capacity formerly thought as uniquely human is discovered in animals, (e.g. the ability to make tools, or passing the mirror test), the overall importance of that capacity is deprecated.[citation needed]
Herbert A. Simon, when asked about the lack of AI's press coverage at the time, said, "What made AI different was that the very idea of it arouses a real fear and hostility in some human breasts. So you are getting very strong emotional reactions. But that's okay. We'll live with that."[15]
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2020 09:38:09
Human intelligence are usually measured using IQ test
Quote
n intelligence quotient (IQ) is a total score derived from a set of standardized tests or subtests designed to assess human intelligence.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
Quote
Health is important in understanding differences in IQ test scores and other measures of cognitive ability. Several factors can lead to significant cognitive impairment, particularly if they occur during pregnancy and childhood when the brain is growing and the blood–brain barrier is less effective. Such impairment may sometimes be permanent, sometimes be partially or wholly compensated for by later growth.[citation needed]Someone with brain damage may have their IQ reduced significantly.
Consciousness covers more requirements/parameters which are not covered by Intelligence. Intelligence tests usually don't measure common knowledge. It's possible to have people with high IQ who are ignorant about basic theories in math, physics, chemistry, or biology. You may find someone with high IQ who became members of ISIS or other cults.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/11/2020 10:16:07
especially when it's better than expectation.We're moving away from morality towards intelligence, but it's fun. You have put your finger on the difference between problem solving and intelligence.
We have all sorts of methods for optimising the response of control systems to solve the problem, for example, of hitting a randomly moving target, and guided missiles are very good at it. The intelligent part of the conflict is to do something unexpected, and one of the best I've seen was to fire your own missile at the ground then fly through the flames.
Quote
It's possible to have people with high IQ who are ignorant about basic theories in math, physics, chemistry, or biology. You may find someone with high IQ who became members of ISIS or other cults.but, are they more or less conscious or morally driven than others?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/11/2020 10:44:53
but, are they more or less conscious or morally driven than others?Awareness of objective reality is part of consciousness. Who do you think have more accurate model of the universe?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/11/2020 18:33:17
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2020 14:18:04
Every man of faith knows with absolute certainty that the universe was created in 7 days by a man with a beard, and looked exactly as it does now. Scientists have no idea how it happened or what makes it work. Religion clearly has the most accurate and comprehensive model, even though it is unintelligent and useless.Only some faiths have those specific beliefs. Eastern religions don't share them.
When technological singularity is achieved, most false or unsupported beliefs will be obsolete. Ray Kurzweil expects it to arrive within this century, or the next century at the latest, as long as humanity don't extinct beforehand.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2020 17:27:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/11/2020 07:44:58
You missed the point. The statement that the universe was created exactly as it is now is the most accurate and comprehensive model of the universe because it accounts for absolutely every detail of what we observe. But it is also crap.What's your point, exactly? How can a statement which is accurate and comprehensive can be crap? Don't you think they are contradictory? Are you trying to be sarcastic or trolling?
BTW, here is a presentation about morality by Peter Millican
Post by: alancalverd on 10/11/2020 16:54:50
How can a statement which is accurate and comprehensive can be crap?You can't argue with "things are as they are", and philosophically speaking that statement that the universe was created exactly as it is now is entirely valid because you can't prove otherwise except by introducing notions of time and evolution which are not part of the model nor necessary to explain it. But it's pretty obviously crap because it doesn't explain or predict anything else.
Think of a photograph. It shows you exactly where everything was when it was taken, so it's a perfect model of whatever was in front of the camera, and there's nothing in the photograph to indicate that it was ever different. It's selfconsistent and accurate, but to make any use of it you have to add a whole lot of assumptions that are not justified by its content alone.
You must have heard the story of the balloonist who descended through fog and had no idea of his location. He asked a passer-by "Where am I?"
Reply: "You are in a balloon, six feet above the ground"
"So you are an accountant?"
"How did you know?"
"I asked a simple question and the answer you gave me was absolutely correct and no bloody use."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/11/2020 15:00:01
You must have heard the story of the balloonist who descended through fog and had no idea of his location. He asked a passer-by "Where am I?"I've heard it before. It's about incomplete information. You get least significant bits while the more significant bits are still missing.
Reply: "You are in a balloon, six feet above the ground"
"So you are an accountant?"
"How did you know?"
"I asked a simple question and the answer you gave me was absolutely correct and no bloody use."
Post by: alancalverd on 11/11/2020 18:04:22
"So you are a politician"
"How do you know?"
"You set off with no idea of planning or control, don't know where you are or how you got here, and have broken your promise. It's entirely your fault, and you are blaming me for trying to help."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2020 11:14:45
https://newideal.aynrand.org/why-todays-ethics-offers-no-real-guidance/
Why Today’s Ethics Offers No Real Guidance
Quote
Philosophy is often thought to be an “ivory tower” pursuit, unconcerned with the practical affairs of everyday life. Philosophers who want to promote the relevance of their field invariably point to one branch of philosophy that seems to have obvious implications for our action in the world: ethics, the study of right and wrong.
But we do not see the masses beating down the doors of university philosophy departments seeking practical advice about important life decisions. Students typically take ethics classes to fulfill a requirement, not to answer burning questions. Few if any books about ethics by philosophers make the best-seller lists. Why have today’s academic ethicists failed so miserably to sell the merits of their research?
Quote
Until ethicists can agree about how to support ethical principles for navigating an ordinary life, it’s unlikely that they can answer questions about extraordinary emergency cases.
Quote
Recognizing that a life of conflict with others is not inevitable severely undercuts the assumption that the only viable ethical code is one that calls us to sacrifice our own interests for the sake of the alleged interests of others. As Ayn Rand argued, it is the popularity of the altruistic theory of morality (the theory which equates the subject of morality with choices about sacrifice) that we should hold responsible for the widespread view that morality has no relevance to everyday life:
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .
Observe what this beneficiary-criterion of morality does to a man’s life. The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy; he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. . . . Apart from such times as he manages to perform some act of self-sacrifice, he possesses no moral significance: morality takes no cognizance of him and has nothing to say to him for guidance in the crucial issues of his life; it is only his own personal, private, “selfish” life and, as such, it is regarded either as evil or, at best, amoral.
The idea that ethics is a code of values one needs to guide one’s life as a whole informs Rand’s own view of moral virtue, which she develops at length in her essay “The Objectivist Ethics.” She was also not the first to see it this way. The whole of ancient Greek ethics, from Socrates through Aristotle to the Stoics had a similar outlook, even as these figures differed in important ways about what a morally virtuous life actually consists in.
If today’s ethicists want to offer real guidance for living, they should revisit their assumption that ethics is only about resolving conflicts and that they are its referees. Life is not a zero-sum game and ethics should not be about solving made-up puzzles that are part of such a game.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/11/2020 16:08:34
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .Wrong from the start. Altruism is an abstract noun that cannot "declare" anything. We ascribe good work with no apparent return to the doer, as altruistic.
It is not in the gift of philosophers to misuse the English language - or any other.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2020 03:34:26
The mistake that you've pointed out can be fixed by simply replacing the word atruism with altruist. Alternatively, the word declares can be replaced by means. It doesn't necessary means that the rest of the argumentation completely false though.Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value . . . .Wrong from the start. Altruism is an abstract noun that cannot "declare" anything. We ascribe good work with no apparent return to the doer, as altruistic.
It is not in the gift of philosophers to misuse the English language - or any other.
Due to limitations of natural languages, many miscommunications and misunderstanding can occur. Homonyms, homographs, or homophones can cause unnecessary informal fallacies. That's one reason for me to emphasize the importance of building some form of virtual universe in another thread.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2020 11:11:40
"An altruist is a person who declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."
Have you ever heard a sane individual say that? Laying down your life for another may be the ultimate act of altruism, but not eating when you are hungry, or not avoiding a charging elephant (because that would not benefit anyone else) is the inaction of an idiot.
Everyday altruism includes turning up at first aid or water lifesaving classes. And what is the first lesson they teach you? Don't endanger yourself. One hand for the ship, one for yourself. Make sure your car is between the approaching traffic and the casualty. Switch off at the mains. Wear a mask. And on and on.....
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2020 13:35:20
Let's make your substitution.That's called extreme/radical altruism. In practice, it's not sustainable hence not an evolutionary stable strategy.
"An altruist is a person who declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil."
Have you ever heard a sane individual say that? Laying down your life for another may be the ultimate act of altruism, but not eating when you are hungry, or not avoiding a charging elephant (because that would not benefit anyone else) is the inaction of an idiot.
Everyday altruism includes turning up at first aid or water lifesaving classes. And what is the first lesson they teach you? Don't endanger yourself. One hand for the ship, one for yourself. Make sure your car is between the approaching traffic and the casualty. Switch off at the mains. Wear a mask. And on and on.....
By maintaining some level of self preservation, one can do more good to others. So there is some sweet spot between extreme altruism and extreme selfishness which produce optimum result.
BTW, the sentence that you quoted was not mine. It didn't even represent the position of the philosopher that I quoted. It was part of his critique to using altruism as fundamental standard of morality. That's why I felt awkward when writing this response.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2020 15:37:14
Why have today’s academic ethicists failed so miserably to sell the merits of their research?Possibly because there are none. When sitting in judgement on an ethics committee, I tend to ask the applicant "would you do this to your wife?" and ask the rest of the committee "what would the man in the street think of us if we agreed to this?". Beats me how anyone can make an academic career out of it.
Post by: charles1948 on 24/11/2020 17:39:41
What have "moral standards" got to do with Science. Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing - to find out how the Universe operates.
How does "morality" come into it? I mean, you could argue that when a parasitic wasp lays its eggs inside the living body of a fellow insect, such as a caterpillar, so that the wasp's eggs hatch out and eat the caterpillar's intestines, that's not a very friendly or moral act. Not at least, by human standards. We'd judge the wasp as too horrible.
Like happened to Darwin. Didn't the parasitic wasp destroy his belief in a beneficent creator?
But so what? Science is concerned with facts. Even if things like parasitic wasps are by our standards quite deplorable, they do exist as a scientific fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 18:07:16
Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a Science Forum, why should it even bother with talk about "moral standards".The word "science" is derived from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge.
What have "moral standards" got to do with Science. Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing - to find out how the Universe operates.
How does "morality" come into it? I mean, you could argue that when a parasitic wasp lays its eggs inside the living body of a fellow insect, such as a caterpillar, so that the wasp's eggs hatch out and eat the caterpillar's intestines, that's not a very friendly or moral act. Not at least, by human standards. We'd judge the wasp as too horrible.
Like happened to Darwin. Didn't the parasitic wasp destroy his belief in a beneficent creator?
But so what? Science is concerned with facts. Even if things like parasitic wasps are by our standards quite deplorable, they do exist as a scientific fact.
One way to acquire knowledge is to read stuff.
Did you read the thread before you posted that?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2020 21:40:41
Bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a Science Forum, why should it even bother with talk about "moral standards".
What have "moral standards" got to do with Science. Surely Science should be concerned with only one thing - to find out how the Universe operates.
Ethics is part of social science, which is part of science. Besides, this thread is under Just Chat category, so we are free to choose any topic, even if it's outside of science.
How do you answer following questions:
1. Why should we do science?
2. How to prioritize among scientific researches, when the resources to do those are limited?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2020 23:30:04
1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2. Would you do this to your wife?
so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour.
Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently.
Why "universal"? Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2020 03:03:31
There is no theoretical limit to what we might do in the guise of science, but a lot of what Nazi and Japanese scientists did in the 1930s and 40s, and quite a bit of what went on in the civilised world in the 1950s, would not pass either of the moral tests I have set out in this thread:Can your moral standards pass universality test?
1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2. Would you do this to your wife?
so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour.
Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently.
Why "universal"? Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2020 05:27:54
1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto youLet me remind you the common definition of morality according to dictionary:
2. Would you do this to your wife?
Quote
morality
/məˈralɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?
What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?
How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2020 11:55:32
Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?
1. Yes, to the extent that I haven't met anyone who disagrees with them
2, 3, 4. Probably not, but who cares?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2020 12:02:25
What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .
Quote
What makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost).
Quote
How can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2020 13:29:07
I think I missed one more question:Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?
1. Yes, to the extent that I haven't met anyone who disagrees with them
2, 3, 4. Probably not, but who cares?
Are they applicable to every human society?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2020 13:56:54
Many people have various level of altruism and selfishness. So in any particular case, they can have diverse answers and decisions. Are they equally justifiable?What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .QuoteWhat makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost).QuoteHow can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.
We can find many people, especially in underdeveloped societies, who are eager to beat their wives. How does it justify them to beat other people?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2020 16:25:01
Within a small group, "we" are the members of that group only. When a group is given or arrogates authority over another, "we" means "they". When a politician says "we" he means "you". Whewn a philosopher says "we", he is about to make a generalisation with no evidence. When a journalist says "we" he means a few obnoxious people who he may or may not have met, but with whom he intends to disagree in order to fill 500 words..
In the absence of a wife whom "we" would normally treat as an equal, or in a society where cowardice, religion and gender insecurity lead to endemic wifebeating, a variant of the "up your arse" test can usually be applied.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 03:11:28
Your answer can only mean that your tests can't be universal. Especially if they only work for some specific kinds of human society. You'll have to follow up with your definition of humans, and specifically those who are eligible to pass your moral tests.I think I missed one more question:Can your moral standards pass universality test?
Are they applicable to pre-human society?
Are they applicable to post-human society?
Are they applicable to non-human society?
1. Yes, to the extent that I haven't met anyone who disagrees with them
2, 3, 4. Probably not, but who cares?
Are they applicable to every human society?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 03:11:56
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 03:19:53
At base, morality and ethics are about how we think we should behave. So the answer will always depend on the definition of "we".Then your morality and ethics don't offer real guidance, as asserted by a philosopher that I quoted here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg619488#msg619488
Within a small group, "we" are the members of that group only. When a group is given or arrogates authority over another, "we" means "they". When a politician says "we" he means "you". Whewn a philosopher says "we", he is about to make a generalisation with no evidence. When a journalist says "we" he means a few obnoxious people who he may or may not have met, but with whom he intends to disagree in order to fill 500 words..
In the absence of a wife whom "we" would normally treat as an equal, or in a society where cowardice, religion and gender insecurity lead to endemic wifebeating, a variant of the "up your arse" test can usually be applied.
Why Today’s Ethics Offers No Real Guidance
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2020 09:16:28
But we do not see the masses beating down the doors of university philosophy departments seeking practical advice about important life decisions. Students typically take ethics classes to fulfill a requirement, not to answer burning questions. Few if any books about ethics by philosophers make the best-seller lists. Why have today’s academic ethicists failed so miserably to sell the merits of their research?Precisely my point: professional philosophers have nothing to contribute. Yet practically every day in every teaching hospital a panel of healthcare professionals and "lay members" have to decide immediately on allocation of resources, risk/benefit, patient competence..... and once a month I get to ask half a dozen researchers whether they would do it to their spouses.
Until ethicists can agree about how to support ethical principles for navigating an ordinary life, it’s unlikely that they can answer questions about extraordinary emergency cases.
I've been to umpteen training sessions and never heard anyone who was described as an ethicist, say anything useful.
If we start from the man in the street and the surgeon's spouse, we will at least get an answer that meets the immediate, local need, in response to a universally applicable question.
To revert to my usual analogy: The principles of flight are universal. Faced with deteriorating weather, do we press on or turn back? We have to consider the fixed properties and capabilities of the aircraft in the context of each particular situation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 09:59:48
Precisely my point: professional philosophers have nothing to contribute. Yet practically every day in every teaching hospital a panel of healthcare professionals and "lay members" have to decide immediately on allocation of resources, risk/benefit, patient competence..... and once a month I get to ask half a dozen researchers whether they would do it to their spouses.They've tried to contribute. But as long as the question about universal terminal goal hasn't been settled yet, there won't be any consensus about universal morality.
To revert to my usual analogy: The principles of flight are universal. Faced with deteriorating weather, do we press on or turn back? We have to consider the fixed properties and capabilities of the aircraft in the context of each particular situation.Agreed. The decision depends on how much detail that we know about the situation. How bad the weather is? How tough your aeroplane is? What is the risk of not flying? Are you trying to escape from an erupting volcano spewing molten lava? Are you bringing an urgent cargo which can save thousands of lives?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 10:26:56
In another thread I've mentioned about deep believe network which models how a conscious agent work. The terminal goal of a conscious agent would reside in the deepest layer of the believe network.
Intelligent agents are expected to have the ability to learn from raw data. It means that they have tools to pre-process those raw data to filter out noises or flukes and extract useful information. When those agents interact with one another, especially when they must compete for finite resources, the more important is the ability to filter out misinformation. It requires an algorithm to determine if some data inputs are believable or not. At this point we are seeing that artificial intelligence is getting closer to natural intelligence. This exhibits a feature similar to critical thinking of conscious beings.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 22:04:11
Descartes has pointed out that the only self evident information a conscious agent can get is its own existence. Any other information requires corroborating evidences to support it. So in the end, the reliability of an information will be measured/valued by its ability to help preserving conscious agents.
Quote
In machine learning, a deep belief network (DBN) is a generative graphical model, or alternatively a class of deep neural network, composed of multiple layers of latent variables ("hidden units"), with connections between the layers but not between units within each layer.[1]
When trained on a set of examples without supervision, a DBN can learn to probabilistically reconstruct its inputs. The layers then act as feature detectors.[1] After this learning step, a DBN can be further trained with supervision to perform classification.[2]
DBNs can be viewed as a composition of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs)[1] or autoencoders,[3] where each sub-network's hidden layer serves as the visible layer for the next. An RBM is an undirected, generative energy-based model with a "visible" input layer and a hidden layer and connections between but not within layers. This composition leads to a fast, layer-by-layer unsupervised training procedure, where contrastive divergence is applied to each sub-network in turn, starting from the "lowest" pair of layers (the lowest visible layer is a training set).
The observation[2] that DBNs can be trained greedily, one layer at a time, led to one of the first effective deep learning algorithms.[4]:6 Overall, there are many attractive implementations and uses of DBNs in real-life applications and scenarios (e.g., electroencephalography,[5] drug discovery[6][7][8]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_belief_network
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Deep_belief_net.svg/220px-Deep_belief_net.svg.png)
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2020 10:28:46
The tests are universal but the acceptable answers always depend on the circumstances and objectives. Triage in a suburban general hospital on a Sunday morning mostly involves prioritising head injuries (horseriding) over leg injuries (football) but triage on a battlefield involves treat or leave to die.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 12:47:19
Discussion about morality won't be complete without describing its opposite, namely immorality into detail. For a start, how can we define immorality? We can get an insight from following razor.The word stupidity in the quote above can be replaced by ignorance to make it sound more neutral and less condescending. The examples I mentioned above shows the ignorance of ancient humans on how the world works, or what is a more accurate model of reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razorQuoteHanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."[1]
Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
Some examples I can recall are:
- Human sacrifice of the Aztech to appease Gods and prevent natural disaster and give humanity life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture
- Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah#Sacrifice_of_daughter
The quality of moral rules are measured based on their effectiveness and efficiency in helping conscious agents in decision making to achieve their fundamental goals. Those goals are what differentiate moral rules from other kind of rules such as game rules and technical rules.If we dig deeper into the deepest layers of deep believe network, all evil behaviors are eventually found to be caused by false information in one or more layers in the network.
Ancient moral rules that are considered obsolete are usually abandoned due to their ineffectiveness or inefficency, compared to other moral rules that are still practiced now. For example, human sacrifice is demonstrably ineffective to prevent famine or natural disaster. Slavery is now considered as inefficient way of acquiring labor, due to rebellious tendency of oppressed human individuals. Using machinery is a more efficient alternative.
Here are another examples :
Nazis' genocide based on believe that preserving humanity is their terminal goal. They also believe that Aryans are the best race to achieve that goal, and that other races are wasting finite resources. We call them evil because many of their assumptions are false.
Here is another one. One of the most famous evil individual human is Ted Bundy. He believes that his own pleasure is his ultimate goal in his life, while other people's pleasure and pain mean nothing to him. Though he might have a more accurate model of reality than ancient people, his goal prevents his behaviors to be aligned with universal moral values.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2020 17:54:39
1. Would you like to be beaten, starved and gassed? (or nowadays, strangled by a policeman or infected by a stranger)
2. Would you do it to your wife?
Keep it simple.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 21:55:24
I appreciate simplicity as long as it works. Otherwise it would be as useless as wooden aeroplanes in the cargo cult.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2020 22:19:17
They need the resources to survive, getting pleasure and avoiding pain, which are basic instincts shaped by evolutionary process.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/11/2020 19:59:53
Did they have the same goal when they were still children?Quite probably. The one thing career politicians of all colors have in common is that they obviously had no friends at school.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/11/2020 02:44:32
Do you think that they inherited that goal as a genetic trait? Or it was the result of their early education?Did they have the same goal when they were still children?Quite probably. The one thing career politicians of all colors have in common is that they obviously had no friends at school.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/11/2020 14:46:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2020 10:38:51
If we know what the universal terminal goal is, than the answer to morality would become straightforward. The more information we have about the situation can only be useful if we have the fundamentals right. As I mentioned before, not every bit of information has the same significance. In every project, the goal is always one of the most significant bit of information, if not the most. If we set the wrong goal, then the more other bits of information that we get will only bring us further away from achieving the right goal. The project I'm talking about here is living a meaningful life.Let's explore further to the diagram above to find useful patterns applicable in discussing morality. The lowest layer represents sensory inputs, which can be found in most automatons and simple organisms, besides the more complex conscious agents. The higher layers represent longer term goals/reference/deeper believe. The highest layer represents the terminal goal of the system.
In another thread I've mentioned about deep believe network which models how a conscious agent work. The terminal goal of a conscious agent would reside in the deepest layer of the believe network.Intelligent agents are expected to have the ability to learn from raw data. It means that they have tools to pre-process those raw data to filter out noises or flukes and extract useful information. When those agents interact with one another, especially when they must compete for finite resources, the more important is the ability to filter out misinformation. It requires an algorithm to determine if some data inputs are believable or not. At this point we are seeing that artificial intelligence is getting closer to natural intelligence. This exhibits a feature similar to critical thinking of conscious beings.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 22:04:11
Descartes has pointed out that the only self evident information a conscious agent can get is its own existence. Any other information requires corroborating evidences to support it. So in the end, the reliability of an information will be measured/valued by its ability to help preserving conscious agents.
Quote
In machine learning, a deep belief network (DBN) is a generative graphical model, or alternatively a class of deep neural network, composed of multiple layers of latent variables ("hidden units"), with connections between the layers but not between units within each layer.[1]
When trained on a set of examples without supervision, a DBN can learn to probabilistically reconstruct its inputs. The layers then act as feature detectors.[1] After this learning step, a DBN can be further trained with supervision to perform classification.[2]
DBNs can be viewed as a composition of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs)[1] or autoencoders,[3] where each sub-network's hidden layer serves as the visible layer for the next. An RBM is an undirected, generative energy-based model with a "visible" input layer and a hidden layer and connections between but not within layers. This composition leads to a fast, layer-by-layer unsupervised training procedure, where contrastive divergence is applied to each sub-network in turn, starting from the "lowest" pair of layers (the lowest visible layer is a training set).
The observation[2] that DBNs can be trained greedily, one layer at a time, led to one of the first effective deep learning algorithms.[4]:6 Overall, there are many attractive implementations and uses of DBNs in real-life applications and scenarios (e.g., electroencephalography,[5] drug discovery[6][7][8]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_belief_network
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Deep_belief_net.svg/220px-Deep_belief_net.svg.png)
Information (or misinformation) in higher layers have higher significance in moral judgement. It's comparable to the hierarchy I quoted before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemmaIn the light of universal terminal goal, the six stages above could be extended up and down to cover systems with higher as well as lower consciousness levels than average human individuals. The pattern here is that the lower the level, the more localized in space and time the causality of actions/decisions is under consideration.
The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example in many ethics and morality classes. One well-known version of the dilemma, used in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, is stated as follows[1]:QuoteA woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?QuoteFrom a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks that Heinz should do. Kohlberg's theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant, the form of their response. Below are some of many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg/800px-Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=30644)
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2020 14:52:25
Did Heinz do it to his wife? Yes.
Keep it simple.
If you want to make it complicated, not paying your taxes to a corrupt government is illegal but not immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2020 15:14:01
Would you want someone to do it for you? Yes.What are you referring to?
Did Heinz do it to his wife? Yes.
Keep it simple.
If you want to make it complicated, not paying your taxes to a corrupt government is illegal but not immoral.
Does paying taxes pass your tests?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2020 18:28:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2020 21:54:34
In the light of universal terminal goal, the six stages above could be extended up and down to cover systems with higher as well as lower consciousness levels than average human individuals. The pattern here is that the lower the level, the more localized in space and time the causality of actions/decisions is under consideration.Here are some examples to show where the layer of believe which contains misinformation determines how good or bad the moral of an agent is.
1. A driver get eye sight problem because of an extremely bright lightning nearby, which makes him hard to see. His car overrun some pedestrians which he doesn't aware of. They died due to the injury.
2. A drunk driver get sensomotoric and coordination problems which makes him hard to control his own body. His car overrun some pedestrians as a result. They died due to the injury.
3. A driver misidentifies some random pedestrians with robbers who just killed his family members. He overrun them with his car and kill them.
4. A driver believes in a conspiracy theory which says that a location is being used to kidnap children to be sold as sex slaves. He drives his car to overrun some people coming out of that place and kill them.
5. A driver is a sympathizer of an extremely religious organization who believe that global society is guilty for not practicing their ideal way of life. He drives his car to overrun some random pedestrians on the street and kill them.
6. A driver is a psychopath who believe that his happiness is the only thing that matters. He drives his car to overrun some random pedestrians on the street and kill them for fun.
In all of those cases, the chronology is identical for a few last minutes before people die. But moral judgment to the driver is not necessarily equal. It depends on where the false information lies in the driver's believe system hierarchy. Higher levels of believe system of a conscious agent have more influence on the agent's behavior in the long run.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 00:48:47
2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible
3 In a civilised society the state investigates and punishes criminals. You may not kill except in selfdefence or to prevent an ongoing crime - and even then, "reasonable force" is a test. So the action is immoral under test 1: you wouldn't want anyone to kill you just because you looked like someone else.
4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 01:13:49
Go back to Heinz. Theft is illegal but in this case not immoral. Tax evasion is another example.You seem to overlook my last question.
Does paying taxes pass your tests?
Your statements are quite short, but their implications seem to have a wide range. I'd like to know some hidden assumptions underlying those statements to prevent misunderstandings. Can you write them down here?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 01:15:40
2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensibleLet's change the word drunk with sleepy. Does it make a difference?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 07:47:19
1 is an accident."death by misadventure" would be recorded and the driver cannot be considered guilty or morally flawed.I wonder if you made those moral judgements using your morality tests. How do you make them work?
2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible
3 In a civilised society the state investigates and punishes criminals. You may not kill except in selfdefence or to prevent an ongoing crime - and even then, "reasonable force" is a test. So the action is immoral under test 1: you wouldn't want anyone to kill you just because you looked like someone else.
4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 14:11:55
Let's change the word drunk with sleepy. Does it make a difference?Not much. Unless you can prove a sudden medical condition, driving whilst knowingly unfit for any reason is an offence, so it wouldn't make a good defence. If you knew you were sleepy, you know you should not have been driving. If you claim that you were not sleepy, you were driving dangerously. If you are prone to epilepsy or narcolepsy your license will carry an endorsement requiring the correct medication, or you may be refused a licence if it is not controllable.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 14:19:13
Does paying taxes pass your tests?Most people have no choice but to pay taxes or go to jail. If you think that your government is spending taxpayers' money immorally, your moral duty is to complain or move elsewhere. There is often a conflict between moral duty and personal survival, but it doesn't change the basic tests any more than having ambitions in conflict with your bank balance - the ambitions are still valid!.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 14:29:20
I'd like to know some hidden assumptions underlying those statements to prevent misunderstandings.There are none. AFAIK everyone has an idea of how he likes to be treated and how he should treat his chosen partner.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 15:59:31
So let me help you identify those hidden assumptions, which are required to make your statements reasonable. In the case of tax evasion, you assumed that people live in a society which applies some form of taxation. It's not always be the case.I'd like to know some hidden assumptions underlying those statements to prevent misunderstandings.There are none. AFAIK everyone has an idea of how he likes to be treated and how he should treat his chosen partner.
There is also assumption that going to jail is necessarily a bad thing. It may be true most of the time, unless if your life is extremely adventurous. It also assumed that punishment for tax evasion is going to jail, but there are alternatives, such as fine or death penalty.
For your tests which are similar to golden rule, they assumed that people have similar preferences and similar ability to think. They don't seem to realize that people can have widely different preferences. They don't seem to consider mentally disabled people.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2020 17:48:43
I was careful to distinguish between legality and morality. And I've even given an instance where complying with the law could be immoral but practically unavoidable.
Adultery is not illegal in a civilised society, but it fails the first moral test because people expect others to keep their promises - why else make them?There is no moral principle involved if you want to go to jail because that decision per se doesn't affect anyone else.
There are no valid tests "similar to" the golden rule - either you would like others to do it to you, or you wouldn't. That's an absolute.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 23:35:12
There you don't seem to use your tests to make your judgement in cases 1 and 2. You would need a preliminary test for those cases to dismiss them as moral problems.1 is an accident."death by misadventure" would be recorded and the driver cannot be considered guilty or morally flawed.I wonder if you made those moral judgements using your morality tests. How do you make them work?
2. Drunken driving is a particular criminal offence whether or not anyone is injured, and because it puts "persons unknown" in danger, is morally reprehensible
3 In a civilised society the state investigates and punishes criminals. You may not kill except in selfdefence or to prevent an ongoing crime - and even then, "reasonable force" is a test. So the action is immoral under test 1: you wouldn't want anyone to kill you just because you looked like someone else.
4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.
For case 3, nobody wants to be executed from false accusation, but it happens every once in a while. The risk of punishing innocent people due to misidentification doesn't stop justice systems from executing punishment.
Case #4 is not random. It's because the victims happen to be in a specific place. Case #5 is like case #4 but the place is enlarged to cover a city or a country.
Sam Harris mentioned in his book a case where an ordinary person turned into a mass murderer because of brain tumor which made his brain to malfunction. In case #6, the brain dysfunction was permanent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2020 23:41:04
Adultery is not illegal in a civilised society, but it fails the first moral test because people expect others to keep their promises - why else make them?There is no moral principle involved if you want to go to jail because that decision per se doesn't affect anyone else.There are societies that don't restrict the number of one's spouse. In this case no promise is broken by having other lovers.
So your rules don't work for someone who don't mind going to jail.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2020 01:01:27
Your first test is called golden rule, in case you forgot.What makes you think that following your rules are right or good?I don't need to. And they aren't rules but tests: I ask the question and leave the respondent to decide whether his proposed action is justifiable .QuoteWhat makes ignoring or violating them wrong or bad?They are tests, not rules, of justification (benefit/cost).QuoteHow can someone without a wife follow your second rule, e.g. kids, bachelors? or someone with more than 1 wife?It's never been a problem but the question can be adapted to suit the circumstances. I had an enthusiastic inventor wanting to trial his intravaginal ultrasound probe. I thought the electrical and thermal insulation were inadequate, so rather than argue about it, I said "stick it up your arse and switch it on". We never saw him again.
There is no theoretical limit to what we might do in the guise of science, but a lot of what Nazi and Japanese scientists did in the 1930s and 40s, and quite a bit of what went on in the civilised world in the 1950s, would not pass either of the moral tests I have set out in this thread:Golden rule inevitably implies that what's good for you is also good for everyone else, and what's bad for you is also bad for everyone else. In real life, we can find many counterexamples and loopholes which can be exploited for personal gain. People have different preferences. Some philosophers realized this and develop subjective/relative morality. But this morality is useless and can't be the basis for authorities and law makers to create rules to guide their people.
1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
2. Would you do this to your wife?
so various august bodies in Geneva, Helsinki and elsewhere tend to exercise themselves with questions of the morality of scientific endeavour.
Science and engineering have come a long way in the last 100 years, to the point that we rarely ask "can we?" and are beginning to ask "should we?" more frequently.
Why "universal"? Because whilst idiots try to divide the world with politics and religion, scientists like collaborating with other enquiring minds, no matter where they live or what their parents did on Sunday.
You also found a loophole, otherwise you won't add the second test as an attempt to close it. But this ad hoc patch can't close all the loop holes created by the golden rule. You need a more fundamental principle to build a consistent moral system.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2020 04:59:10
4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.Tell that to Harry Truman.
Most terrorists usually believe that civilians in enemy's territory are supporters of their governments which enables them to oppress the terrorists' allies. Those civilians are regarded as enemies as well.
Religious terrorists usually don't mind being killed in their action. They believe that by being a martyr, they will get infinitely better life in the afterlife.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2020 16:10:45
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 12:45:12
WWII was unique in being a war of "attrition at a distance". In Europe and Africa the exceptional mobility of ground forces compared with previous conflicts depended on the quantity and quality of vehicles, which were manufactured by civilians thousands of miles away. Thus the English Midlands and the Ruhr Valley were as legitimate targets as baggage trains had been since the ancient Greeks first organised land armies. Frontline tactics were important but equally balanced: the winner would be whichever side could continue to supply men and munitions as the fronts advanced, hence Atlantic and Baltic convoys and their own problems of attrition.4, 5 and 6. Intentional random killing is against any recognisable moral code. Your motives and beliefs are irrelevant: you wouldn't want anyone else to kill you for his beliefs or pleasure, even if you are motivated to kill your wife, so they fail Test 1.Tell that to Harry Truman.
The mass displacement of civilians as a means to disrupt military operations, and the assumption that civilians were necessarily hostile, probably took root in the Spanish civil war.
The Pacific war involved even greater distances and the Doolittle raid on Tokyo (1942) was a shambles. The Japanese balloon-borne bombs were a work of insane genius and brilliant engineering, intended to cause random civilian casualties in the USA.
I think there is a distinction between random civilians, civilians in support of armed troops, and collateral casualties Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important military supply targets and easily identifiable from high altitude, so ideal targets to demonstrate the ultimate weapon of attrition, economically delivered by a single aircraft.
Quote
On August 6, the B-29 Enola Gay dropped a Little Boy on Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters. Three days later, to take advantage of favorable weather, the B-29 Bockscar dropped a Fat Man on Nagasaki, a major military port, one of Japan's largest shipbuilding and repair centers, and an important producer of naval ordnance.Kokura and Niigata were also selected targets but it was not necessary to bomb them.
Quote
Most terrorists usually believe that civilians in enemy's territory are supporters of their governments which enables them to oppress the terrorists' allies. Those civilians are regarded as enemies as well.
Religious terrorists usually don't mind being killed in their action. They believe that by being a martyr, they will get infinitely better life in the afterlife.
This needs a bit of unpicking. If you want to be a martyr, you can offer yourself as a sacrifice by personally offending someone else's sensibilities and asking them to kill you rather than convert you. That way, everybody is satisfied. Mutual informed consent overrides any third party view of morality, which is why the only moral objection to online casinos is in the use of the word "play" when the truth is "lose".
Terrorism has a patchy record of success. A few random killings certainly turned legitimate grievances into Irish independence, but their continuation in Northern Ireland resulted in misgovernment (at my considerable expense) by the spokesmen of organised criminals. Religious terrorism has resulted in the disruption of air travel and the rearrangement of the rubble in Afghanistan for the umpteenth time. It isn't clear what has been achieved elsewhere apart from unjustified distrust and loathing of innocent civilians who happen to share the terrorists' declared superstitions.
But back to the plot. Would you be happy if I killed or injured you without provocation? Would you kill your nearest and dearest without enquiring about their religious beliefs? Failed on both moral tests, I think.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2020 14:11:57
Kokura and Niigata were also selected targets but it was not necessary to bomb them.Nagasaki was an alternative target. The original target was Kokura. It was changed due to bad weather.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2020 14:58:02
But back to the plot. Would you be happy if I killed or injured you without provocation? Would you kill your nearest and dearest without enquiring about their religious beliefs? Failed on both moral tests, I think.No. But I have different reasoning. For me, golden rule is just an instrumental goal to help achieving the more fundamental and universal goal. It just happens that in this case they overlap, presumably due to an evolutionary process. In other cases where they don't, I will abandon golden rule and follow the universal moral rules instead.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2020 23:42:44
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/12/2020 12:24:34
Your alternative reasoning is unnecessary. I have demonstrated that the conundrum you presented, can be resolved by my very simple tests, without making any assumptions about fundamental universal goals, and my resolution is consistent with civilised behavior.Your tests, which are golden rule with a patch, cannot be universal because they only work for very specific situations. I've described their limitations in previous posts which you haven't addresed yet.
Here is another example. Some people are patriotic and willing to sacrifice themselves or even their own families to defend their country. Some others don't. They even deceive the government to prevent their family members from a war draft.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 13:26:59
In the words of General Patton "No goddam sonofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making the enemy die for his." You would do well to defer to that expert opinion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/12/2020 14:00:17
Sacrificing yourself is not a moral decision since it affects nobody else. Sacrificing your family may pass test 2 (you said you'd do it to your wife) but probably won't pass test 1 (you wouldn't like it if somebody else sacrificed you for his country).The sacrifice is not always means losing one's life. Risking one's life to go to war can already be considered a sacrifice.
In the words of General Patton "No goddam sonofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making the enemy die for his." You would do well to defer to that expert opinion.
You've just redefined morality to "something explainable by golden rule (and its patch)", hence other things unexplainable by them are excluded.
Let me remind you again the definition of morality according to dictionary:
Quote
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 15:18:09
Sacrifice necessarily involves loss of something you hold dear and irreplaceable. Anything else is just "business".
Post by: charles1948 on 04/12/2020 23:10:22
And I have offered two tests that determine whether a proposed action constitutes good or bad behavior.
Sacrifice necessarily involves loss of something you hold dear and irreplaceable. Anything else is just "business".
Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2020 23:21:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2020 05:24:47
And I have offered two tests that determine whether a proposed action constitutes good or bad behavior.You haven't addresed the loopholes left by your tests. Do you really think that whatever is good for you is always good for everyone else?
Sacrifice necessarily involves loss of something you hold dear and irreplaceable. Anything else is just "business".
A man rushes into a burning house to save a crying baby. His action risking his own life is considered a sacrifice, even when he doesn't end up dead.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2020 10:51:59
Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?Perhaps you are not interested to this topic, but that's not a reason to hush others who are. You haven't found any conclusion doesn't mean others will fail too. Not so long ago reusable rocket was thought to be impossible, even by world's leading rocket engineers. But now it has been the norm. People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2020 13:00:07
Let me remind you again the definition of morality according to dictionary:Discussion of morality will inevitably compare many different situations, decisions, actions, and behaviors with many different results or consequences. Good behaviors are expected to bring good consequences in the long run. Comparing many possible results will show us the best case scenario as well as the worst case, and everything in between.Quoteprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
I've explore those scenario in another thread.
In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.In many religious beliefs, the best case scenario above is taken for granted. So their efforts are never directed towards achieving that. Instead, they set arbitrarily chosen preferred conditions as their terminal goal.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
On the other hand, the worst case scenario is dismissed without adequate justification. This creates false security that whatever we do, it is guaranteed that the consequences will never bring that worse case scenario.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2020 13:04:24
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2020 15:35:05
Do you really think that whatever is good for you is always good for everyone else?I haven't suggested that. Test 1 is essentially negative: would you be happy if I did whatever you are proposing, to you?
Quote
A man rushes into a burning house to save a crying baby. His action risking his own life is considered a sacrifice, even when he doesn't end up dead.[ No. The action is considered a risk, and any harm he suffers as a result may be considered a sacrifice in retrospect, but he didn't intend to get injured. He might sacrifice a kidney to save a life, or sacrifice a chicken to the rain gods. Sacrifice involves intentional loss or harm.
Right now I am studying the ethics of a proposed experimental surgical intervention. If the hypothesis is correct, the outcome will be better than standard treatment: if the hypothesis is incorrect, the outcome will be no better. But the risk of permanent and serious disability is increased by the additional intervention. I need to go through the probabilities with the surgeon and assess his team's level of confidence in their own skill. I propose Test 1 on the probabilities and Test 2 on their skills.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2020 23:10:41
I haven't suggested that. Test 1 is essentially negative: would you be happy if I did whatever you are proposing, to you?That's the logical implication of golden rule, unless if what you want is not necessarily good. But then it will be detached from morality as we commonly define it.
Yes, as long as it is scientifically demonstrated to have the consequences which help achieving the best case scenario.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 00:07:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 04:02:12
Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness. If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.
What is expected to happen if everyone follow your tests? What are their deliverables? Why ignoring them is wrong?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 06:01:05
A mentally disabled person may doesn't mind to be hurt, while having no one to love. It doesn't mean that he can justiffiably hurt someone else, although it doesn't violate golden rule.
You can say that the exceptions to golden rule are rare among average humans, but you can't say they don't exist. Those exceptions disqualify the rule from being a universal standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 07:07:49
Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter and Joshua's massacre of the Canaanite may be seen as moral actions in ancient Jewish moral standard. But most modern moral standards consider them as immoral.
Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 08:43:11
If we follow the logic and use the required concepts consistently, we will inevitably arrive to those extreme possibilities. In the other thread I called the best case scenario as universal utopia.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 12:52:46
"Unexpected results come from false assumptions."
In a deep belief network which represents how information is organized in the mind of conscious agents, those assumptions is called belief (duh) .
In my previous example of moral cases, we can see that immorality comes from false information in one or more belief layers, although people may also see them from different angles. Morality is more concerned with high level believes while lower level believes are mostly viewed as technical problems. But there is no clear cut level where the information located there starts/stops becoming a moral issue, hence moral/immoral actions is not a dichotomy. Rather they are more like fuzzy logic where higher level believes weight more in moral judgements.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 12:56:28
A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.1.Proof required.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 13:04:15
In other words there is no universal definition of best case, even if we have an accepted and universal definition of consciousness.Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness.
Quote
If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.I don't need one! My tests carry an internal reference.
Quote
What is expected to happen if everyone follow your tests?People won't do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.
Quote
What are their deliverables?An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.
Quote
Why ignoring them is wrong?Because the prospective agent has judged the action (including intentional inaction) wrong.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 13:05:53
Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.Do they pass my tests?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 13:21:52
Jephtah's sacrifice of his daughter and Joshua's massacre of the Canaanite may be seen as moral actions in ancient Jewish moral standard.
1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.
2. Act of war or territorial conquest, excused (as nearly always) by religious rhetoric. AFAIK there may have been some genuine casus belli but the Bible isn't the most reliable source of historical fact.
Moral scruples have to be set aside in a hot war. No point in being good if you are dead. My favorite New Yorker cartoon was of a "kindly old man" with a rifle across his knees, telling his grandchildren "Being a pacifist doesn't mean you are a wimp."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 15:41:28
Cogito ergo sum.A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.1.Proof required.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT
It must be true because its negation leads to contradiction.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 15:46:42
People won't do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.have you heard a kid who willingly has his hand cut for stealing? he believe that punishment in this world will free him from eternal punishment in afterlife.
Have you heard about honor killing?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 15:48:40
Some of them do.Even in modern world, a few societies still think that hand amputation for theft and dead penalty for changing religion are considered as moral actions.Do they pass my tests?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 15:51:31
1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.How do you think about them in moral perspective? Are they moral, immoral, or non-moral?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 15:52:38
Quote
QuoteCogito ergo sum.QuoteQuote from: hamdani yusuf on Today at 08:43:111.Proof required.
A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth.
2. Define a UFT
3. State a UFT
It must be true because its negation leads to contradiction.
You might as well say that a house can only be built on a suitable foundation.
Then you define "suitable" as "strong enough to support a house". I think a builder would like a bit more detail.
Cogito ergo cogitans sum, indeed, but you can't draw any further inferences!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 15:56:30
An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.Why do you think it's good?
Would it matter if they are all dead due to a natural disaster?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:01:23
A ridiculous belief, but within that belief, a logical choice with no moral implications because it doesn't affect anyone else. It does raise some other questions about being buried intact in order to enter the afterlife, so he'd have to find some way of preserving the amputated hand, but I don't search too deeply for consistency in religious law.People won't do things that they would consider offensive if done to them, or wouldn't be happy to do to their loved ones.have you heard a kid who willingly has his hand cut for stealing? he believe that punishment in this world will free him from eternal punishment in afterlife.
Quote
Have you heard about honor killing?Yes. You first despise your daughter because some pervert has told you to do so, then kill her. Passes Test 2 by default because you no longer love her, but not Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I killed you for any reason, let alone one that was none of my legitimate concern.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:06:18
I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)1. Payment of war debt. Stupid idea to make a contract with a disproven hypothesis. If the Almighty was (a) almighty and (b) on your side, there'd be no need to fight. Religion often boils down to a lack of faith in itself.How do you think about them in moral perspective? Are they moral, immoral, or non-moral?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:11:26
I have defined it as such through my tests.An absence of knowingly harmful actions against others.Why do you think it's good?
Quote
Would it matter if they are all dead due to a natural disaster?Not a moral matter. With luck, we all die from natural causes, and a chance encounter with an avalanche is no different from one with a virus.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:27:57
Cogito ergo cogitans sum, indeed, but you can't draw any further inferences!IMO it is the bridge between conceptual truth (like logic and math) and physical reality.
The next step after establishing foundation is explaining what consciousness is. We can start by taking observations and comparing differences and similarities among various things, either conscious or not. The result is then processed to extract which information is important and significant to be used to build a model of reality in our minds.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:34:01
A ridiculous belief, but within that belief, a logical choice with no moral implications because it doesn't affect anyone else.It does affect someone elses. At least it casts fear among his classmates to steal in the future. It also ignited heated political debates about religious laws.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:40:32
Yes. You first despise your daughter because some pervert has told you to do so, then kill her. Passes Test 2 by default because you no longer love her, but not Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I killed you for any reason, let alone one that was none of my legitimate concern.Not necessarily. There are known people who are willing to accept death penalty to redeem their sin.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:44:10
I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:51:08
I have defined it as such through my tests.Then your definition of good is different than the consensus as found in the dictionaries. So when you discuss it with someone elses, you'll need to state it explicitly so they know what you mean. Hence you can prevent an informal logical fallacy and save your time and theirs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:57:04
Not a moral matter. With luck, we all die from natural causes, and a chance encounter with an avalanche is no different from one with a virus.Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 22:14:34
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 06:48:22
Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?Even in modern day, there are still some societies which believe that homosexuality makes god angry and send natural disasters like hurricane and earthquake unless they do something to stop it. Some have even gone as far as executing gays in public by throwing them from high buildings.
How your moral standards evaluate these situations?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 14:49:43
It does affect someone elses. At least it casts fear among his classmates to steal in the future. It also ignited heated political debates about religious laws.The statutory penalty casts fear, as intended by all statutory penalties. But the action of volunteering for that penalty affects nobody else.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 14:56:09
I have no objection to suicide or mercy killing. Passes both tests. Honor killing does not require consent and is therefore generally immoral (fails Test 1).Yes. You first despise your daughter because some pervert has told you to do so, then kill her. Passes Test 2 by default because you no longer love her, but not Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I killed you for any reason, let alone one that was none of my legitimate concern.Not necessarily. There are known people who are willing to accept death penalty to redeem their sin.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 15:23:26
Here are some cases:Self-sacrifice has no moral implications. Test 1 is satisfied and test 2 is irrelevant.
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?
Sacrificing someone else for any reason is immoral. NB there is an exception in wartime - see the Calais Garrison during Dunkirk.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 15:27:08
Test 1. Would you like to be thrown from a building on account of some ignorant pervert's bizarre and untested hypothesis? Probably not.Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?Even in modern day, there are still some societies which believe that homosexuality makes god angry and send natural disasters like hurricane and earthquake unless they do something to stop it. Some have even gone as far as executing gays in public by throwing them from high buildings.
How your moral standards evaluate these situations?
Test 2. Would you do it to your nearest and dearest because said pervert told you to? See "honor killing" above.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 15:30:14
Test 1. Would you be happy if I could save you but didn't?Not a moral matter. With luck, we all die from natural causes, and a chance encounter with an avalanche is no different from one with a virus.Don't you think it's immoral to know that a natural disaster is about to happen, but do nothing to save lives from it?
Test 2. Would you happily stand by and watch your wife disappear under an avalanche?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 21:23:47
The statutory penalty casts fear, as intended by all statutory penalties. But the action of volunteering for that penalty affects nobody else.The fact that it was executed at all lends credibility to the rule. Unlike many other rules which are no longer obeyed by modern societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 21:34:11
It's commonly understood that altruistic behaviors reflect high moral value. Donating a dollar for charity is a good thing. But if you do that while having nothing else, you are usually considered to have better moral compared to if you're a billionaire.Here are some cases:Self-sacrifice has no moral implications. Test 1 is satisfied and test 2 is irrelevant.
1. Bruce Willis'character in the movie Armageddon sacrifice his life to save humanity from extinction.
2. Jephtah's daughter sacrificed herself to prevent God's wrath which could kill many of her people through natural disaster.
3. Jephtah's sacrificed her daughter to prevent God's wrath if he break his promise.
Can you see the difference and similarities?
Sacrificing someone else for any reason is immoral. NB there is an exception in wartime - see the Calais Garrison during Dunkirk.
Your recognition of an exception implies that you don't really think that the rule is universal. The follow up question would be, what is the justification for the exceptions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 21:43:10
Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience?
Is it contagious? Can it be cured?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 22:09:40
The next question is what makes something good or bad? If your answer is their compliance with moral rules, then you are stuck in a vicious circle.
The only viable alternative is to refer to some terminal goals. Good things help achieving that goals while bad things induce failure to achieve them. A universal morality requires a universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 22:41:30
The fact that it was executed at all lends credibility to the rule. Unlike many other rules which are no longer obeyed by modern societies.For which we are truly grateful. Stealing sheep is still illegal but transportation to Australia wouldn't be seen as a punishment nowadays.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 22:55:08
It's commonly understood that altruistic behaviors reflect high moral value. Donating a dollar for charity is a good thing. But if you do that while having nothing else, you are usually considered to have better moral compared to if you're a billionaire.The parable of the widow's mite is reflected in progressive taxation, and sadly it is the case that the poor are proportionately more generous than the rich, but whilst charity is a Good Thing I think "quantitative morality" is a bit different from good vs bad.
Quote
Your recognition of an exception implies that you don't really think that the rule is universal. The follow up question would be, what is the justification for the exceptions?The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and 20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 23:12:40
What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions?Putting self-gratification above any concern for the wellbeing of others is ultimately an expression of the will to survive and therefore inherent in all living things which would otherwise die rather than inconvenience the next guy. Morality is a bit of a luxury because it is irrelevant where there is no choice. But some people do it to excess, as defined by law.
Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience?
Is it contagious? Can it be cured?
I consider the "negative" basis of English law to be superior to all others. The state exists to serve the citizen, and where citizens would be harmed or inconvenienced by an action, the state makes that illegal and provides the mechanism for prevention and punishment. As a result, Voltaire observed that "the English have very few laws and they obey them all". And it's consistent with my tests of morality.
As time goes on, we have acquired an awful lot of trivial laws but got rid of some sigificant restrictions, in particular about sexual behavior that does not affect third parties - the area that most people consider to deal with "immorality".
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 23:21:49
A universal morality requires a universal terminal goal.If I allow this, for the sake of argument, them my tests tend to the greatest happiness for the greatest number by eliminating actions that lead to unhappiness for others.
But you can't expand "universality" beyond a couple of species. What makes me and a dog very happy, is the death of a thousand fleas, because life is inherently competitive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 02:11:46
The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and 20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.What if the sacrifice was made by the other side? Would it be eligible as a moral action too?
If kamikaze pilots were successful in destroying allies fleet and save their comrades, would they be called morally heroic?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2020 09:48:35
I think you missed the point. The overriding moral imperative was to defeat the Nazis, and the immediate objective was to evacuate as many troops as possible, so a decision was made to sacrifice a few in order to protect the many.The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and 20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.What if the sacrifice was made by the other side? Would it be eligible as a moral action too?
Quote
If kamikaze pilots were successful in destroying allies fleet and save their comrades, would they be called morally heroic?
Test 1. Would you like it if someone bombed your ship?
Test 2. Would you bomb a ship if your wife was on it?
Suicide has no moral aspect in my book unless it involves harm to others. So we only need to judge the intentional harm. If the moral imperative is to destroy the US navy, the action may be justified in context as expending the least number of personnel to achieve the objective. So we look at the bigger picture and review the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor.
1. Would you like it if I attacked your naval base?
2. Would you attack a military establishment that was not threatening you, if your wife was in the camp?
Once you have poked the wasp's nest, you have no right to complain if they sting you.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37
I quite agree that people who say: "it's impossible - it cannot be done" usually turn out to be wrong. At least, they do in the field of Science and Engineering. As you rightly intimate, such things as manned rockets to the Moon, were once thought "impossible". Until NASA scientists and engineers accomplished in short-order between 1961 and 1969, a spectacular demonstration that they are possible. That took just 8 years!Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?Perhaps you are not interested to this topic, but that's not a reason to hush others who are. You haven't found any conclusion doesn't mean others will fail too. Not so long ago reusable rocket was thought to be impossible, even by world's leading rocket engineers. But now it has been the norm. People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
There are loads of other examples in Science of seemingly "impossible" things being quickly shown to be possible.
However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!
If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:47:02
Test 1. Would you like it if someone bombed your ship?I guess noone would like to be nuked either.
Test 2. Would you bomb a ship if your wife was on it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:50:01
However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:57:44
Suicide has no moral aspect in my book unless it involves harm to others. So we only need to judge the intentional harm. If the moral imperative is to destroy the US navy, the action may be justified in context as expending the least number of personnel to achieve the objective. So we look at the bigger picture and review the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor.AFAIK, Japan attacked US because US supplied weaponry to their enemies.
1. Would you like it if I attacked your naval base?
2. Would you attack a military establishment that was not threatening you, if your wife was in the camp?
Once you have poked the wasp's nest, you have no right to complain if they sting you.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2020 23:20:56
Interesting that nobody declared war on Sweden for supplying weapons to everyone in the 1930s.
My point is that morality and politics rarely cohabit (politicians being for the most part amoral or immoral scum) and when politics fails (as it always does) the best you can do is to minimise casualties on whichever side of the line you happen to be standing, whilst maximising destruction on the other side.
Post by: charles1948 on 09/12/2020 01:13:00
However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Pardon?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 03:55:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 04:13:39
whilst maximising destruction on the other side.The best war strategy is winning it while minimising lost on both sides. Sun tzu had acknowledge this many centuries ago. As I said many times, efficiency is a universal instrumental goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 04:17:48
Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is meaningless?However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Pardon?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 04:29:12
I agree that self preference is a product of evolutionary process. Those who lack of it tend to extinct.What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions?Putting self-gratification above any concern for the wellbeing of others is ultimately an expression of the will to survive and therefore inherent in all living things which would otherwise die rather than inconvenience the next guy. Morality is a bit of a luxury because it is irrelevant where there is no choice. But some people do it to excess, as defined by law.
Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience?
Is it contagious? Can it be cured?
I consider the "negative" basis of English law to be superior to all others. The state exists to serve the citizen, and where citizens would be harmed or inconvenienced by an action, the state makes that illegal and provides the mechanism for prevention and punishment. As a result, Voltaire observed that "the English have very few laws and they obey them all". And it's consistent with my tests of morality.
As time goes on, we have acquired an awful lot of trivial laws but got rid of some sigificant restrictions, in particular about sexual behavior that does not affect third parties - the area that most people consider to deal with "immorality".
But I don't think that your next sentences answered my questions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 04:35:47
You seem to miss this one to.I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2020 13:43:56
OK, say there's a fool who will be happy if I kill him, never mind the reason.You seem to miss this one to.I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?
Test 1. If I were that fool, I'd be happy because that's how we defined the fool
Test 2. Yes. I'd hope for a more intelligent reason but I think it is almost a moral imperative to kill anyone who wants to die and can't kill themselves.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2020 13:48:30
I agree that self preference is a product of evolutionary process. Those who lack of it tend to extinct.Selfpreference is essential to, rather than a product of, evolution.
But I don't think that your next sentences answered my questions.
The following sentences explained how excessive selfpreference is curbed by law in a civilised country, as the UK used to be.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 14:42:14
Why don't you try to convince them to stay alive so they can do good things and contribute to the society?OK, say there's a fool who will be happy if I kill him, never mind the reason.You seem to miss this one to.I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?
Test 1. If I were that fool, I'd be happy because that's how we defined the fool
Test 2. Yes. I'd hope for a more intelligent reason but I think it is almost a moral imperative to kill anyone who wants to die and can't kill themselves.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2020 15:30:46
This does raise the interesting question of just what would happen if I broke a pact with the Devil. I could expect damnation if I cheated God, but taking the piss out of His Infernal Enemy should lead to everlasting joy and reward in Heaven.
Perhaps someone who believes this kind of bullshit can offer an answer. Recorded, witnessed or corroborated experience only, please, no statements of faith or guesswork.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 21:53:22
Selfpreference is essential to, rather than a product of, evolution.The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection. In the earliest stages of the process, self preference didn't even exist yet. Thus I concluded that it's the product.
.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 22:01:28
What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2020 23:56:31
The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.
The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/12/2020 00:01:58
In an extreme case where everyone is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones.Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.
What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2020 03:51:38
It's weird, but not impossible.In an extreme case where everyone is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones.Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.
What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?
In other words, your moral principles have no objection on this issue. But moral principles of others may disagree.
In the scenario above, everyone is convinced, including children.
How do you define children?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2020 03:53:36
Self awareness came later in the process.The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.
The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2020 10:26:11
In case you haven't get this clear yet.Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is meaningless?However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Pardon?
You said that moonlanding is worth trying because the problem can be solved in 8 years.
On the other hand, you also said that identifying universal moral standard is not worth trying because the problem hasn't been solved in 2000 years.
The question is, if a problem hasn't been solved for x years, where 8 < x <2000, how do you determine if the problem is worth solving? What is the threshold value of x where problem's worthiness start to change?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/12/2020 11:21:08
How do you define children?The law varies a bit between countries but generally under-16s cannot give consent. That's necessarily arbitrary and fine by me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2020 04:18:48
IMO, the most fundamental concept in the most general sense is information protection, as I've mentioned earlier.Self awareness came later in the process.The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.
The most fundamental requirement is sufficient sefishness to survive. Then natural selection requires conscious or unconscious competitiveness, whether to outgrow the adjacent tree or fight for mating rights. Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.
For any true statement, there are infinitely many alternatives that are false.That information protection business applies broadly to any level of consciousness, from level 0 such as stones to infinity for Laplace's demon. Being hard as a diamond is a form of information protection. Being immersed in amber or buried under permafrost are some other methods. But those kind of protections are brittle. Some brief environmental changes can destroy them irreversibly. Some simple locomotion ability can often be effective in preventing the destruction.
Since the existence of the thinker is the only thing that can't be doubted, it must be defended at all cost.Finally we get to the last question: how. There are some basic strategies to preserve information which I borrow from IT business:The existence of a thinker is subject to natural selection.
Choosing robust media.
Creating multilayer protection.
Creating backups.
Create diversity to avoid common mode failures.
Thinkers who has backups tend to be better at survival than those who don't.
Thinkers who reproduce backups to replace the destroyed copies tend to survive better, otherwise, all of the copies will eventually break down.
Thinkers who actively protect their copies tend to survive better than those who don't.
Thinkers who produce better version of themselves at survival tend to survive better than who don't.
Evolution process can be viewed as trial and error to achieve balance among different methods to protect information. Its effectiveness has been resembled by genetic algorithm with much higher speed and efficiency.
Being conscious offers flexibility to choose the most effective strategy and shifting balance among various methods according to current and future environmental conditions.
Moral rules are methods to protect conscious beings from threats by other conscious beings. Threats coming from non-conscious beings are better handled using other methods.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2020 07:31:18
Evolution process can be viewed as trial and error to achieve balanceOnly by those who think there is an objective and evolution is purposive towards that objective. There is no evidence for this.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2020 10:28:56
Only by those who think there is an objective and evolution is purposive towards that objective. There is no evidence for this.Those who think that there is a goal would be at an advantage compared to those who don't, especially if the goal is supporting their survival. Those who don't survive just can no longer argue against that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2020 02:26:26
In an extreme case where everyone is somehow convinced that humans are cancer to the earth and the best case is when the planet is free from humans. They are all willing to die together with their loved ones.Such suicide is weird but has no moral consequence if it doesn't inconvenience others. The only objection to such cults is if they kill people unable to give informed consent - i.e. children.
What do our fundamental moral principles say about this situations?
It's even weirder that you are the one who suggest this similar idea earlier in this thread.
So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.Far from it.
If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.
If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.
If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.
The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.
How do you define what's better or worst morally then?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2020 02:40:30
Very few species apart from the social insects seem to have evolved collaboratively.All multicellular organisms are product of collaboration among many cells. Here are some other forms of collaboration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(biology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2020 15:43:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2020 06:30:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2020 06:32:20
Quote
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right, or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most. Jonathan Haidt studies how -- and why -- we evolved to be moral. By understanding more about our moral roots, his hope is that we can learn to be civil and open-minded.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2020 12:16:56
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2020 13:32:48
Species is just a convenient way for classifying living organisms, especially when they reproduce sexually. Phenomena like ring species blurred its definition and usefulness. AFAIK, there is no consensus on how much difference is the threshold to classify two organisms as separate species. Even some humans carry different percentages of Neanderthals' genetic codes.Even so, we can distinguish between worker, soldier, drone and queen bees and ants, and as they all have the same parents they obviously belong to the same species however you define it. But I don't think you can find such morphological specialisation in a slime mold, even though the cells all have different parents.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2020 19:07:17
An example of the willingness to sacrifice is shown in this video, starting at 2:30
A willingness to sacrifice others. Nothing new there - it's the essence of politics, religion and economics. But would he add himself or his wife to the pile of corpses and the legion of permanently disabled ? I suspect a fail on both counts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2020 02:58:42
Even so, we can distinguish between worker, soldier, drone and queen bees and ants, and as they all have the same parents they obviously belong to the same species however you define it. But I don't think you can find such morphological specialisation in a slime mold, even though the cells all have different parents.Which species does a liger or a tion belong to?
It is generally accepted that hominids with merged second chromosome are descendants of apes with separated chromosomes. Do they belong to the same species?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2020 03:05:42
A willingness to sacrifice others. Nothing new there - it's the essence of politics, religion and economics. But would he add himself or his wife to the pile of corpses and the legion of permanently disabled ? I suspect a fail on both counts.I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed. But there is no guarantee that none of us do either. I've seen a video of an old man expressing his willingness to sacrifice himself, although I can't confirm his honesty when expressing it.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2020 23:24:55
Which species does a liger or a tion belong to?I think they are generally regarded as two distinct species, like mules and hinnies.
Quote
It is generally accepted that hominids with merged second chromosome are descendants of apes with separated chromosomes. Do they belong to the same species?If you like. There is no hard definition of species, or beige. It's an occasionally useful label to distinguish between animals or colors.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2020 23:29:54
I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed.And there we have the essence of morality: it's the majority answer to the test questions. A person who answers "yes" to both questions is regarded as (1) deviant and (2) immoral.
Post by: charles1948 on 20/12/2020 19:26:11
I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed.And there we have the essence of morality: it's the majority answer to the test questions. A person who answers "yes" to both questions is regarded as (1) deviant and (2) immoral.
Doesn't it depend on whether the person who answers the questions is a civilian, or a member of the Armed Forces.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2020 20:00:02
Post by: charles1948 on 20/12/2020 20:26:21
I've never met a soldier who wants to be sacrificed, or who particularly relishes the prospect of killing others. Nor a miner who wants to contract lung disease or make more dust than necessary. But everyone (except some Republicans) balances risk against reward.
You really think that people who join the Army, don't do it because they relish the prospect of being able to shoot people dead without getting sent to prison for it?
I mean, come on!
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2020 21:50:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2020 02:02:53
I've never met a soldier who wants to be sacrificed, or who particularly relishes the prospect of killing others. Nor a miner who wants to contract lung disease or make more dust than necessary. But everyone (except some Republicans) balances risk against reward.It doesn't mean that they don't exist. The existence of Kamikaze pilots, either by aeroplanes or torpedos is well documented. Many ISIS fighters were willing to sacrifice themselves. On the western side, may be you can watch the movie Danger Close about Australian soldiers in Vietnam war.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2020 02:04:43
How do you distinguish between them? Is it possible that there are 3rd option?I agree that most of us don't want to be sacrificed.And there we have the essence of morality: it's the majority answer to the test questions. A person who answers "yes" to both questions is regarded as (1) deviant and (2) immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2020 07:34:55
(https://external-preview.redd.it/rB967iWJQExg51wPjklbYNZRMauApqxf-XAkXGUn0m8.jpg?auto=webp&s=f4f978c66a276354b6323fa39cd93f1055ae653e)
Post by: charles1948 on 22/12/2020 17:53:06
If your pseudonym hints at your age, you probably saw "Alice's Restaurant", in which Arlo Guthrie is called up for duty in Vietnam and is turned down as mentally unfit because he says he really, really wants to kill people, but would like a choice of sides. Only politicians think like that, and get away with it.
I haven't seen the movie. But Arlo's stratagem seems a brilliant way of avoiding the draft. Or of avoiding any job you don't want to do. When interviewed for the job, just exhibit a disturbingly excessive enthusiasm for it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/12/2020 01:45:20
A doctor get an emergency patient from a terrible accident. He is unconscious, and his arms are severely damaged.
The doctor assessed that the patient's life can only be saved by amputation. Personally, he would rather die than to live as a disabled. Should he save the patient?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2020 11:56:47
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2020 05:14:54
Dealing with unconscious patients is easy. You ask yourself the standard two questions, because in the absence of any other information that is the best estimate you have of an average person's wishes and values. Above all, save life if you can, because that gives the patient more options than death.Now you've found one more patch to the golden rule.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2020 17:33:16
On recovering, I might well decide I'd rather be dead, but it's better to have the option and make one's own decision. That's where the law fails on both moral counts, by denying suicide to those who can't do it unaided.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2020 22:16:02
No patch. If I was injured and unconscious I'd most likely be grateful to anyone who saved my life, so test 1 is satisfied, and I'd certainly do whatever I could to save the life of my nearest and dearest. Test 2 satisfied.It's about what the doctor do to the patient vs what the doctor wants to be done to him if he were the patient. If they are the different,, whatever it is, the golden rule is being violated.
On recovering, I might well decide I'd rather be dead, but it's better to have the option and make one's own decision. That's where the law fails on both moral counts, by denying suicide to those who can't do it unaided.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/12/2020 11:22:41
The really crazy problem is where soldiers have been court-martialled for "finishing off" a seriously wounded enemy. War is not rugby.
Post by: charles1948 on 25/12/2020 19:55:56
The really crazy problem is where soldiers have been court-martialled for "finishing off" a seriously wounded enemy.:
This is military logic:
If an enemy soldier is standing up, you get a medal for shooting him.
But if the enemy soldier has already fallen down onto the ground, you get court-martialled for shooting him.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/12/2020 21:54:16
In the absence of any other evidence, your best bet is to assume that your unconscious patient would want the same as you. The law will not allow you to kill him, so that option is not a moral choice, though oddly it is a requirement if the patient is any other species, conscious or not, and in your professional opinion would be "better off dead."It's still a moral choice, i.e. between obeying the law or obeying his moral principle. Each options have their own consequences.
Let's say that the law with its reward and punishment system has tipped the balance toward saving the patient's life by amputating his arms. We can add to the scenario to tip the balance to the other direction. The doctor has experienced many similar cases previously. He saved all of previous patients, which then complaint that they would face terrible life they don't want to live. They prefer to die peacefully before regaining consciousness. Most of them get depressed and committed suicide.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/12/2020 22:00:33
This is military logic:IMO it's a long term strategy, which is meant to gain respect and credibility among their enemies, so that in the future they would be treated better in return, and the enemies won't fight as fierce as they would otherwise. It doesn't always work as intended though.
If an enemy soldier is standing up, you get a medal for shooting him.
But if the enemy soldier has already fallen down onto the ground, you get court-martialled for shooting him.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/12/2020 00:01:22
We can add to the scenario to tip the balance to the other direction. The doctor has experienced many similar cases previously. He saved all of previous patients, which then complaint that they would face terrible life they don't want to live. They prefer to die peacefully before regaining consciousness. Most of them get depressed and committed suicide.Suicide has no moral repercussions.
If you don't like flying, don't become a pilot. If you don't like saving lives, the medical profession is not for you. But having chosen your profession and faced with a planeload of passengers or an unconscious patient, nobody will blame you for doing your job.
The law (at least in the UK) does conflict with morality when a patient has asked to die, and I'm fairly certain that a degree of professional discretion is deployed from time to time. After all, Hippocrates goes on to say ".....nor strive officiously to prolong life" which is morally way ahead of anything a politician would dare to put his unworthy name to.
So here's the moral way to put things right. Propose a decent, watertight and explicit decriminalisation of assisting suicide. List all those who vote against it in Parliament, and keep them alive no matter what pain and indiginity they may suffer.
Back to the plot. Would you like it if I guessed on your behalf that you'd like to die? I think not. Would you be happy if I decided (without asking you) not to treat your nearest and dearest after an accident from which they could survive? I think not. So the tests are valid and in the case of the unconscious patient, the moral decision is to treat up to the Hippocratic limit.
Being left with no arms would indeed be a nasty surprise but https://www.grapplearts.com/jessica-cox-pilot some people start off that way and have a good life and https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0046035/bio having no legs doesn't stop one becoming a war hero. Death, on the other hand, is a bit final.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2020 03:08:57
We can add to the scenario to tip the balance to the other direction. The doctor has experienced many similar cases previously. He saved all of previous patients, which then complaint that they would face terrible life they don't want to live. They prefer to die peacefully before regaining consciousness. Most of them get depressed and committed suicide.Suicide has no moral repercussions.
If you don't like flying, don't become a pilot. If you don't like saving lives, the medical profession is not for you. But having chosen your profession and faced with a planeload of passengers or an unconscious patient, nobody will blame you for doing your job.
The law (at least in the UK) does conflict with morality when a patient has asked to die, and I'm fairly certain that a degree of professional discretion is deployed from time to time. After all, Hippocrates goes on to say ".....nor strive officiously to prolong life" which is morally way ahead of anything a politician would dare to put his unworthy name to.
So here's the moral way to put things right. Propose a decent, watertight and explicit decriminalisation of assisting suicide. List all those who vote against it in Parliament, and keep them alive no matter what pain and indiginity they may suffer.
Back to the plot. Would you like it if I guessed on your behalf that you'd like to die? I think not. Would you be happy if I decided (without asking you) not to treat your nearest and dearest after an accident from which they could survive? I think not. So the tests are valid and in the case of the unconscious patient, the moral decision is to treat up to the Hippocratic limit.
Being left with no arms would indeed be a nasty surprise but https://www.grapplearts.com/jessica-cox-pilot some people start off that way and have a good life and https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0046035/bio having no legs doesn't stop one becoming a war hero. Death, on the other hand, is a bit final.
If someone commits suicide after other people spend their resources to save him to the point of neglecting others who are also in needing situation, then I think it is reasonable for the helpers to judge him as immoral. In the light of a universal terminal goal, his immorality comes from inefficiency due to wasted resources which could have been used elsewhere.
The difference is in the expectation. The doctor's previous experiences would influence his Bayesian inference. He should consider the consequences of each options available, and take the one with most desired results. The final decision would also be affected by the doctor's kowledge on current technological progress. Organ transplants have been done regularly. Regrowing limbs might come in not so distant future. Even death might be overcame, although the timeline can be a bit longer.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/12/2020 12:29:47
The guy who commits suicide after you have saved his life might be considered shortsighted and even ungrateful, but a gift once given becomes the absolute property of the recipient. If you consider slavery immoral (and it fails both tests) then you can't own another person's life, or have any moral right to criticise what he does with it.
Ars longa, vita brevis, unfortunately. You have to take medical decisions based on the knowledge and resources you have, not on what the Daily Mail thinks you might have next year.
Post by: charles1948 on 27/12/2020 23:16:19
"Overcoming death" would be a disaster. The planet would rapidly become overcrowded with old buggers like me saying "in my day...." and eating everything.
Don't you think that if the planet was populated by old people, we wouldn't have any more wars, as none of us would be capable of military service. All that exhausting marching about, and trying to shoot accurately at the enemy by squinting through rifle-sights with our myopic eyes.
Surely wars would cease through sheer lack of physical energy to conduct them. Then we could all stay at home and just watch old WW2 movies on the telly.
As regards your "eating" point, this would necessitate further consideration. Swiftian solutions occur, if we kept to our meat-eating and built battery-farms to output the babies. But this is too controversial. Probably a vegan diet, or synthetic chemical nutrients could sustain us quite well, until the end.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/12/2020 03:24:08
Don't you think that if the planet was populated by old people, we wouldn't have any more wars, as none of us would be capable of military service.
And you could kiss the economy goodbye for that same reason. There are important jobs that people have to be physically fit in order to perform.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/12/2020 05:03:36
"Overcoming death" would be a disaster. The planet would rapidly become overcrowded with old buggers like me saying "in my day...." and eating everything.If you assume that nothing else would change from current condition. At the time human can overcome death, humans would have considered its consequences and found some ways to anticipate and mitigate them. Curing age related diseases is one of them. Some researches has found that ageing process can be reversed. Another way is to build multiplanetary and multistellar society. Population growth should also be controlled to keep balance between resource production and consumption. That's where an accurate virtual universe comes in handy.
Quote
The guy who commits suicide after you have saved his life might be considered shortsighted and even ungrateful, but a gift once given becomes the absolute property of the recipient. If you consider slavery immoral (and it fails both tests) then you can't own another person's life, or have any moral right to criticise what he does with it.Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
The term stupidity can be generalized by replacing it with false believe/assumption. Take any example of something you think as immoral. You can always find something that you think is false in the believe of someone who commit that immoral thing.
Immorality is not a binary concept. Something is more immoral than others.
Quote
Ars longa, vita brevis, unfortunately. You have to take medical decisions based on the knowledge and resources you have, not on what the Daily Mail thinks you might have next year.IMO, we need to consider all possible scenario. Will you consider vaccines if they will be available next decade? next year? next month? next week? tomorrow?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/12/2020 05:19:19
As regards your "eating" point, this would necessitate further consideration. Swiftian solutions occur, if we kept to our meat-eating and built battery-farms to output the babies. But this is too controversial. Probably a vegan diet, or synthetic chemical nutrients could sustain us quite well, until the end.It's also possible for a future human to create mutualistic symbiosis with some photobionts like lichens, perhaps to grow on their hair. So when they are hungry, they could just lay around and sunbath to capture energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen#Photobionts
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/12/2020 09:23:58
How do you measure the economy?Don't you think that if the planet was populated by old people, we wouldn't have any more wars, as none of us would be capable of military service.
And you could kiss the economy goodbye for that same reason. There are important jobs that people have to be physically fit in order to perform.
How do you relate it to morality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2020 05:41:07
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2020 05:46:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/12/2020 09:54:36
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 10:52:12
Don't you think that if the planet was populated by old people, we wouldn't have any more wars, as none of us would be capable of military service.Modern warfare is increasingly asymmetric, with young idiots beheading people for no good reason and old farts sending drones to kill the executioners. Aged 75, I can still fly a bomber or a drone and there won't be anyone young and fit enough to fly a fighter against me.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 11:00:04
How do you measure the economy?"The economy" is all the money that changes hands, plus an estimate of the monetary value of bartered goods. A significant proportion of The Economy is money spent on illegal drugs (estimated) and prostitution (increasingly accurate as the profession becomes unionised and employs accountants - nobody wants to be imprisoned for tax evasion). It has nothing to do with morality, productivity (20% of UK GNP is taken up in mortgage payments for secondhand houses) or standard of living.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 11:08:47
"It's hard to see why B is not worse than A" is the flaw in the argument, right at the beginning. There is an implication that more is or might be better which is neither obvious nor demonstrated. It's an inherently Catholic assumption, has no logical or social basis, and is contrary to any concept of sustainability.
If you make unjustified assumptions, you end up with unjustifiable conclusions.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 11:21:04
QuotePrecisely my point - you need to proceed on the basis of what you know. Vaccines don't cure, but knowing that an antibiotic will be delivered tomorrow, or that a clean operating theatre will be available after lunch, I might delay surgery in order to optimise the outcome.
Ars longa, vita brevis, unfortunately. You have to take medical decisions based on the knowledge and resources you have, not on what the Daily Mail thinks you might have next year.
IMO, we need to consider all possible scenario. Will you consider vaccines if they will be available next decade? next year? next month? next week? tomorrow?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/12/2020 11:38:38
Eating meat isn't inherently immoral: the definition of an animal is a living thing that cannot synthesise its body parts from inorganic materials and therefore (at least until recently) has to eat things that have lived before. Meat is an impractical and unsustainable diet for the current world population but a billion people could quite happily enjoy occasional game meat cfor ever.
Circumcision is occasionally medically indicated and has preventive value. Ritual of any sort is stupid and ritual that hurts others is wrong. Oddly, ritual circumcision apparently passes both of my tests if you ask a devout Muslim or Jew, but if it's going to hurt, it should be done only under informed consent and therefore restricted to adults. Or I could argue that it fails Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I cut off your ear to satisfy my religious convictions that you do not share. So it's wrong under the general provisions of slavery law.
Wife-beating fails Test 1, whatever your religious convictions, and in civilised countries is prohibited under the (confrontational) general law of assault.
Post by: charles1948 on 29/12/2020 20:04:54
So isn't the question, from a scientific viewpoint, meaningless?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 08:50:08
There doesn't seem a way to arrive at a scientific answer to this question.Why do you think so?
So isn't the question, from a scientific viewpoint, meaningless?
If you think that a question can't be answered scientifically because people disagree on the answer, then you can't answer the question about shape of earth scientifically.
If you think that a question can't be answered scientifically because there is till no consensus among science community, then you'd think that interpretation of quantum mechanics is meaningless.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 08:56:26
Wife-beating fails Test 1, whatever your religious convictions, and in civilised countries is prohibited under the (confrontational) general law of assault.What about death penalties? Do they pass your tests? Is the result of your morality tests affected by the method, such as hanging, firing squad, guillotine, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 09:15:57
Confronting immoral behavior is essential, but you need a firm definition of immorality.Here is the definition by Wikipedia.
Quote
Immorality is the violation of moral laws, norms or standards. It refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong.[1][2] Immorality is normally applied to people or actions, or in a broader sense, it can be applied to groups or corporate bodies, and works of art.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality
By this definition, something judged as immoral by one standard can be moral when judged by another standard. Universal consensus about immorality can only be achieved by first establishing a universal moral standard.
Judging immorality using above definition also requires that the agent know or believe that what they do/think is violating their believed moral standard. Hence, if we are consistent with that definition, ISIS fighters throwing gays from tall buildings can't be judged immoral, because they believe that what they do is according to their believed moral standard. Those who insist that their action is immoral effectively reject the above definition of immorality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 09:44:31
Eating meat isn't inherently immoral: the definition of an animal is a living thing that cannot synthesise its body parts from inorganic materials and therefore (at least until recently) has to eat things that have lived before. Meat is an impractical and unsustainable diet for the current world population but a billion people could quite happily enjoy occasional game meat cfor ever.If you accept that immorality comes in non-binary magnitude, the answer is easier. Meat eaters are more immoral than vegans. Trophy hunters are more immoral. Serial killers are even more immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 09:52:38
Circumcision is occasionally medically indicated and has preventive value. Ritual of any sort is stupid and ritual that hurts others is wrong. Oddly, ritual circumcision apparently passes both of my tests if you ask a devout Muslim or Jew, but if it's going to hurt, it should be done only under informed consent and therefore restricted to adults. Or I could argue that it fails Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I cut off your ear to satisfy my religious convictions that you do not share. So it's wrong under the general provisions of slavery law.I'll take it that your tests still have a loophole needs to be patched.
Painkillers are designed to kill pain. Some circumcising clinics advertized that the patients won't feel any pain. Some said that using laser surgery helps reducingor even eliminating pain.
If you find someone who share your religious convictions, you can cut their ears without violating your tests, which makes your action not immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 13:14:17
Apply the tests. Would you like to be hanged, shot, decapitated, electrocuted, asphyxiated or poisoned? Would you do the same to your nearest and dearest?Wife-beating fails Test 1, whatever your religious convictions, and in civilised countries is prohibited under the (confrontational) general law of assault.What about death penalties? Do they pass your tests? Is the result of your morality tests affected by the method, such as hanging, firing squad, guillotine, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 13:18:47
By this definition, something judged as immoral by one standard can be moral when judged by another standard. Universal consensus about immorality can only be achieved by first establishing a universal moral standard.I'm unimpressed by the Wikipedia definition, for the very reasons you state.
Judging immorality using above definition also requires that the agent know or believe that what they do/think is violating their believed moral standard. Hence, if we are consistent with that definition, ISIS fighters throwing gays from tall buildings can't be judged immoral, because they believe that what they do is according to their believed moral standard. Those who insist that their action is immoral effectively reject the above definition of immorality.
Whatever your beliefs, (a) would you be happy if I killed you because of mine? and (b) would you kill your wife and children if you thought they held different superstitions from yours?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 13:31:40
If you accept that immorality comes in non-binary magnitude, the answer is easier. Meat eaters are more immoral than vegans. Trophy hunters are more immoral. Serial killers are even more immoral.
That's a big and unnecessary "if".
Eating other living things is essential. The distinction between plants and animals has no moral basis: animals have teeth and claws, and plants have thorns and poisons, for the same reason: no living thing wants to be eaten.
Trophy hunters have a penis problem. If you really want to prove your masculinity, come to my wildlife park where you can fight a bear, crocodile, or tiger like a man, i.e. with your bare hands. No cruelty! I assure you the animals love every moment, and the victor gets to eat the loser, raw. Vegetarians can choose a hippo, rhino, elephant, or bull.
Serial killers are binarily immoral but boringly repetitive.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 13:35:09
Some circumcising clinics advertized that the patients won't feel any pain. Some said that using laser surgery helps reducingor even eliminating pain.It's still an assault, so only justifiable with informed consent (like boxing) or for clear medical reasons.
Superstition cannot excuse anything you do to another person if it fails Test 1.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 21:47:04
Which makes it immoral? The superstition or the failure to pass your tests? The case is voluntary circumcision for religious reason.Some circumcising clinics advertized that the patients won't feel any pain. Some said that using laser surgery helps reducingor even eliminating pain.It's still an assault, so only justifiable with informed consent (like boxing) or for clear medical reasons.
Superstition cannot excuse anything you do to another person if it fails Test 1.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 21:48:45
That's a big and unnecessary "if".Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 21:57:05
I don't want to get financial penalty either. Nor jail time. Does it make those penalties immoral?Apply the tests. Would you like to be hanged, shot, decapitated, electrocuted, asphyxiated or poisoned? Would you do the same to your nearest and dearest?Wife-beating fails Test 1, whatever your religious convictions, and in civilised countries is prohibited under the (confrontational) general law of assault.What about death penalties? Do they pass your tests? Is the result of your morality tests affected by the method, such as hanging, firing squad, guillotine, electric chair, gas chamber, lethal injection?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 23:00:26
Which makes it immoral? The superstition or the failure to pass your tests? The case is voluntary circumcision for religious reason.Voluntary self-mutilation is not immoral because it doesn't affect anyone else.
However I would qualify that with informed or entirely selfmotivated voluntary selfmutilation. Which is why tattooists have to display health warnings, give healthcare advice, and get signed consent.
Telling somebody that they will go to heaven if or only if they do or believe something is fraud and therefore immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 23:04:41
Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).
Post by: alancalverd on 30/12/2020 23:09:57
I don't want to get financial penalty either. Nor jail time. Does it make those penalties immoral?If you have transgressed the boundaries of moral behavior, society has deemed that justice should be retributive.
Interestingly, though, the public hangman was never paid. He was always tried for murder and convicted in absentia, and his fee was "lost" somewhere that he could find it. Nobody is above the law in England - apart from Dominic Cummings, of course.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2020 23:45:26
Attempt of murder is punished even if no one died.Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2020 11:41:16
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 09:21:53
Even binary thinking about morality needs third option, which is amoral things, beside moral and immoral things at the extremities. You called amoral things as non-moral issues.Do you think that all immoral actions have the same degree of immortality?The question is irrelevant. Morality is binary, but the extent to which one should prosecute and punish immorality depends on how much harm has been done by an immoral act. That's why we generally separate the legislature (that decides which actions are wrong) from the judiciary (that weighs up an appropriate punishment).
I've mentioned before that real world decision making requires dealing with uncertainty, due to incomplete information. In process safety engineering, we must consider both severity and probability of an event. We could use similar method to quantify morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 09:31:44
What do you think about following cases, are they related to morality? Which decision is moral/immoral?
A wants no kid.
B wants 1 kid only.
C wants 2 kids.
D wants 10 kids.
E wants 100 kids.
F wants 1000 kids.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 09:50:45
If you have transgressed the boundaries of moral behavior, society has deemed that justice should be retributive.Some societies use beating as retributive justice, including kid and wife beatings. On what grounds could you judge them as immoral?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 10:39:27
In a civilised society, the general population (or more usually its parliamentary representatives) sets acceptable limits on punishment and empowers judges to do just that - judge the proportionality of punishment to crime.
In a fine example of what used to be a civilised country, the US constitution explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". To some extent this reflects Test 2: in the limit, executions must be "humane". Unacceptable behavior is codified in statute law and the prospective criminal is thus presumed (subject to tests of competence) to be aware of the consequences of being found guilty.
You don't enter a boxing ring or a rugby field with the expectation of leaving unhurt. You are presumed to have accepted the risk for the prize or at least the fun of bashing another consenting adult. Thus with crime and punishment.
The world is not perfect. There are barbaric states governed by religious perverts where morality does not feature in the legal system. Unfortunately for their populations, they also have a lot of oil.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 10:44:40
What do you think about following cases, are they related to morality? Which decision is moral/immoral?
A wants no kid.
B wants 1 kid only.
C wants 2 kids.
D wants 10 kids.
E wants 100 kids.
F wants 1000 kids.
What you want has no moral consequence. The question is how you get it. You could become a very successful sperm donor, or a "celibate" priest with a penchant for child rape. (Terry Wogan summarised Ireland as the place where you call everyone Father except for your actual father, who you call Uncle).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 10:57:20
Establishing good economy, just like with morality, is an instrumental goal to achieve longer term goal, which eventually leads to a terminal goal. Self sustaining community where its members can independently produce their own needs have 0 economy. It's not necessarily a bad thing.How do you measure the economy?"The economy" is all the money that changes hands, plus an estimate of the monetary value of bartered goods. A significant proportion of The Economy is money spent on illegal drugs (estimated) and prostitution (increasingly accurate as the profession becomes unionised and employs accountants - nobody wants to be imprisoned for tax evasion). It has nothing to do with morality, productivity (20% of UK GNP is taken up in mortgage payments for secondhand houses) or standard of living.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 10:58:36
We could use similar method to quantify morality.That's unnecessarily complicated. An action that fails my tests is immoral. What society does about it is related to the actual or potential harm. Admittedly the relationship is inconsistent but the principle remains that establishing guilt and determining punishment are (or should be) separate activities.
Why "should be"? Because I am suspicious of the modern trend to encourage victim impact statements. This means that the punishment no longer fits the crime, but depends on the articulacy of the victim. Why should I get a conditional discharge for assaulting an incoherent peasant with no lawyer, versus ten years in prison for insulting a professional actor coached by an expensive barrister?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 11:08:22
Punishment isn't punishment if it prima facie passes Test 1. However:What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?
In a civilised society, the general population (or more usually its parliamentary representatives) sets acceptable limits on punishment and empowers judges to do just that - judge the proportionality of punishment to crime.
In a fine example of what used to be a civilised country, the US constitution explicitly prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". To some extent this reflects Test 2: in the limit, executions must be "humane". Unacceptable behavior is codified in statute law and the prospective criminal is thus presumed (subject to tests of competence) to be aware of the consequences of being found guilty.
You don't enter a boxing ring or a rugby field with the expectation of leaving unhurt. You are presumed to have accepted the risk for the prize or at least the fun of bashing another consenting adult. Thus with crime and punishment.
The world is not perfect. There are barbaric states governed by religious perverts where morality does not feature in the legal system. Unfortunately for their populations, they also have a lot of oil.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 11:11:25
That's unnecessarily complicated. An action that fails my tests is immoral.That's not a very convincing reasoning. As shown in this discussion, there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.
In process safety design, the risk of unintended events are reduced as low as reasonably practical, ALARP rule. In law making and regulations process, the consequences last for a long term and can affect nation wide, or even internationally. So things should be considered carefully into details. We need to model reality accurately and precisely.
In emergency cases, where time is severely constrained, the details could be more relaxed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 12:03:42
In emergency cases, where time is severely constrained, the details could be more relaxed.To get best result, most likely emergency scenarios must be considered, along with planned counter measures which are written down into standard procedures. Emergency drills must be scheduled so the procedures can be effectively executed when needed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2021 12:51:53
Some examples are shown in this video.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 17:41:35
Interesting video. Note how nobody who preached the virtue of martyrdom had actually killed themselves or their families. There will always be parasites, perverts and teenagers, but the parasites and perverts failed test 1, from which the teenagers should have deduced that their preaching was immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 17:46:48
What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?
Take a simple case. Imagine you are a pervert charged with deciding who can drive in your country. Because you have a penis problem, you determine that women may not drive. Now apply Test 1. If a woman said you may not drive because you don't have a vagina, would you be happy?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2021 17:48:58
there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.I don't recall one. Please remind me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 02:14:35
Nothing to do with generalised "conscious agents". Morality is purely human because we have no way of knowing what any other species thinks. And I'm happy that I have shown it to give consistent results.How do you know other humans think? What if human colonizers of Mars evolved to adapt there so they are no longer interbreed with earthbound humans? Do they stop having morality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 02:20:59
there are some things you judge as immoral, yet still pass those tests.I don't recall one. Please remind me.
Circumcision is occasionally medically indicated and has preventive value. Ritual of any sort is stupid and ritual that hurts others is wrong. Oddly, ritual circumcision apparently passes both of my tests if you ask a devout Muslim or Jew, but if it's going to hurt, it should be done only under informed consent and therefore restricted to adults. Or I could argue that it fails Test 1 because you wouldn't like it if I cut off your ear to satisfy my religious convictions that you do not share. So it's wrong under the general provisions of slavery law.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 02:42:15
Replace penis with age, and woman with kid. What would be the difference?What makes you think that your standards for morality are better than theirs?
Take a simple case. Imagine you are a pervert charged with deciding who can drive in your country. Because you have a penis problem, you determine that women may not drive. Now apply Test 1. If a woman said you may not drive because you don't have a vagina, would you be happy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
Quote
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones ("argument from passion") is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
The appeal to emotion is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. For instance, if a student says "If I fail this paper I will lose my scholarship. It's not plagiarized" the emotions elicited by the first statement are not relevant to establishing whether the paper was plagiarized. On the other hand, "Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees." is not uncontroversially fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering may be relevant to the conclusion. To be sure, the proper role for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics, but the charge of "appeal to emotion" often cannot be made without begging the question against theories of moral cognition that reserve a role for emotion in moral reasoning.
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw inward feelings such as fear, pity, and joy from the recipient of the information with the end goal of convincing them that the statements being presented in the fallacious argument are true or false, resp.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 09:46:06
It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers. They just need the input of correct terminal goal to achieve, and they will make the most effective and efficient instrumental goals (i.e. laws and regulations) necessary to achieve that terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 12:13:22
Replace penis with age, and woman with kid. What would be the difference?Sadly, the first condition seems inevitable but the difference is significant.
You can't hold an infant legally liable for the harm he does to others, so you draw an arbitrary line (which can be moved in the light of experience) below which you cannot take charge of a lethal weapon. All the evidence from civilised countries shows that at any age, women are actually safer drivers than men.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 12:20:59
Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 12:26:52
How do you know other humans think?52% of Americans seem capable of making a rational decision, which suggests some inherent capability similar to mine.
Quote
What if human colonizers of Mars evolved to adapt there so they are no longer interbreed with earthbound humans? Do they stop having morality?Most social animals seem to have a code of conduct that involves mututal respect intraspecies, but not necessarily interspecies. I do not treat mosquitoes and humans alike.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 12:29:52
It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers.A semiliterate chimpanzee couldn't write worse laws than the European Union, but you'd need to define a "better" law to make your point.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 13:10:06
Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.You can also say that black and white are binary. But then you'll have trouble describing continuous shades of grey, or explaining some optical illusions.
Punishment is a method to modify preferences of conscious agents to be more aligned with those of the punishers. Its effectiveness relies on assumptions that most moral agents prefer to avoid that type of punishment. But that's the best that our ancestors can come up with without the ability to modify people's minds.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 15:04:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2021 15:23:49
It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers. They just need the input of correct terminal goal to achieve, and they will make the most effective and efficient instrumental goals (i.e. laws and regulations) necessary to achieve that terminal goal.This is an example where lawmakers produce suboptimum laws.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2021 18:19:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2021 21:50:32
Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.It seems like you are choosing deontology instead of consequentialism. Do you think that lying is immoral? Is there a situation where it's different?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2021 23:39:05
1. To save a life
2. To comfort the dying
3. To avert a greater wrong.
I think these exceptions pass the moral tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2021 03:44:04
That one was dealt with by Maimonides. A lie is permissibleThose exceptions make lying not inherently immoral.
1. To save a life
2. To comfort the dying
3. To avert a greater wrong.
I think these exceptions pass the moral tests.
It's not surprising that our inconsistencies in defining morality create widespread apathy among people to discuss morality scientifically.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2021 03:53:22
Evolution taught us that humans came from different species. There were time where humans lived among other hominids, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. Some of us even carry some of their DNA. The first generation of children from interbreeding between homo sapiens and those other species carried more of their DNA.Nothing to do with generalised "conscious agents". Morality is purely human because we have no way of knowing what any other species thinks. And I'm happy that I have shown it to give consistent results.How do you know other humans think? What if human colonizers of Mars evolved to adapt there so they are no longer interbreed with earthbound humans? Do they stop having morality?
At which point do you think they started to apply morality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2021 03:59:00
Black is the absence of visible light, white is a spectrum approximating to sunlight. Grey is what we perceive when the level of white light is above zero and insufficient to saturate the retinal rods. Optical illusions are just that - misconstrued data.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg/220px-Checker_shadow_illusion.svg.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg/220px-Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg.png)
How do you explain that those exact same colors are perceived differently?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2021 12:08:24
Those exceptions make lying not inherently immoral.No, it's always immoral (you wouldn't like it if I lied to you about most things, and you probably don't lie much to your immediate family) but occasionally justified, e.g. as stated by Maimonides. A bit like bombing a target known to contain noncombatants.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2021 12:12:13
How do you explain that those exact same colors are perceived differently?A good question but probably one for a different board where an expert may pick it up.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2021 12:20:35
At which point do you think they started to apply morality?I think the concepts underlie three behaviors that are particularly essential to the survival of large apes: collaboration, delayed gratification (more a human requirement than displayed by gorillas, admittedly) and some form of family stability for raising and training pretty useless infants.
Army recruiters aren't too worried if you have minor convictions for fighting or a history of gang membership (after all, the business is to form efficiently organised fighting gangs), but they take a dim view of dishonesty - if your mates can't trust you, the gang can't fight efficiently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 04:00:00
Whether it is a Big Deal is another matter. As I argued elsewhere, morality is binary but the impact of an immoral act, and therefore the extent to which it should be punished, lies on a continuum.Here is another problem found related to binary thinking.
https://screenrant.com/wonder-woman-1984-rotten-tomatoes-score-drop-problem/
Quote
Rotten Tomatoes' numerical rating is not an average review score as the percent indicator may suggest, but it's a measurement of consensus. Every review, whether it's a middle of the road review, an extreme positive, or an extreme negative, is converted into a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, and the final percentage indicator only specifies what percent of reviewers gave it a positive score to any degree. As a result, the Tomatometer disproportionately benefits safe, middle-of-the-road movies and penalizes polarizing movies that have a lot of rave reviews but a handful of detractors.
As an example, if there's 100 reviews submitted to Rotten Tomatoes, the movie with 100 three-star (out of five) reviews is going to get 100%, whereas a movie that gets 80 ten-star reviews and 20 two-and-a-half-star reviews is going to be ranked significantly lower at 80%. The Tomatometer doesn't reveal any nuance, giving most people the impression that the middle-of-the-road safe movie is vastly superior to the polarizing movie with mostly rave reviews. This phenomenon was fully exposed with Joker's reviews.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 04:07:56
First, define the goal of the law, or intended consequences to be expected by applying the law. Good laws can achieve that goal effectively and efficiently, with minimum unintended consequences. Bad law can either be judged by its ineffectiveness, inefficiency, or the occurence of unintended consequences. Exploitable loopholes found in a law can render it ineffective, inefficient, or create unintended consequences.It's just a matter of time until AGIs write better laws and regulations than human lawmakers.A semiliterate chimpanzee couldn't write worse laws than the European Union, but you'd need to define a "better" law to make your point.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 09:47:37
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 12:32:50
Not to be confused with criminal negligence.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 12:38:17
Here is another problem found related to binary thinking.It shows the stupidity of ascribing binary values to a known gaussian distribution. Ice dancing, boxing, and suchlike are scored by ignoring the highest and lowest of, say, ten judges, and reporting the average of the rest. Not that many ice dances are won by a knockout, but I'm sure you see my point.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 12:42:12
First, define the goal of the law, or intended consequences to be expected by applying the law.And there is the big difference between European (Roman) and British (principally English) law. EU law is intended to promote particular behaviors and protect particular professions. UK law is (or was) intended to prohibit particular behaviors and protect the naive customer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 12:54:46
Intelligence is best defined as constructive laziness. What you do with it may or may not be immoral depending on its effect on others.I've seen better definitions. They involve effectiveness and efficiency.
Quote
Not to be confused with criminal negligence.What makes them different?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2021 13:23:48
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious, national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself. That's why we get human rights as a member of humanist system.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 15:58:19
They involve effectiveness and efficiency.Effectiveness: achieving a desired result
Efficiency: using the least energy to do something
Laziness: achieving a personally desired result with the least expenditure of energy. Indistinguishable from intelligence.
The flat-earther flies on a constant bearing. The intelligent pilot takes a great circle and saves both time and energy.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 16:01:41
What makes them different?Criminal negligence is about intentionally failing to consider the possibility of, or act to prevent, harm.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2021 16:13:17
Morality of a system is intended to protect the system from harm caused by conscious agents happen to be its members. The maximum harm is which causes the system's death or disappearance.Don't confuse laws and rules with morality. The laws that prevented Jews or women from becoming members of parliament were indeed intended to maintain the status quo but failed my tests of morality.
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious, national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself. That's why we get human rights as a member of humanist system.
There is nothing immoral about suicide. Banning suicides from Catholic burial, and banning assisted suicide, are immoral because they fail my tests.
Religious systems are inherently immoral because they impose actions of faith on individuals who have the intelligence not to waste their time or sacrifice their chickens or children for no purpose other than the glorification of the priest who told them to.
Human rights are not necessary in a civilised society whose laws are based on wrongs. They are only required under Roman-type laws where the citizen exists to serve the state.
The most evil dictatorships and theocracies are renowned for the survival value of their laws.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 01:17:45
Efficiency is not restricted to energy. It's generally about resources. Many of us believe that the most precious resource is time.They involve effectiveness and efficiency.Effectiveness: achieving a desired result
Efficiency: using the least energy to do something
Laziness: achieving a personally desired result with the least expenditure of energy. Indistinguishable from intelligence.
The flat-earther flies on a constant bearing. The intelligent pilot takes a great circle and saves both time and energy.
Personal desire vs desire of larger systems distinguish laziness and intelligence. Intelligent person can use saved resources to achieve more results. Lazy person wastes time, which is a precious resource.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 03:45:01
There is nothing immoral about suicide. Banning suicides from Catholic burial, and banning assisted suicide, are immoral because they fail my tests.By common definition, morality is about good and bad action/behavior. Since suicide usually produce bad consequences for the perpetrator, it is generally immoral if there is nothing good comes out of it to compensate the bad outcomes. Altruism, Patriotism and martyrdom are usually seen as good behaviors because they produce greater good, hence included in moral things.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 03:53:47
Religious systems are inherently immoral because they impose actions of faith on individuals who have the intelligence not to waste their time or sacrifice their chickens or children for no purpose other than the glorification of the priest who told them to.You judge them as immoral because you don't share their terminal goal. You even believe that their actions are ineffective at achieving their goal. You might also believe that they get in the way of your plan to achieve your goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 04:19:08
Human rights are not necessary in a civilised society whose laws are based on wrongs. They are only required under Roman-type laws where the citizen exists to serve the state.Any society provides some forms of right to their conscious agents, although not at the same degree, and may not be equal among those agents. Societies with caste system (e.g. Hinduism and Apartheid) give different set of rights to their members from different castes. Although Islamic societies generally claim to have no caste, but practically, they give different group of their members different set of rights (moslem v non-moslem, masters v slaves, men v women).
Human rights are not currently given to other species, even if they show similar intelligence or consciousness. But they are given to humans even if they show significantly lower intelligence or consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 04:23:03
The most evil dictatorships and theocracies are renowned for the survival value of their laws.So does the most righteous societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 04:27:10
Quote
Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2021 09:12:48
Morality of a system is intended to protect the system from harm caused by conscious agents happen to be its members. The maximum harm is which causes the system's death or disappearance.If we observe the pattern of expanding the scope of conscious system to be more spatially inclusive in general, further extrapolation would be interplanetary society, then interstellar and perhaps intergalactic societies. When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences. Limiting the system's membership to humanity based on genetic makeups can no longer work because they are arbitrary. Even human ancestors and human successors have different genetic sets. They are products of evolutionary accidents which could have followed through many different routes.
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious, national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself. That's why we get human rights as a member of humanist system.
Only a universal terminal goal can unify them to establish an effective and efficient moral system.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2021 23:52:25
So does the most righteous societies.Can you name one that has been blameless and unpersecuted for more than a single genration?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2021 23:56:41
Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.
Still fails Test 1. He wouldn't like it if I killed him for violating my superstition. Nor is there much evidence of self-immolation of those who have broken their own professed moral code.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2021 23:58:18
When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences.All life forms are either predators or prey. They cannot have compatible moral codes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 04:27:11
You should understand that my reply simply means that the most righteous societies are also renowned for the survival value of their laws. The values of their laws themselves can be different than dictatorships and theocracies.So does the most righteous societies.Can you name one that has been blameless and unpersecuted for more than a single genration?
The best of something that exists don't have to be perfect or flawless. Someone had come up with a method to measure political systems. The list has changed in the past, and may change again in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_2019
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 04:32:23
Serial killers don't want to be executed either. If you're consistent with your reasoning above, executing them also violates golden rule, hence is immoral by your moral standard.Even the Golden Rule doesn’t supply guidance. Any theocratic murderer will say “If you ever find me violating [some god]’s sacred moral code, please kill me.”.
Still fails Test 1. He wouldn't like it if I killed him for violating my superstition. Nor is there much evidence of self-immolation of those who have broken their own professed moral code.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 04:39:42
Why not? There is possibility to have common moral codes among predators or among preys.When they include extraterrestrial life forms, some compromises should be made to accomodate the differences.All life forms are either predators or prey. They cannot have compatible moral codes.
Green plants can live without having to kill anybody. Humans (or any other organism) with adequately advanced technology can synthesize all the food they need.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 05:04:20
In other words there is no universal definition of best case, even if we have an accepted and universal definition of consciousness.Best case as defined by who or what? The beauty of my tests is that they are completely defined.By any being meets minimum requirements of consciousness.
I've derived the best case scenario from the universal consciousness point of view. What is your reasoning to reject them?
A universal moral system can only be built on a universal fundamental truth. No additional complexity should be added beyond necessity.
If we follow the logic and use the required concepts consistently, we will inevitably arrive to those extreme possibilities. In the other thread I called the best case scenario as universal utopia.
The best case scenario can be used as a lode star to guide us making decisions in various situations, and setting up rules to be applied in most frequent situations. Many moral rules rely on Pareto principle. Many decisions must be done quickly. Those moral rules are useful as shortcut for processing information which can take too long to simulate all options and their consequences.
Let me remind you again the definition of morality according to dictionary:Discussion of morality will inevitably compare many different situations, decisions, actions, and behaviors with many different results or consequences. Good behaviors are expected to bring good consequences in the long run. Comparing many possible results will show us the best case scenario as well as the worst case, and everything in between.Quoteprinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
I've explore those scenario in another thread.In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.In many religious beliefs, the best case scenario above is taken for granted. So their efforts are never directed towards achieving that. Instead, they set arbitrarily chosen preferred conditions as their terminal goal.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
On the other hand, the worst case scenario is dismissed without adequate justification. This creates false security that whatever we do, it is guaranteed that the consequences will never bring that worse case scenario.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 05:10:03
As long as your morality is useful to distinguish between good and bad actions, there will inevitably be the best and worst case which are necessarily not the same. Maybe you just haven't thought it through yet.I don't need one! My tests carry an internal reference.
If you have a better alternative to my best case scenario, let me know.
Another possibility is that it is useless.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2021 11:06:22
We have dealt with this in discussing lies and the bombing of part-civilian targets.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 11:12:08
It doesn't purport to distinguish good from bad, but moral from immoral.But good and bad are in the definition of morality in the first place. Unless you want to redefine it. If that's the case you'll have to state it clearly in order to hold a meaningful discussion.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2021 11:34:00
Bombing a civilian-rich target is immoral because you wouldn't like it if I did it to you, and you wouldn't do it to your family.
Bombing Hamburg, Schweinfurt or Essen is good because losing a war against Nazism is bad.
You wouldn't lie to your children (I can't immediately think of a lie I might be tempted to tell a child!) but I'm sure you'd comfort a roadside casualty with "it's going to be OK" when the opposite was patently obvious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 12:57:24
If you choose deontological morality, you simply assert that the preferred condition is that your set of moral rules are obeyed by conscious agents. The undesired condition is when they are violated.
The best case scenario is when all moral agents follow your set of moral rules. The worst case is when all moral agents violate your set of moral rules.
The problem with this option is you still need scientific support for your set of rules to convince others to obey them. Except if you just want to keep it for yourself.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2021 13:06:14
It's very simple.Virtually no one wants to be killed, hence based on your rules, death penalty is immoral.
Bombing a civilian-rich target is immoral because you wouldn't like it if I did it to you, and you wouldn't do it to your family.
Virtually no one wants to be put in jail, hence based on your rules, imprisonment is immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2021 23:48:50
I taught my children never to start a fight, and never to lose one.
Post by: novicepug on 08/01/2021 04:07:53
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2021 04:31:48
But not wrong or bad.So you use different definition of morality. How can someone else follow your reasoning? What's good things can be expected to come from your morality then?
Quote
You can extend Maimonides' view on lying to encompass other immoral actions that may be taken to avert a greater wrong.Which one is it?
Quote
[/Jewish tradition states that in his commentary on the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides formulates his "13 principles of faith"; and that these principles summarized what he viewed as the required beliefs of Judaism:
1.The existence of God.
2.God's unity and indivisibility into elements.
3.God's spirituality and incorporeality.
4.God's eternity.
5.God alone should be the object of worship.
6.Revelation through God's prophets.
7.The preeminence of Moses among the prophets.
8.That the entire Torah (both the Written and Oral law) are of Divine origin and were dictated to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai.
9.The Torah given by Moses is permanent and will not be replaced or changed.
10.God's awareness of all human actions and thoughts.
11.Reward of righteousness and punishment of evil.
12.The coming of the Jewish Messiah.
13.The resurrection of the dead.
quote]
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2021 06:52:30
I feel like there are some things that human nature generally agree to. But it is difficult to establish a set of moral that is absolutely good or bad universally. The concept of dichotomy, I would argue, is something that human creates to make sense of the world. I think we should start to see things in a spectrum. For example, it is human nature to think that lying is bad. Some people lies a lot, some people never lies at all, but I think most people are somehow in the middle: they know they should not lie, but a little white lie here and there is fine for them. That, at least, is how I perceive things.In another thread I've mentioned that acquiring knolewdge or understanding thing is basically a data compression process. We throw away many bits of information deemed unrelated or insignificant to the object of interest. That's how classification algorithms work such as identifying cats and dogs.
It's not that difficult to define what's good or bad for a specified system. Difficulty in identifying necessary things to achieve what's good comes from incomplete information and uncertainty. Lying is generally viewed as immoral because in most situations that we encounter, it produces bad results or consequences. Situations where it produces good results or consequences are much fewer. An example is when a terrorist asks you how to fix his bomb detonator when it's not working.
Similar reasoning for killing and stealing.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2021 11:46:26
I have defined a moral action as one that passes my two tests. The good that comes from moral actions is peace, harmony and a lack of harm to others. Circumstances occasionally require us to act in an immoral way.But not wrong or bad.So you use different definition of morality. How can someone else follow your reasoning? What's good things can be expected to come from your morality then?
Quote
I have nothing but contempt for faith, but the practical guidance summarised in post #868 is pragmatic and honorable.QuoteYou can extend Maimonides' view on lying to encompass other immoral actions that may be taken to avert a greater wrong.Which one is it?Quote[/Jewish tradition states that in his commentary on the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin, chapter 10), Maimonides formulates his "13 principles of faith"; and that these principles summarized what he viewed as the required beliefs of Judaism:
1.The existence of God.
2.God's unity and indivisibility into elements.
3.God's spirituality and incorporeality.
4.God's eternity.
5.God alone should be the object of worship.
6.Revelation through God's prophets.
7.The preeminence of Moses among the prophets.
8.That the entire Torah (both the Written and Oral law) are of Divine origin and were dictated to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai.
9.The Torah given by Moses is permanent and will not be replaced or changed.
10.God's awareness of all human actions and thoughts.
11.Reward of righteousness and punishment of evil.
12.The coming of the Jewish Messiah.
13.The resurrection of the dead.
quote]
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2021 14:13:57
I have defined a moral action as one that passes my two tests. The good that comes from moral actions is peace, harmony and a lack of harm to others. Circumstances occasionally require us to act in an immoral way.So in a situation where the only options is between moral action with bad consequences and immoral action with good consequences, you will take immoral action with good consequences?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2021 15:55:49
The most obvious immoral action is killing another human. If attacked, I have no hesitation in responding with whatever force is necessary to protect myself and those I choose to protect. See reply # 906 above.
Would I like it if you beat me senseless? No. Would I beat my family members senseless? No.
Would I bet the crap out of a mugger? Every time. Would I kill him? Deliberately, if necessary. If by accident, I wouldn't get too upset.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 20:26:56
Wouldn't it be this - infect as many humans as possible. But don't kill too many of them. We need them as hosts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2021 06:23:17
Suppose the Covid-19 viruses had a "moral standard".To have moral standard, the agents must have understanding of causality. They must be able to relate their actions to what's expected to be the consequences.
Wouldn't it be this - infect as many humans as possible. But don't kill too many of them. We need them as hosts.
I don't think that those viruses qualify as moral agents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2021 06:27:09
Absolutely!It means that your moral standards are merely ceremonial. They have no practical value. They are consistently defeated by your other values, which you don't call as morality.
The most obvious immoral action is killing another human. If attacked, I have no hesitation in responding with whatever force is necessary to protect myself and those I choose to protect. See reply # 906 above.
Would I like it if you beat me senseless? No. Would I beat my family members senseless? No.
Would I bet the crap out of a mugger? Every time. Would I kill him? Deliberately, if necessary. If by accident, I wouldn't get too upset.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2021 12:34:18
But I don't go around mugging others (because that would fail tests 1 and 2) so there's considerable societal value in my tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2021 14:49:18
Consistently, yes. Frequently? no. I'm not often mugged, so I don't often have to set morality aside, but would have no hesitation doing so when the circumstances demand it.What standard do you use to distinguish between good and bad? You said it was different than your moral standard.
But I don't go around mugging others (because that would fail tests 1 and 2) so there's considerable societal value in my tests.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2021 16:30:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2021 23:00:38
Good makes people happy, healthy and prosperous. Bad does the opposite.How do you prioritize them?
There are something that make us happy are unhealthy, and vice versa. So does with prosperity.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2021 23:29:24
The general rule is that pleasurable things that will shorten your life should be treated with caution, because there may be a greater pleasure tomorrow, but when the end is clear and inevitable, go for pleasure. My wife spent her last week as high as a kite on morphine washed down with strawberries and champagne.
I've never known prosperity to be harmful.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2021 21:49:19
Is human extinction good or bad?
Is it inevitable?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/01/2021 22:35:48
In the short term, however, the health, happiness and prosperity of small groups of homo sapiens seem to be optimised by moral behavior within the group.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/01/2021 06:14:49
Humans have been an unmitigated disaster for life on this planet but are of no cosmic significance. History suggests that every complex species apart from sharks and crocodiles has a fairly short life expectancy in geological terms, though tardigrades and cyanobacteria seem to survive most geological events, and whatever species evolved into the chicken now outnumbers all other warmblooded creatures with the possible exception of bats, who have adopted biological defences against humans.Do you think that human extinction is neither good nor bad in the long run?
In the short term, however, the health, happiness and prosperity of small groups of homo sapiens seem to be optimised by moral behavior within the group.
In this thread I want to find a universal moral standard which has real consequences in deciding what should be done in various situation, given the available information at hand. I'm not interested with ceremonial labelling with no real decisive value.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/01/2021 06:16:45
I hope this can be helpful in the course of our discussion here.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2021 11:08:26
So, faced with any decision, I look at the options and ask whether I'd be happy if someone did it to me, or if I did it to my family. Anyone can apply the same tests and the results seem adequately consistent given that we live in a limited environment within which we have to compete for resources. In general, actions that most people consider pass the tests., tend to be good for humans.
That said, what is good for humans in the short term (say, clearing forests to feed cattle, or hoovering up all the fish in the North Sea) may not be good in the long term, simply because we do live in a finite environment, so there is unlikely to be a universal and unlimited good. Nor, as I have pointed out, is the short term moral action (love thy neighbor) necessarily good in the medium term (neighbor is a serial killer).
Post by: charles1948 on 11/01/2021 15:02:15
There've been 47 pages of replies to the question. I've read some, though not all, of them. Many of them contain very interesting and valuable insights. Which ought to be remembered, and used by us in the future.
But, it seems, none of them have come up with an answer that is fully satisfactory to everyone.
Perhaps this is because - there really isn't a final and definitive answer.
That doesn't mean that discussing the question is a waste of time. I don't hold the absurdly simplistic "Logical Positivist" view that questions like this are "meaningless".
They do have "meaning". Even if they don't have conclusive answers.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2021 19:11:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2021 06:25:46
Good and bad require a subject - good for....., bad for...... Human extinction would have negligible impact on the universe and be good for almost every other species on this planet.In this thread, I'm interested to discuss about universal consciousness as I described in my other thread titled Universal Utopia discussing about universal terminal goal. It's not about individual conscious agents, although it's often useful as instrumental goal.
The extinction of human ancestors is surely bad for us, since it prevents us from existing for the first place. Human extinction would be bad for human descendants, or more generally, successors.
What do you expect if humans go extinct today? Other species on earth would have to evolve intelligence to at least a human level to gain independence from earthbound resources. It would take a long time, and perhaps it would not even happen until the earth is completely destroyed or engulfed by the sun. That's why many thinkers worry about The Great Filter.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2021 10:02:56
When talking about conscious beings, many people take for granted that those beings are somewhat similar to human individuals in current states, since they are the most familiar form of them. The research below tries to answer the question of individuality in biology by utilizing information theory.This individuality is included as 2020's Biggest Breakthroughs in Biology. This video shows this from 3:12 time stamp.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is-an-individual-biology-seeks-clues-in-information-theory-20200716/QuoteThe task of distinguishing individuals can be difficult — and not just for scientists aiming to make sense of a fragmented fossil record. Researchers searching for life on other planets or moons are bound to face the same problem. Even on Earth today, it’s clear that nature has a sloppy disregard for boundaries: Viruses rely on host cells to make copies of themselves. Bacteria share and swap genes, while higher-order species hybridize. Thousands of slime mold amoebas cooperatively assemble into towers to spread their spores. Worker ants and bees can be nonreproductive members of social-colony “superorganisms.” Lichens are symbiotic composites of fungi and algae or cyanobacteria. Even humans contain at least as many bacterial cells as “self” cells, the microbes in our gut inextricably linked with our development, physiology and survival.QuoteKrakauer and Flack, in collaboration with colleagues such as Nihat Ay of the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences, realized that they’d need to turn to information theory to formalize their principle of the individual “as kind of a verb.” To them, an individual was an aggregate that “preserved a measure of temporal integrity,” propagating a close-to-maximal amount of information forward in time.Their result is similar to my posts which discuss about consciousness.
Their formalism, which they published in Theory in Biosciences in March, is based on three axioms. One is that individuality can exist at any level of biological organization, from the subcellular to the social. A second is that individuality can be nested — one individual can exist inside another. The most novel (and perhaps most counterintuitive) axiom, though, is that individuality exists on a continuum, and entities can have quantifiable degrees of it.
“This isn’t some binary function that suddenly has a jump,” said Chris Kempes, a physical biologist at the Santa Fe Institute who was not involved in the work. To him as a physicist, that’s part of the appeal of the Santa Fe team’s theory. The emphasis on quantifying over categorizing is something biology could use more of, he thinks — in part because it gets around tricky definitional problems about, say, whether a virus is alive, and whether it’s an individual. “The question really is: How living is a virus?” he said. “How much individuality does a virus have?”
Quote
In 2020, the study of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was undoubtedly the most urgent priority. But there were also some major breakthroughs in other areas. We'd like to take a moment to recognize them.
1. This year, we learned that we had severely underestimated the human brain's computing power. Researchers are coming to understand that even the dendritic arms of neurons seem capable of processing information, which means that every neuron might be more like a small computer by itself.
2. The new Information Theory of Individuality completely reimagines the way biologists have traditionally thought about individuality. Armed with information theory, the researchers found objective criteria for defining degrees of individuality in organisms.
3. Deprived of sleep, we and other animals die within weeks. More than a century of scrutiny failed to explain why lack of sleep is so deadly. This year, an answer was finally found — not inside the brain, as expected, but inside the gut.
Morality of a system is intended to protect the system from harm caused by conscious agents happen to be its members. The maximum harm is which causes the system's death or disappearance.
An individual morality protects from suicidal behavior of the individual itself, which is its sole agent. Tribal morality protects the tribal system from harmful behaviors of its members. This can be generalized for larger systems such as religious, national, international systems.
It just happen that protecting it's members tend to improve the survival rate of the system itself. That's why we get human rights as a member of humanist system.
A universal moral standard can't be based on arbitrary rules out of thin air, or evolutionary accidents such as genetic make-ups. They can only be instrumental goals with limited usefulness in both space and time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2021 10:42:27
Quote
"The evil-god challenge" is a 2010 paper by the Oxford philosopher Dr. Stephen Law. In it, Dr. Law challenges the believer in a loving God by suggesting that any arguments they use to defend their God against the existence of evil can be reversed to defend, with equal plausibility, the existence of an evil God despite the existence of good in the world.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/01/2021 11:23:58
The extinction of human ancestors is surely bad for us, since it prevents us from existing for the first place. Human extinction would be bad for human descendants, or more generally, successors.All my ancestors are dead. 99.999% of them died before I was born. Children of any ape species rarely predecease their parents. Time marches on! If ancestors didn't die, there would be no room for the next generation.
If (more likely, when) humans die out, various other species will flourish. It is quite likely that we will have infected Mars with some of our bacteria by then, so DNA chemistry will persist and may even evolve into something as stupid and cosmically insignificant as humans. So what?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/01/2021 11:26:44
Immorality is closely related to evil. Let's play devil's advocate.You have just introduced two concrete nouns for which there is no evidence of existence. Stephen Law introduced two more.
This is science, not philosophy. Let's stick to what is observable and testable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2021 04:18:57
All my ancestors are dead. 99.999% of them died before I was born. Children of any ape species rarely predecease their parents. Time marches on! If ancestors didn't die, there would be no room for the next generation.
If (more likely, when) humans die out, various other species will flourish. It is quite likely that we will have infected Mars with some of our bacteria by then, so DNA chemistry will persist and may even evolve into something as stupid and cosmically insignificant as humans. So what?
They didn't extinct before giving birth to newer generations. Otherwise, we won't be here arguing about that. I'm not talking about individual death or destruction. What matters is survival or destruction of overall systems. Humans shed some of their cells everyday, so at one point, all of their cells have been replaced. Can they be said to have changed their identity? At which point that change occurs?
You seem to stuck with the old definition of individuality, which has been shown to be problematic.
It's commonly expected that there are huge barrier to evolve up to human level intelligence, otherwise we would have observed it in many other species. And it took a long time to do so, which is a valuable resource. Restarting the evolutionary process for no good reason is clearly a waste of time, hence we can call it immoral based on its inefficiency, which is a violation to the universal instrumental goal.
In current state, you can call human existence is cosmically insignificant. But if they can proceed to build a level 3 civilization in Kardashev scale, they would undeniably be cosmically significant.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2021 04:26:27
They are concepts with conceivable definitions to describe something and distinguish between different things and classify them. Just like temperature, which we can use to distinguish between hot and cool objects. What's your evidence for the existence of heat?Immorality is closely related to evil. Let's play devil's advocate.You have just introduced two concrete nouns for which there is no evidence of existence. Stephen Law introduced two more.
This is science, not philosophy. Let's stick to what is observable and testable.
What nouns did he introduced?
This thread is in just chat! category. Does this forum have philosophy category?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2021 05:38:13
The video shows some problems we often see in a philosophical debate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2021 09:33:49
0:00 - Introduction
0:42 - Political allegiance
3:41 - Social contract theory
8:59 - Against tacit consent
22:28 - Convention
27:37 - Property by convention
41:53 - Government by convention
48:09 - Hume's conservatism
Post by: alancalverd on 13/01/2021 10:45:47
What matters is survival or destruction of overall systems.The overall system is the ecosystem of this planet. It is a dynamic system. Many species have come and gone to get us to where we are, and homo sapiens has disrupted the system far more than any other species by eliminating parasites, competitors, several prey species, and anything that some quack tells you is an aphrodisiac. The extinction of homo sapiens is the only hope for increased biodiversity that might lead to the evolution of an intelligent species.
As far as we know there is no other ecosystem based on organic chemistry. The survival of this one depends on the restriction or extinction of the one species that is capable of destroying it.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/01/2021 10:56:02
What nouns did he introduced?You introduced evil and devil, he added god and good. We can classify actions as good or evil, but the moment you turn these adjectives into nouns you are diminishing human responsibility and invoking external agencies for which there is no evidence. This is the start of the slippery slope to religion and philosophy. Before you know it, you start inventing anthropic agents like gods and devils to excuse actions and complicate a perfectly simple discussion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2021 04:03:04
The overall system is the ecosystem of this planet. It is a dynamic system. Many species have come and gone to get us to where we are, and homo sapiens has disrupted the system far more than any other species by eliminating parasites, competitors, several prey species, and anything that some quack tells you is an aphrodisiac. The extinction of homo sapiens is the only hope for increased biodiversity that might lead to the evolution of an intelligent species.
Why limit it to the planet? Doesn't it interact with extraterrestrial things?
Do yout think that extinction of homo sapiens is a good think? Should we work to make it happen?
Quote
As far as we know there is no other ecosystem based on organic chemistry. The survival of this one depends on the restriction or extinction of the one species that is capable of destroying it.A human individual is capable of destroying other human individuals. The moral rules are some ways to restrict them. Destroying all other human individuals is not feasible since they are needed to one's own survival. Even their own reproductions need a partner.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2021 04:16:32
What nouns did he introduced?You introduced evil and devil, he added god and good. We can classify actions as good or evil, but the moment you turn these adjectives into nouns you are diminishing human responsibility and invoking external agencies for which there is no evidence. This is the start of the slippery slope to religion and philosophy. Before you know it, you start inventing anthropic agents like gods and devils to excuse actions and complicate a perfectly simple discussion.
I didn't introduce devil. Devil's advocate is just a name of a concept.
Quote
Devil's advocate definition, a person who advocates an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/devil-s-advocate
Quote
someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/devil-s-advocate
I don't really believe all that - I was just playing devil's advocate.
On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself, and is already discussed from the beginning of this thread, thus not a new thing added by Stephen Law.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2021 06:45:08
Post by: alancalverd on 14/01/2021 10:51:59
Why limit it to the planet? Doesn't it interact with extraterrestrial things?Yes, the planet clearly interacts with the sun and moon, and to a lesser extent with the rest of the universe, but AFAIK these can be regarded as predictable cyclic energy exchanges and our ecosystem has negligible impact on the rest of the universe.
Do you think that extinction of homo sapiens is a good thing? Should we work to make it happen?
Extinction of homo sapiens would undoubtedly be good for nearly all other species. Feral dogs and cats survive fairly well, apart from those freaks we have intentionally bred to be wholly dependent on us slaughtering sheep and chickens to feed them. Some specific parasites might die with us but biodiversity would at least stop decreasing and the evolution of other species would probably speed up. It would certainly make sense to reduce the human population to about one tenth of its current level, if only for the benefit of our human sucessors who would then be far more resilient to climate change.
Quote
A human individual is capable of destroying other human individuals. The moral rules are some ways to restrict them. Destroying all other human individuals is not feasible since they are needed to one's own survival. Even their own reproductions need a partner.
You are probably too young to remember the explicit policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. The capability is still there, and whilst the overkill has been reduced a bit, there are now more red buttons, under the control of more reprehensible people, than ever before. So it's entirely feasible (it would take about an hour) and, in the minds of those who have the power to do it, entirely desirable.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/01/2021 16:20:18
On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself,I disagree. Good is an adjective and distinct from morality.
By my analysis, killing another human (other than genuine mercy killing) is always immoral (it fails both tests) and sometimes good (self defence, defence of loved ones, defence of civilisation....).
Only a philosopher would seek to make life more complicated than that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 03:58:28
Yes, the planet clearly interacts with the sun and moon, and to a lesser extent with the rest of the universe, but AFAIK these can be regarded as predictable cyclic energy exchanges and our ecosystem has negligible impact on the rest of the universe.You haven't considered all the possibilities. Humans have a good chance to expand their presence into extraterrestial space, and eliminate their dependence to particular heavenly bodies, hence increasing the chance for continual existence of conscious systems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 05:07:24
Extinction of homo sapiens would undoubtedly be good for nearly all other species. Feral dogs and cats survive fairly well, apart from those freaks we have intentionally bred to be wholly dependent on us slaughtering sheep and chickens to feed them. Some specific parasites might die with us but biodiversity would at least stop decreasing and the evolution of other species would probably speed up. It would certainly make sense to reduce the human population to about one tenth of its current level, if only for the benefit of our human sucessors who would then be far more resilient to climate change.To be independent from terrestrial resource, any organism needs to be intelligent enough, at least equal to current human level. They also need to develop knowledge of how the universe works. Although not impossible, it is likely take a long time for species other than human to achieve that through genetic evolutionary process alone. There is no guarantee that they could achieve that before the next mass extinction event. Furthermore, how can we be sure that they won't make the same mistakes made by humans?
Hence improving human condition is the most efficient route currently known to approach best case scenario. The first step is to tell them what the best case scenario is.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 05:21:04
I'm fine if you want to redefine morality, as long as it has some merit. But your moral standard seems to have no clear target nor objective to be pursuit by other conscious agents. They were arbitrarily chosen without obvious reasons. Moreover, they have no decisive value, even in principle. They can't help you choose the objectively best option in difficult moral situations such as the trolley problems.On the other hand, the good is inherent in the definition of morality itself,I disagree. Good is an adjective and distinct from morality.
By my analysis, killing another human (other than genuine mercy killing) is always immoral (it fails both tests) and sometimes good (self defence, defence of loved ones, defence of civilisation....).
Only a philosopher would seek to make life more complicated than that.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 11:38:17
You haven't considered all the possibilities. Humans have a good chance to expand their presence into extraterrestial space, and eliminate their dependence to particular heavenly bodies, hence increasing the chance for continual existence of conscious systems.Humans aren't the only conscious species on the planet, just the one most likely to destroy the others.
We have no idea whether there are any other conscious beings in the universe but it seems more likely than not.
The adaptations required to survive independent of particular lumps of rock and gas are such that the survivors will not be recognisably human.
So what? The only contribution of conscious systems to the universe is to do a bit of complicated chemistry, then die and revert to simple chemistry.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 11:59:06
I'm fine if you want to redefine morality, as long as it has some merit. But your moral standard seems to have no clear target nor objective to be pursuit by other conscious agents. They were arbitrarily chosen without obvious reasons. Moreover, they have no decisive value, even in principle. They can't help you choose the objectively best option in difficult moral situations such as the trolley problems.
Don't confuse morality with practicality. My moral tests apply to any one action where the desired objective has already been stated. You could use them to assign moral weight to various alternatives, which you can also rank in terms of practical utility, so you now have an additional parameter of choice. Broadly speaking, an action that fails one or other test is less likely to lead to future cooperation with other people even if it resolves the immediate problem.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 14:41:07
Humans aren't the only conscious species on the planet, just the one most likely to destroy the others.Humans came from ancestors so different which were not recognisably human either. What matters is the continuity of consciousness. All comes back to anthropic principle. Those who want to survive are more likely to survive compared to those who don't. Those who are willing to improve are more likely to survive compared to those who aren't. The improvements are not limited to genetic. Epigenetic improvements also matter. Memes such as culture, ideology, and knowledge are also significant factors. Evolving into other species (presumable a better one, and more suitable to current environment) are just instrumental goal.
We have no idea whether there are any other conscious beings in the universe but it seems more likely than not.
The adaptations required to survive independent of particular lumps of rock and gas are such that the survivors will not be recognisably human.
So what? The only contribution of conscious systems to the universe is to do a bit of complicated chemistry, then die and revert to simple chemistry.
The universal terminal goal as the foundation of the universal moral standard is meant for those who want to survive, and willing to do what it takes to keep it that way.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 14:52:52
Don't confuse morality with practicality. My moral tests apply to any one action where the desired objective has already been stated. You could use them to assign moral weight to various alternatives, which you can also rank in terms of practical utility, so you now have an additional parameter of choice. Broadly speaking, an action that fails one or other test is less likely to lead to future cooperation with other people even if it resolves the immediate problem.How do you use your moral rules to make decision in trolley problem?
How do you evaluate people who follow those rules but make different decisions due to their different preferences?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 15:54:49
What is consciousness? Why is its survival objectively important?
Humans came from ancestors so different which were not recognisably human either. What matters is the continuity of consciousness.
Quote
All comes back to anthropic principle.a polite name for human vanity. Science is about humility.
Quote
Those who want to survive are more likely to survive compared to those who don't. Those who are willing to improve are more likely to survive compared to those who aren't.Is there any evidence that dodos, mammoths, passenger pigeons, dinosaurs or Aztecs were unwilling to survive? Desire isn't a guarantee of success.
Quote
The improvements are not limited to genetic. Epigenetic improvements also matter. Evolving into other species (presumable a better one, and more suitable to current environment) are just instrumental goal.So you aren't worried about the survival of any particular species. That's good because we could fire a whole lot of lobopodia or wheat grains into the cosmos with a fair chance of surviving until they hit a rock on whcih they might grow, multiply and eventually evolve into something as bizarre and pointless as a human being.
Quote
Memes such as culture, ideology, and knowledge are also significant factors.So we should preserve and disperse Nazism, punk rock and the Spanish Inquisition across the cosmos? Knowledge is simply the coded representation of facts - the rest of the universe is the facts themselves, so what is so cosmically important about the code?
Quote
The universal terminal goal as the foundation of the universal moral standard is meant for those who want to survive, and willing to do what it takes to keep it that way.Most people consider that impregnating another man's partner is immoral because it militates against collaboration but it's the best way of ensuring survival of the fittest and strongest.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2021 16:07:29
Don't confuse morality with practicality. My moral tests apply to any one action where the desired objective has already been stated. You could use them to assign moral weight to various alternatives, which you can also rank in terms of practical utility, so you now have an additional parameter of choice. Broadly speaking, an action that fails one or other test is less likely to lead to future cooperation with other people even if it resolves the immediate problem.How do you use your moral rules to make decision in trolley problem?
Test 1. In any random sample of people, I am more likely to be found in a group of 5 than 1. So would I like it if you saved one random person or five? Obviously, save 5.
Test 2. A random group of 5 is more likely to contain one of my nearest and dearest than a random sample of 1, so save 5.
Quote
How do you evaluate people who follow those rules but make different decisions due to their different preferences?The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 22:28:51
What is consciousness? Why is its survival objectively important?I've explained it many times already in this thread as well as my other thread. In the context of morality, it's about the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively. It's the extended version of medical definition of consciousness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness
The extended consciousness spans from negative infinity to positive infinity.
It's importance is based on anthropic principle. Let's say a natural process produce several conscious agents. Some of them care about the existence of consciousness, some others don't. Those who don't care are more likely to extinct, hence become non-conscious and can't argue to defend their position anymore. What's left are conscious agents who care about the existence of consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 22:47:48
a polite name for human vanity. Science is about humility.Evolving humans is an instrumental goal. There are other possible alternative routes to achieve universal terminal goal, but currently this is the best that we know.
Science is about building an accurate model of objective reality. It's an instrumental goal to make and execute plans effectively and efficiently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2021 23:14:35
Is there any evidence that dodos, mammoths, passenger pigeons, dinosaurs or Aztecs were unwilling to survive? Desire isn't a guarantee of success.You don't always get what you want. More than 99% of species that ever existed have already been extinct.
Organism with no survival instinct won't last more than a generation. If they exist at all they must lose the survival instinct only recently.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 00:50:49
In the context of morality, it's about the ability to conceive and execute plans effectively.So building and operating concentration camps is an example of moral behavior and consciousness, and Schubert's 8th symphony ("Unfinished") is not.
I'm not kidding. I recall a progress meeting one Monday morning when we were building an MRI clinic. Doctors, engineers, accountants and craftsmen sat at my boardroom table, feeling very pleased with ourselves. The architect arrived and announced that he had just returned from a visit to Auschwitz "which was designed and built by people just like us."
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 00:53:10
Those who don't care are more likely to extinctDo you have evidence for this?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 00:55:50
Evolving humans is an instrumental goal.Set by whom? Agreed by whom? You can erect a structure of sticks and nets and call it a goal, but it only becomes a goal if someone else wants to kick a ball into it. If nobody does, it's a piece of vain artwork.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 01:01:21
It's importance is based on anthropic principle.Can you distinguish between the anthropic principle and vanity? Whales believe that the universe was designed to allow whales to evolve and prosper, and the only better planet would be one with no hard bits at all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:40:57
The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:43:14
So building and operating concentration camps is an example of moral behavior and consciousness, and Schubert's 8th symphony ("Unfinished") is not.How do they end up now? Which one is still thriving?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:48:23
We can make some simulations. Try some genetic algorithm.Those who don't care are more likely to extinctDo you have evidence for this?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 09:58:52
An evolutionary process which produces homo sapiens.Evolving humans is an instrumental goal.Set by whom? Agreed by whom? You can erect a structure of sticks and nets and call it a goal, but it only becomes a goal if someone else wants to kick a ball into it. If nobody does, it's a piece of vain artwork.
I proposed it here, so of course I agree with it. It's yet to be seen if someone else agree with me.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2021 10:14:40
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleIt's importance is based on anthropic principle.Can you distinguish between the anthropic principle and vanity? Whales believe that the universe was designed to allow whales to evolve and prosper, and the only better planet would be one with no hard bits at all.
There are two ways to fit into an environment, change yourself or change the environment. Which one do you think is more effective and efficient, for human and whales?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 10:15:33
We can make some simulations. Try some genetic algorithm.A simulation is not evidence. To demonstrate your point you need to trace at least one species that didn't care about its survival, and at least one that did.
Problem is that we have absolutely no idea what goes on in the mind of any other animal species apart from "feed/flee/f**k/fight", and no concept of what motivates plants at all. Was it lack of attitude that killed rooftop lichens in Manchester, or acid fog? Is Japanese knotweed really motivated by the imperial aspirations of Hirohito, or just happy to land on another cold wet island? Did goose barnacles really have the evolutionary foresight to wait until Man invented ships before colonising everything that floats?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 10:27:49
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principleIncorrect interpretation of "because", "must", and "constraints on the laws of nature". These lead to an implicit inversion of cause and effect. Very unscientific presentation. I suspect the speaker is a philosopher.
An evolutionary process which produces homo sapiens.The evidence is only that evolution has produced homo sapiens and, much more recently, various COVID variants which may eliminate the human species. So the rational deduction is either that evolution has no intended goal, or that its goal is not the success of homo sapiens, which is merely a temporary host for something more robust.
If you subtract vanity from your hypothesis, you are left with nothing.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/01/2021 10:33:45
How do they end up now? Which one is still thriving?Precisely my point! The product of a person incapable of bringing it fully to fruition has survived because everyone else judged it to be morally acceptable - it passes both my tests, whereas extermination by
Quote
the ability to conceive and execute plans effectivelyfails on both counts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 04:19:48
A simulation is not evidence. To demonstrate your point you need to trace at least one species that didn't care about its survival, and at least one that did.As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?
I think it is self evident that a specimen deprived instinct to survive won't survive for long. That's the case when they aren't interested to eat, drink, or breath.
Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 04:23:53
fails on both counts.It was my definition of consciousness, not morality.
Immorality must come from non-zero consciousness. An agent is called immoral by a moral standard if it effectively makes it harder to achieve the terminal goal set by that standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 05:01:32
Problem is that we have absolutely no idea what goes on in the mind of any other animal species apart from "feed/flee/f**k/fight", and no concept of what motivates plants at all. Was it lack of attitude that killed rooftop lichens in Manchester, or acid fog? Is Japanese knotweed really motivated by the imperial aspirations of Hirohito, or just happy to land on another cold wet island? Did goose barnacles really have the evolutionary foresight to wait until Man invented ships before colonising everything that floats?You seem to miss the concept of evolution. Those living organisms are simply not filtered out yet by natural selection. Flexibility is one of the most important features an organism can have to pass from consecutive natural selections with different environmental conditions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 05:52:28
Discussion of morality is more interesting when the subject does not have reached consensus yet. Otherwise it would be boring, doesn't yield new knowledge, and thus just wasting time.The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?
People has different answer for the question above. Can the answer be used to judge their morality? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2021 13:01:44
As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?Sadly, no.
You can simulate and approximate in order to design your machinery, but (a) you don't know how good your simulation was until you have actually crashed and burned and (b) you land with realtime radar altimetry because only a fool would trust an untested simulator!
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2021 13:05:57
Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.Have you dealt with many suicidal people? In my experience life is rarely that simple.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2021 13:07:58
You seem to miss the concept of evolution.Evolution is a general observation, not a single mechanism or even a defined group of mechanisms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 15:24:36
We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.As long as you put accurate assumptions into the simulation, it will give a correct answer. How else curiosity rover was sent to Mars surface?Sadly, no.
You can simulate and approximate in order to design your machinery, but (a) you don't know how good your simulation was until you have actually crashed and burned and (b) you land with realtime radar altimetry because only a fool would trust an untested simulator!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 15:31:22
Not directly. IMO they have lost hope, and calculated that their death would bring better result than staying alive, however the equation they used are set. They usually believe that what they want is impossible to get. As long as there is hope, they would try to survive, since it would give them the chance to choose in the next step.Someone who says they don't want to live anymore and try to commit suicide usually means that they prefer to die if don't get something that they want. If you give them exactly that, they most likely want to stay alive.Have you dealt with many suicidal people? In my experience life is rarely that simple.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2021 15:40:25
In some survey, most people choose to save their loved one, when on the other track there are five strangers. I wonder how many strangers could be added before you change our mind? Would you sacrifice your beloved one to save 10 strangers? what if it's 1000? 1 million? 8 billion? infinite?Discussion of morality is more interesting when the subject does not have reached consensus yet. Otherwise it would be boring, doesn't yield new knowledge, and thus just wasting time.The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?
People has different answer for the question above. Can the answer be used to judge their morality? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2021 15:55:15
We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.The only valid test of a simulator is reality. Ask Boeing. Or the folk who built any of the 70% of Mars "landers" that didn't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 04:22:35
It looks like they've finally made adequately accurate simulations to go there. So the next missions should be more reliable.We test simulators to make sure that we didn't put false assumptions into it.The only valid test of a simulator is reality. Ask Boeing. Or the folk who built any of the 70% of Mars "landers" that didn't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 04:57:43
Can someone who sacrifice millions of people to save someone he/she loves can be called immoral? Why or why not?In some survey, most people choose to save their loved one, when on the other track there are five strangers. I wonder how many strangers could be added before you change our mind? Would you sacrifice your beloved one to save 10 strangers? what if it's 1000? 1 million? 8 billion? infinite?Discussion of morality is more interesting when the subject does not have reached consensus yet. Otherwise it would be boring, doesn't yield new knowledge, and thus just wasting time.The vast majority make the same decisions, so the others are evaluated as abnormal. That's how the laws of civilised countries and the behaviors of herds and hives evolve.In a variation of trolley problem, the one bystander is someone you love. How do your rules answer this?
People has different answer for the question above. Can the answer be used to judge their morality? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 05:49:52
It looks like they've finally made adequately accurate simulations to go there.No, they have finally got the radar altimetry and braking systems right. And sorted out the feet/meters problem that bugged at least one early attempt.
I have flown extremely accurate simulators out of and into several known airports. The success of each such mission depended on the realtime skill of the pilot, not the simulator, which (like the aircraft itself) did not change between repeat missions. The whole point of a simulator is to exercise the onboard control system (human or autopilot) response to various external unknowables, given that you know everything about the aircraft, rocket or lander itself because you had full control of its design and construction.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 06:03:28
Can someone who sacrifice millions of people to save someone he/she loves can be called immoral? Why or why not?That's a very dense sentence that needs a bit of analysis.
You can't usefully label a person as immoral on the strength of one decision, but you can assess the morality of that decision.
Objectively, an action that does more harm than good would fail the tests. Suppose you keep making holes in your socks. You wouldn't like it if I amputated your leg instead of cutting your toenails, and I certainly wouldn't do it to my nearest and dearest.
But as I've pointed out before, there are circumstances where sacrifice is required for the greater good, and the ability to choose the unpalatable over the unacceptable defines a successful politician or military commander. Knowing that pretty well everyone will break under torture, SOE operatives were issued with suicide pills and there are plenty of instances where resistance cells have killed each other rather than let human intelligence fall into enemy hands.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 06:31:02
I have flown extremely accurate simulators out of and into several known airports. The success of each such mission depended on the realtime skill of the pilot, not the simulator, which (like the aircraft itself) did not change between repeat missions. The whole point of a simulator is to exercise the onboard control system (human or autopilot) response to various external unknowables, given that you know everything about the aircraft, rocket or lander itself because you had full control of its design and construction.An accurate simulation requires accurate data on realtime environmental conditions significant to the system. If the simulation assumes no wind but in reality it's in a hurricane, the results would be much different. Or if there is a bend in the wing which is not accounted for in the simulation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 06:50:11
You can't usefully label a person as immoral on the strength of one decision, but you can assess the morality of that decision.Agree. Even immoral persons made good deeds sometimes. Moral persons can also make some immoral decisions once in a while.
Objectively, an action that does more harm than good would fail the tests. Suppose you keep making holes in your socks. You wouldn't like it if I amputated your leg instead of cutting your toenails, and I certainly wouldn't do it to my nearest and dearest.In the scenario above, few people are willing to sacrifice their loved one for 5 stangers. Perhaps more people are willing to sacrifice if it's for a million strangers. But it's likely that few people aren't willing to sacrifice at all. Is there an objective threshold for moral decision in this case? How do you measure or calculate harm and good objectively?
But as I've pointed out before, there are circumstances where sacrifice is required for the greater good, and the ability to choose the unpalatable over the unacceptable defines a successful politician or military commander. Knowing that pretty well everyone will break under torture, SOE operatives were issued with suicide pills and there are plenty of instances where resistance cells have killed each other rather than let human intelligence fall into enemy hands.Most people believe that their enemies are the immoral ones. They obviously think that their enemies have non-zero consciousness, but their goals are in conflict with each other. Thus their success becomes their enemies' failure, and vise versa.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 07:04:57
Problem with a spaceship, or a heavy airplane, is that you are pretty much committed once you have made a control input because stuff outside can happen faster than the machine can respond. Thunderstorm downbursts are often fatal but once you are on final approach with flaps, brakes and wheels, there's nothing much you can do except apply full power and wish. I don't think they have thunderstorms on Mars but if you have exhausted your retro fuel and deployed the parachute, no amount of simulation will alter the outcome.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 07:14:19
In the scenario above, few people are willing to sacrifice their loved one for 5 stangers.What people say in a laboratory experiment is not necessarily what they do in reality. Simple example: 80% claim to love their neighbor, but only 40% think their neighbor loves them!
Quote
How do you measure or calculate harm and good objectively?In your trolley scenario, harm = death, so you can count the corpses.
Quote
Most people believe that their enemies are the immoral ones.An enemy is someone who intends to do something you wouldn't like or wouldn't do to your nearest and dearest, thus failing one or both tests. What else defines an enemy?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 09:43:10
By definition you don't know the realtime environment ahead of getting there. All you know is how the aircraft/whatever responds to control inputs, so you don't plan your arrival on the basis of a simulation then sit back and hope, but use the simulator to teach the control system how to cope with whatever actually happens. You can simulate a whole range of damage too. There was a period where enthusiastic sim instructors got so keen on fire, ice and fuel leaks that actual pilot performance declined - too busy anticipating trouble to fly a perfectly functional plane accurately!But the realtime condition can be expected/estimated. The machine is then designed to be able to handle the range of situations as specified. For example, it can handle wind between 0 and 10 m/s. It responds to sensor readings accordingly. The relationships between sensor readings and actuation type, direction and magnitude may not be straightforward, as seen in FSD algorithm.
Problem with a spaceship, or a heavy airplane, is that you are pretty much committed once you have made a control input because stuff outside can happen faster than the machine can respond. Thunderstorm downbursts are often fatal but once you are on final approach with flaps, brakes and wheels, there's nothing much you can do except apply full power and wish. I don't think they have thunderstorms on Mars but if you have exhausted your retro fuel and deployed the parachute, no amount of simulation will alter the outcome.
AFAIK, hurricanes on Mars have been recorded by Mars orbiters. It's expected to have caused Opportunity rover to lose contact.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2021 09:48:53
In your trolley scenario, harm = death, so you can count the corpses.Death of your loved one=1 corpse. Death of n strangers =n corpses.
So you should sacrifice your loved one as long as there are more than 1 strangers on the other track.
Is it sound reasonable?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 11:03:03
it can handle wind between 0 and 10 m/sNo. The difference between a 10 m/s headwind and a 10 m/s tailwind is about 40 kt. You want to clear the boundary fence with about 10 kt airspeed above stall. If the wind flips 180 degrees in the last mile of approach, as it often does in a downburst, you might have time to go around in a light plane (say 70 kt approach speed) or fighter (massive power/weight ratio) , but an airliner approaching at 130 kt probably won't clean up and gain 30 kt before it falls out of the sky.
Prediction of likely approach conditions helps you design the machine, knowledge of actual conditions determines your actions at the time, and simulating worst cases helps train you to take those actions correctly, but there is no met office or control tower on Mars so you don't know the actuals and everything is happening within an 80 mile approach beginning at 100 times the approach speed of an airplane, with no aerodynamic control surfaces. The approach is mostly ballistic.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2021 11:14:28
So you should sacrifice your loved one as long as there are more than 1 strangers on the other track.No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant. I can't think of any actual non-war examples, and in wartime there are other considerations than immediate numbers alone. It is estimated, for instance, that the immediate death of about 180,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki averted the probable death of 400,000 if it had become necessary to invade Japan.
Is it sound reasonable?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 03:31:10
No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.
I can't think of any actual non-war examples, and in wartime there are other considerations than immediate numbers alone. It is estimated, for instance, that the immediate death of about 180,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki averted the probable death of 400,000 if it had become necessary to invade Japan.Process safety engineering calculates the risk based on probability and severity of expected occurence of incident. The resulting number is then compared to the risk of normal life. A threshold is set on how much increase of risk is introduced by the process to determine if it's acceptable. If not, further measure must be done to decrease the risk.
In your example, the severity ratio is almost a half. It means that they were pretty confident about the probability of the alternative scenario.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 08:42:28
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28If you really think that objective morality is of no use, we are wasting our time here trying to find a universal (therefore necessarily objective) moral standard!
No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.
You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 08:50:22
War is the result of political failure. Politics is the business of choosing between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, and you go to war because there is no other way of avoiding the utterly unacceptable outcome of being governed by the enemy.
Hence whilst an observing Martian might see the "mathematical morality" of the Hiroshima equation, if the nuclear option hadn't been available the Allies would have invaded Japan anyway - "good but immoral". Why good? Because however you look at it, Japan had been the initial aggressor.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 22:06:20
My assertion is that the universal moral standard do exist, and it's important to know and follow to achieve the universal terminal goal effectively and efficiently. I just think that your moral standard is not universal, since it's inherently subjective.Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28If you really think that objective morality is of no use, we are wasting our time here trying to find a universal (therefore necessarily objective) moral standard!
No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.
You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 22:12:01
Hence whilst an observing Martian might see the "mathematical morality" of the Hiroshima equation, if the nuclear option hadn't been available the Allies would have invaded Japan anyway - "good but immoral". Why good? Because however you look at it, Japan had been the initial aggressor.Have you read Japanese defense to their actions? They were response to western colonialization.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 22:19:01
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 22:36:40
Have you read Japanese defense to their actions? They were response to western colonialization.I don't recall any attempt by the Americans to colonise Japan before 1940, but the Japanese did colonise China.
Quote
Following seizures of German territories in 1914, the League of Nations granted Japan mandates over some former German possessions in the Western Pacific after World War I. With the Japanese expansion into Manchuria in the early 1930s, Japan adopted a policy of setting up and/or supporting puppet states in conquered regions.
and of course the end result was the westernisation of Japan.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 22:42:05
I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/01/2021 00:14:01
I don't recall any attempt by the Americans to colonise Japan before 1940, but the Japanese did colonise China.When did Japan tried to colonise America?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/01/2021 05:57:06
"Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you.Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Perhaps you'll understand why they came up with their conclusions by identifying false assumptions they've made. It's usually harder to identify false assumptions when they are hidden or not explicitly present in the statement itself.
I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/01/2021 08:45:38
Post by: alancalverd on 20/01/2021 13:35:33
I didn't bother to read beyond the first statement! All "isms" are of dubious validity: either your hypothesis is supported by the evidence, in which case you have knowledge, or it isn't, in which case you would be foolish to act on it, whatever you call it."Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you.Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Perhaps you'll understand why they came up with their conclusions by identifying false assumptions they've made. It's usually harder to identify false assumptions when they are hidden or not explicitly present in the statement itself.
I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2021 08:54:29
https://nocamels.com/2021/01/hebrew-university-autism-genetic-mutation-medications/
Quote
Israeli scientists have identified a specific gene mutation associated with autism and found that it has a significant impact on brain development in mice, with gene-expressions changes that are prominent in the cerebellum area of the brain.
The research indicates that these findings could be instrumental in developing drugs to directly change the neural processes in the cerebellum and offer hope for effective medications for the main symptoms of autism in the future.
Quote
The study found that genes associated with autism tend to be involved in the regulation of other genes and in the cortex, striatum, and cerebellum areas of the brain. The cerebellum is responsible for motor function, and recent findings have indicated that it also contributes to the development of many social and cognitive functions.
The scientist’s findings were published in Nature Communications, the peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Research since 2010.
The study aimed to better understand the relation between the cerebellum and autism.
In the study, aimed at better understanding the link between the cerebellum and autism, the team tested one of the most prominent genes associated with the disorder called POGZ. Professor Shifman chose this specific gene based on prior findings that linked it to developmental disorders and overly friendly behavior in some patients on the autism spectrum.
If we find a fetus with genetic mutation which will cause severe developmental disorders, what should we morally do?
- Fix the gene.
- Abort the fetus.
- Business as usual.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological before the fetus is born.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological after the fetus is born.
What moral standard do you use to choose the option? What do you think of someone else who choose another option?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2021 09:03:00
I didn't bother to read beyond the first statement! All "isms" are of dubious validity: either your hypothesis is supported by the evidence, in which case you have knowledge, or it isn't, in which case you would be foolish to act on it, whatever you call it.Any old scientific theories already superseded by a new one had their own evidences. Some of them are still pretty accurate for some specific conditions.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/01/2021 11:39:24
My moral tests clearly apply to the treatment of anyone who has survived birth (apart from corrupt presidents, of course).
So we have to draw an arbitrary line below which we permit elective abortion and above which we consider the fetus viable and subject to the protections of our moral code enshrined in law. This doesn't raise too many problems in a civilised country with effectively unlimited free health and social care services but if postpartum treatment depends on parental income, or so many highly dependent babies are born that the economy cannot sustain treatment for the elderly who paid their taxes for it, we have to look very carefully at the position of the arbitrary line, and the availability of in-utero testing and correction.
It is clearly wrong to bring a child into the world if there is no possibility of supporting it to adulthood, and we have the means to safely and humanely prevent that happening.
AFAIK there has been some success in in-utero surgery but gene therapy at any age seems to have hit the wall about 20 years ago.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2021 14:22:52
It is clearly wrong to bring a child into the world if there is no possibility of supporting it to adulthood, and we have the means to safely and humanely prevent that happening.We can agree on that case, although we came to our judgements using different standard. Universal moral standard tells us to choose decisions based on their likelihood to effectively achieve universal terminal goal. When no information is available to determine the most effective option, the decision should be based on their efficiency, which is a universal instrumental goal. The most efficient one among the most effective available options should be chosen.
No possibility simply means practically zero probability. That's why I brought the video about Bayesian reasoning here.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/01/2021 15:57:48
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2021 02:14:01
The most efficient decision is to abort all second sons and any fetus with detectable anomalies, and absolutely limit human reproduction to an average of 2 live deliveries per female. This will avoid the population rising to unsustainable (but currently inevitable) levels, but may prove to be unpalatable. It is the job of government to implement the unpalatable where it is needed to prevent the unacceptable.There must be some scientific basis to set those numbers. They are driven by economic law of diminishing marginal utility. How many human individuals are the most optimum to support the achievement of best case scenario? It depends on some factors, such as currently available resources to sustain them, and how much additional resources could be produced by each additional human individual.
If the number is too low, there would be inadequate workforce to produce required resource. If it's too high, too much resources would be wasted just to support them with no additional value.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/01/2021 14:02:31
You can't produce more resources
Quote
"Buy land. They ain't making any more of the stuff." - Will Rogers
On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.
Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2021 15:27:42
You can't produce more resourcesSpace is mostly unexplored. Some asteroids are expected to contain more precious metals than what humans have ever mined.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/01/2021 16:25:47
And remember that the monetary value of gold and diamond lies entirely in their rarity! If we suddenly doubled the amount of gold in circulation, our banking system would collapse (again).
Post by: charles1948 on 22/01/2021 18:25:44
And remember that the monetary value of gold and diamond lies entirely in their rarity! If we suddenly doubled the amount of gold in circulation, our banking system would collapse (again).
When you mention the amount of gold "in circulation", is that a valid point any more. It used to be in earlier times, when gold was made into coins. Such as golden guineas, and "pieces of eight" and doubloons, etc. These really did physically circulate among the populace. At least among the rich portions of the populace. Or the pirate community.
But in modern times, that doesn't happen. No-one today ever uses a gold coin to purchase anything.
There are still gold "coins" in existence. Such as Krugerrands. But these are only standardised lumps of gold.
The equivalent of an "ingot" or "gold bar". These lumps of gold do not circulate, but are kept in private safes, or bank vaults. Especially in Swiss banks.
I've read that in Swiss bank vaults, there are lots of big piles of gold bars on the floor. All the piles have a label on top, such as "USA" or "UK" or "Japan".
The piles of gold never move. Only the labels get transferred between them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2021 21:16:28
Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.Not all males are fertile either. We need data to support our assertions
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2021 21:22:09
On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.That's what China did to it's population, including Uighurs. But the later is met with a lot of backlash and accusation of genocide.
To convince them, you need to offer good reasons why western living standard is good for them. They will also ask if it's the perfect choice. Is it possible to improve it further?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2021 21:33:03
Apart from gold contacts on circuit boards and reed switches, and platinum crucibles, I've never considered "precious" metals to be of any significance in my life.They are needed to build computers and controllers in industrial revolution 4. They are also needed as catalyst for many chemical processes. Also for batteries for transportation and optimize renewable energies.
Foods need processing. More people means more food can be produced. It can be produced by machine, though. But then you need more metals to build more machines.
What's important is to be independent from any particular heavenly body, so our survival can be less vulnerable to catastrophic events.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2021 16:15:10
That's what China did to it's population,I said encourage, not force.
There seems to be quite an appetite for cars, electrical appliances, and a meat-based diet, in modern China.To live to a Western standard (which doesn't mean adopting any particular choice, but having plenty of choice) requires at least 5 kW of controllable power qand 2500 Cal/day per capita. This cannot be generated sustainably for 6,000,000,000 people but is entirely feasible for one tenth of that number.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2021 01:42:13
There seems to be quite an appetite for cars, electrical appliances, and a meat-based diet, in modern China.To live to a Western standard (which doesn't mean adopting any particular choice, but having plenty of choice) requires at least 5 kW of controllable power qand 2500 Cal/day per capita. This cannot be generated sustainably for 6,000,000,000 people but is entirely feasible for one tenth of that number.Is it already the ideal condition? Is it possible to improve it further? What would it look like to live better than current western standard?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2021 13:23:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2021 22:10:15
It is a currently desirable and achievable condition. We pass this way but once, and I'd hope to leave the world better than when I arrived (there were rockets falling on London, and now they go to Pluto, so we've achieved a little bit). Better to improve the status quo with what we have to hand, than sit and wonder what we might achieve with more.Or wonder what could go wrong so we can prevent them.
You still have to define what it means to have a better life. Would it be better if we live longer? or should it be shorter instead? Is there an ideal condition? Is it achievable?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2021 22:47:34
En route to that destination, we next desire an absence of disease, hunger, or other environmental stress, followed by an extension of autonomy such that nobody feels threatened or oppressed by anyone else.
A balanced reduction of the human population can remove most of the environmental stresses. Most criminal codes are pretty similar as regards outlawing theft, murder, or uttering threats of any kind, but true autonomy also requires that we outlaw the preaching of religion as a part of our antidiscrimination statutes.
Having got rid of most sources of fear, and increased the per capita availability of essentials, we can pretty much leave it up to individuals to decide what would optimise their experience without harming or burdening others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 01:47:35
The minimum condition for a good life is to choose when and how to end it - the ultimate demonstration of autonomy.Have you decided when and how you will end your life?
A balanced reduction of the human population can remove most of the environmental stresses.What do you propose to achieve that? What should we do to those who don't agree, and make decisions which effectively increase the population?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 06:59:04
May be these helpMaybe you can just start by typing or quoting the most fundamental values in what you think as a universal moral standard. It should only consist of a few sentences. You can then explain how you can arrive to your conclusion, or why you reject some of its alternatives.
Here are lists of universal human needs and values
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 08:23:31
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Quote
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.[2] Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.
In addition to the theories of moral realism, moral universalism includes other cognitivist moral theories, such as the subjectivist ideal observer theory and divine command theory, and also the non-cognitivist moral theory of universal prescriptivism.
Quote
According to philosophy professor R. W. Hepburn: "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."[5]
Linguist and political theorist Noam Chomsky states:
"if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."[6]
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 08:26:04
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
Quote
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.
Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2]
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.
Quote
Moral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, (usually) perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.
Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 08:46:02
a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.As we can see here, the description of universal ethic as currently accepted by philosophers comes with a caveat, "all similarly situated individuals". Where should we draw the line of the similarity? Should we apply the exact same moral rules to young children? babies? elderly? mentally or physically disabled? members of non-human species? intelligent machines?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 08:59:29
Yes. January 2029, hypothermia. The date may be delayed if I am in good health and happily married.The minimum condition for a good life is to choose when and how to end it - the ultimate demonstration of autonomy.Have you decided when and how you will end your life?
Quote
For the UK and similar countries: abolish all child and maternity benefits and pay every woman aged 15 to 55 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. Allow one exception to the "nonpregnant" rule and another if the child does not survive to age 16. Those who can afford to raise more than one child with no state support can do whatever they wish.A balanced reduction of the human population can remove most of the environmental stresses.What do you propose to achieve that? What should we do to those who don't agree, and make decisions which effectively increase the population?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 09:18:47
The "golden rule" and the "wife test" can be pretty universally applied and should be taught at an early age.
How we treat nonhuman species depends on the species and its ecological role. I can see no advantage in the malaria plasmodium to any species but itself, likewise tapeworms, so I'm happy to poison them. Breeding dogs that can't run or breathe properly is pointless and will probably be prohibited by canine societies in the next few years anyway. Farming animals for meat is part of the problem.
How we treat machines is as machines, to be exploited for our convenience and switched off if they misbehave.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 10:48:51
Yes. January 2029, hypothermia. The date may be delayed if I am in good health and happily married.So it's not a fixed date. If newest technology can keep you and your wife healthy indefinitely, you would rather continue to live indefinitely.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 10:56:20
For the UK and similar countries: abolish all child and maternity benefits and pay every woman aged 15 to 55 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. Allow one exception to the "nonpregnant" rule and another if the child does not survive to age 16. Those who can afford to raise more than one child with no state support can do whatever they wish.How did you come up with those numbers? Do you think that the new rules would affect how kids already born will grow?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 11:35:50
Only if my granddaughters are infertile - which seems unlikely. I'll probably be bored by 2100, though I'd hope to pass Grade 8 piano by then.Yes. January 2029, hypothermia. The date may be delayed if I am in good health and happily married.So it's not a fixed date. If newest technology can keep you and your wife healthy indefinitely, you would rather continue to live indefinitely.
I'm already too old to fly passengers on scheduled routes, and there will come a time when the Powers that Be require me to spend so much time re-taking exams and medicals that I won't be able to fly or drive at all.
I review the target date every year (good business practice as required by ISO9000) and it hasn't changed since 1985.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 11:48:20
The numbers are chosen to provide a strong incentive for teenagers and a token reward for mature women, whilst remaining below the cost to the public purse of education, health and social services associated with a child. £1000 per year will buy a lot of contraception if you don't like the free stuff provided by the NHS, or a useful cushion for the one child you do have.For the UK and similar countries: abolish all child and maternity benefits and pay every woman aged 15 to 55 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. Allow one exception to the "nonpregnant" rule and another if the child does not survive to age 16. Those who can afford to raise more than one child with no state support can do whatever they wish.How did you come up with those numbers? Do you think that the new rules would affect how kids already born will grow?
It's a while since I did the calculation and maybe £700 would be a better sum for the UK - happy to negotiate. For the rest of the world, it's at the very least a commitment to provide girls with a healthcare professional consultation twice a year, and an incentive to attend.
Those already born will on average have fewer young siblings than previous generations. No big deal - I am an only child and never thought it odd.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 12:53:05
The "golden rule" and the "wife test" can be pretty universally applied and should be taught at an early age.The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists, and the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 12:57:06
I'm already too old to fly passengers on scheduled routes, and there will come a time when the Powers that Be require me to spend so much time re-taking exams and medicals that I won't be able to fly or drive at all.In a few years machine will fly aeroplanes and drive cars much better than any human.
Ageing process would be halted, and even reversed. You only need to survive long enough until it becomes reality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 14:19:34
How we treat nonhuman species depends on the species and its ecological role. I can see no advantage in the malaria plasmodium to any species but itself, likewise tapeworms, so I'm happy to poison them.at least they are useful as food for their predators. They can also control population of their preys.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 16:07:44
The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists,no, violence done to masochists.
Quote
and the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.no, it doesn't give permission but militates against violence.
The fact that something is immoral doesn't stop anyone doing it, nor does it make the action always wrong (war, selfdefence...) but the tests provide a framework for criminal law. And a moral action must pass both tests.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 16:08:41
In a few years machine will fly aeroplanes and drive cars much better than any human.Fine, but if they stop me from doing it, I'll lose the will to live.
Quote
Ageing process would be halted, and even reversed.OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 16:09:57
at least they are useful as food for their predatorsPlease name the predators of malaria parasites and human tapeworms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 22:16:13
The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same. Our judgement that what they do is wrong come from something else.The golden rule ligitimizes violence done by masochists,no, violence done to masochists.Quoteand the wife test ligitimizes violence done by loveless persons.no, it doesn't give permission but militates against violence.
The fact that something is immoral doesn't stop anyone doing it, nor does it make the action always wrong (war, selfdefence...) but the tests provide a framework for criminal law. And a moral action must pass both tests.
Your pair of rules don't stop masochists who have no love from inflicting pain to others. What they do pass your test, yet most other people see it as immoral.
Lie and theft aren't always wrong either. There must be something more fundamental to justify them. That's what we are trying to discover here.
If your moral standard says that something is immoral, but you insist that its okay, then your moral standard has been overridden by something more important, even if you can't identify it yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 22:23:54
OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend?When technology is advanced enough to reverse ageing, we should be able to handle minor medical inconveniences better.
A universal morality doesn't depend on momentary feeling and emotion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2021 22:25:48
If we haven't identify them, we can create one.at least they are useful as food for their predatorsPlease name the predators of malaria parasites and human tapeworms.
I bring it here not because I'm against humans or want to defend pests. I just want consistency and against double standard, which makes it impossible to follow moral rules reliably.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 23:25:47
Not momentary, but an entire generation disenfranchised and frustrated by the horde of competitive, successful, wealthy, educated and experienced old men in their physical prime, who grab all the nubile young women and never get tired of it. I hit my peak (and was free of acne) at around 25, but didn't have any money. Now I have a house, a car and a pension so no need to work, but suddenly I'm 25 for ever, and my great grandson hasn't got a chance!QuoteQuote from: alancalverd on Today at 16:08:41When technology is advanced enough to reverse ageing, we should be able to handle minor medical inconveniences better.
OK, a bit of hair wouldn't come amiss, but do I really want acne and a squeaky voice? How will my great grandson react when a randy 120-year-old millionaire Adonis starts chatting up his girlfriend?
A universal morality doesn't depend on momentary feeling and emotion.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 23:26:44
The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same.You are confusing masochists with sadists.
Interestingly, there is a UK legal precedent that criminalises sadistic assault even when the masochistic victim has clearly, knowingly and repeatedly consented to it. Drawing the line between sadomasochism and boxing did exercise the court somewhat but I think the concept of a refereed contest of skill and strength was held to be qualitatively different from onesided assault.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/01/2021 23:34:02
If we haven't identify them [predators of parasites] , we can create one.
I bring it here not because I'm against humans or want to defend pests. I just want consistency and against double standard, which makes it impossible to follow moral rules reliably.
No need to create a predator: we already have adequate poisons to get rid of most common parasites. My point is that they are the end of the food chain - they don't have natural predators, so we won't be starving another species by eliminating them.
There is no double standard. No, I wouldn't like to be poisoned, nor would I poison my family. But a parasite is an enemy that cannot compromise or run away.
"Moral rules" is too concise to allow for practicalities. My tests can define moral versus immoral actions, but the rules of society are laid down in laws that reflect public judgement of the seriousness of immoral acts and exonerating circumstances. Hence killing in selfdefence may be legitimate, though the case of a farmer who shot a persistent burglar was finely balanced in the opposite direction, and would have found the farmer innocent in a US court.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 04:55:53
No. If the sadists who inflict pain to others don't want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they violate golden rule, thus can be judged as immoral. On the other hand, if they also want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they are not immoral according to golden rule. In this case the masochism is the characteristic that liberates them from being judged as immoral by golden rule.The golden rule doesn't say to masochists that what they do to others are immoral, as long as they are also willing to be treated the same.You are confusing masochists with sadists.
Interestingly, there is a UK legal precedent that criminalises sadistic assault even when the masochistic victim has clearly, knowingly and repeatedly consented to it. Drawing the line between sadomasochism and boxing did exercise the court somewhat but I think the concept of a refereed contest of skill and strength was held to be qualitatively different from onesided assault.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 05:03:07
No need to create a predator: we already have adequate poisons to get rid of most common parasites. My point is that they are the end of the food chain - they don't have natural predators, so we won't be starving another species by eliminating them.By standard of some other species, humans are either symbionts, parasites, predators, or preys. You need to explain why one species is to be given priviledges over others.
There is no double standard. No, I wouldn't like to be poisoned, nor would I poison my family. But a parasite is an enemy that cannot compromise or run away.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 07:50:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 09:23:31
Not momentary, but an entire generation disenfranchised and frustrated by the horde of competitive, successful, wealthy, educated and experienced old men in their physical prime, who grab all the nubile young women and never get tired of it. I hit my peak (and was free of acne) at around 25, but didn't have any money. Now I have a house, a car and a pension so no need to work, but suddenly I'm 25 for ever, and my great grandson hasn't got a chance!There are somethings we got so used to that we take them for granted. When our knowledge and technology get more advanced, we may need to reconsider our priorities. I described the highest priority in another thread, which I quote below.
Just in case I haven't made it clear yet, when I said that currently known best chance to achieve the universal terminal goal is through improvement of humanity, I meant it as a superorganism, rather than human individuals. Individually, there's nothing much can be done compared to other life forms.The whole process that produced current human civilization is essentially an accumulation of organized information. Only by continuing this process we will be able to achieve the universal terminal goal.
The parts of this superorganism are not limited to physical bodies of homo sapiens, but include everything else that supporting its existence, such as their microbiome, food chains, infrastructures, institutions, and knowledge.
As long as we still exist, there is a chance to achieve the universal terminal goal. As long as it hasn't been achieved yet, there's always a room for improvement. It means something must change. Which part is yet to be determined. An accurate virtual universe can help identifying the most effective and efficient changes to be done.
Nowadays, senescence and degenerative diseases sound like stupid design. But back then, they were important mechanisms to enforce genetic changes, hence opening the chance for genetic improvement.This inefficiency can be countered by sexual reproduction. Specimens containing harmful mutations will find it harder to reproduce. They may not even live long enough into maturity.
Even though harmful mutations have higher chance to occur than the beneficial ones, the risk can be countered by higher reproduction rate. But that means many individuals must be sacrificed to accumulate genetic improvements, which is not an efficient strategy.
Sexual reproduction which works mostly in diploid or polyploid organism enables accumulation of organized information in a form of genetic materials.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 09:40:40
I've cautioned against -isms and philosophers many times in this conversation. This is a science forum so we should stick to robust hypotheses and economic implementations of them.Whatever idea you can come up with, philosophers will always find a name for it. At least they will classify your idea into one or more existing categories. IMO, your morality is deontological, since actions or decisions are morally judged by their compliance with some rules, instead of their consequences. But somehow you suggested that we should do immoral things in case they produce more desirable consequences. This inconsitency would make it hard for any conscious agents to follow your morality reliably.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 11:02:52
On the other hand, if they also want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they are not immoral according to golden rule.That's why we have two tests. And you must remember that even if your proposed action meets both criteria in your own mind, that doesn't make it "right", which is defined by the moral standards of the majority as expressed in criminal law.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 11:16:17
By standard of some other species, humans are either symbionts, parasites, predators, or preys. You need to explain why one species is to be given priviledges over others.Because life is mostly a competition between species. The characteristic that distinguishes animals from plants is the inability to synthesise essential nutrients from nonliving sources, so all animals have to kill something to live. From there on, we are either competitors, predators, prey or parasites, with very few examples of interspecies collaboration. So you can't expect the rules that apply within a species to apply between all species.
Many years ago a girl was successfully prosecuted for torturing a prawn. No kidding. She worked in a shellfish factory where the job was to boil buckets of prawns. She entertained her workmates by making a prawn "dance" on a hotplate. The RSPCA claimed that boiling prawns was a necessary step in food preparation but causing discomfort or death of any species for entertainment was demeaning. Her employers supported the prosecution.
My local ratcatcher has a very skilful dog, but won't let the customers watch him at work.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 11:24:33
Whatever idea you can come up with, philosophers will always find a name for it. At least they will classify your idea into one or more existing categories. IMO, your morality is deontological, since actions or decisions are morally judged by their compliance with some rules, instead of their consequences. But somehow you suggested that we should do immoral things in case they produce more desirable consequences. This inconsitency would make it hard for any conscious agents to follow your morality reliably.
For "philosopher" read "parasite" in my book.
You wouldn't like it if I shot you. You wouldn't shoot your own family. So shooting people is immoral. That is the pacifist argument. Now imagine your family are being attacked by a rabid Trumpist with a gun. Do you attempt moral persuasion, or shoot?
I've said it before: moral and good are not the same thing. I've no doubt a philosopher would find a complicated way of saying it too, if he could understand it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 11:33:15
Criminal laws don't use golden rule as their basis. It means your rules are incomplete for a human moral standard, let alone the universal one.On the other hand, if they also want the same pain to be inflicted to them, they are not immoral according to golden rule.That's why we have two tests. And you must remember that even if your proposed action meets both criteria in your own mind, that doesn't make it "right", which is defined by the moral standards of the majority as expressed in criminal law.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 12:06:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 13:43:29
Because life is mostly a competition between species. The characteristic that distinguishes animals from plants is the inability to synthesise essential nutrients from nonliving sources, so all animals have to kill something to live. From there on, we are either competitors, predators, prey or parasites, with very few examples of interspecies collaboration. So you can't expect the rules that apply within a species to apply between all species.As long as you can't let go the traditional concept of individuality, you won't be able to build an interspecies moral system. What you need is to treat the ecosystem as a superorganism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2021 14:38:54
You wouldn't like it if I shot you. You wouldn't shoot your own family. So shooting people is immoral. That is the pacifist argument. Now imagine your family are being attacked by a rabid Trumpist with a gun. Do you attempt moral persuasion, or shoot?It doesn't work for real nihilists. Though they are rare, we can't say for sure that they don't exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 15:24:06
you won't be able to build an interspecies moral system.And why would I want to? The dog is my friend, the flea is our common enemy. Actually, cat fleas are more of a problem: dog fleas don't much care for human blood.
Post by: charles1948 on 26/01/2021 16:29:04
With no constraints on its behaviour. Because there are no individual species, no individual dissenting minds, to say: "Hey - you can't do that - it's not morally right!
Can't you see the elegant logic of Usuf's solution? The problem of "Morality" is simply abolished!
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2021 18:33:43
Drunken Trump voter: "I'm gonna kill you commie atheist Democrat, Yusuf, and all your family, in the name of freedom and democracy 'cos you stole an election, whatever that is."You wouldn't like it if I shot you. You wouldn't shoot your own family. So shooting people is immoral. That is the pacifist argument. Now imagine your family are being attacked by a rabid Trumpist with a gun. Do you attempt moral persuasion, or shoot?It doesn't work for real nihilists. Though they are rare, we can't say for sure that they don't exist.
Yusuf: "Just checking: are you a nihilist? If so, I may have to shoot you. If not, I'd like to see where your philosophy fits in with the concept of an ultimate and nonspeciesist moral goal."
Pull the other one, mate!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 01:12:46
Because we don't live alone.you won't be able to build an interspecies moral system.And why would I want to? The dog is my friend, the flea is our common enemy. Actually, cat fleas are more of a problem: dog fleas don't much care for human blood.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 01:20:30
Usuf seems to advocate an ultimate, universal "super-organism". Which can behave however it wants.You seem to forget that moral rules are just tools, and getting a universal morality is just an instrumental goal to help achieving the universal terminal goal, which I discuss in a separate thread.
With no constraints on its behaviour. Because there are no individual species, no individual dissenting minds, to say: "Hey - you can't do that - it's not morally right!
Can't you see the elegant logic of Usuf's solution? The problem of "Morality" is simply abolished!
There is a constraint, which differentiates it from nihilism. I've mentioned it several times already, but you seem to forget it. It's to avoid getting the worst case scenario.
In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 01:27:04
If I were a nihilist, I would say, "Do whatever you want. It doesn't really matter anyway."Drunken Trump voter: "I'm gonna kill you commie atheist Democrat, Yusuf, and all your family, in the name of freedom and democracy 'cos you stole an election, whatever that is."You wouldn't like it if I shot you. You wouldn't shoot your own family. So shooting people is immoral. That is the pacifist argument. Now imagine your family are being attacked by a rabid Trumpist with a gun. Do you attempt moral persuasion, or shoot?It doesn't work for real nihilists. Though they are rare, we can't say for sure that they don't exist.
Yusuf: "Just checking: are you a nihilist? If so, I may have to shoot you. If not, I'd like to see where your philosophy fits in with the concept of an ultimate and nonspeciesist moral goal."
Pull the other one, mate!
The Trump supporters can't be nihilists since they care about an election being stolen.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 04:51:17
If we know what the universal terminal goal is, than the answer to morality would become straightforward. The more information we have about the situation can only be useful if we have the fundamentals right. As I mentioned before, not every bit of information has the same significance. In every project, the goal is always one of the most significant bit of information, if not the most. If we set the wrong goal, then the more other bits of information that we get will only bring us further away from achieving the right goal. The project I'm talking about here is living a meaningful life.Let's explore further to the diagram above to find useful patterns applicable in discussing morality. The lowest layer represents sensory inputs, which can be found in most automatons and simple organisms, besides the more complex conscious agents. The higher layers represent longer term goals/reference/deeper believe. The highest layer represents the terminal goal of the system.
In another thread I've mentioned about deep believe network which models how a conscious agent work. The terminal goal of a conscious agent would reside in the deepest layer of the believe network.Intelligent agents are expected to have the ability to learn from raw data. It means that they have tools to pre-process those raw data to filter out noises or flukes and extract useful information. When those agents interact with one another, especially when they must compete for finite resources, the more important is the ability to filter out misinformation. It requires an algorithm to determine if some data inputs are believable or not. At this point we are seeing that artificial intelligence is getting closer to natural intelligence. This exhibits a feature similar to critical thinking of conscious beings.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2020 22:04:11
Descartes has pointed out that the only self evident information a conscious agent can get is its own existence. Any other information requires corroborating evidences to support it. So in the end, the reliability of an information will be measured/valued by its ability to help preserving conscious agents.
Quote
In machine learning, a deep belief network (DBN) is a generative graphical model, or alternatively a class of deep neural network, composed of multiple layers of latent variables ("hidden units"), with connections between the layers but not between units within each layer.[1]
When trained on a set of examples without supervision, a DBN can learn to probabilistically reconstruct its inputs. The layers then act as feature detectors.[1] After this learning step, a DBN can be further trained with supervision to perform classification.[2]
DBNs can be viewed as a composition of simple, unsupervised networks such as restricted Boltzmann machines (RBMs)[1] or autoencoders,[3] where each sub-network's hidden layer serves as the visible layer for the next. An RBM is an undirected, generative energy-based model with a "visible" input layer and a hidden layer and connections between but not within layers. This composition leads to a fast, layer-by-layer unsupervised training procedure, where contrastive divergence is applied to each sub-network in turn, starting from the "lowest" pair of layers (the lowest visible layer is a training set).
The observation[2] that DBNs can be trained greedily, one layer at a time, led to one of the first effective deep learning algorithms.[4]:6 Overall, there are many attractive implementations and uses of DBNs in real-life applications and scenarios (e.g., electroencephalography,[5] drug discovery[6][7][8]).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_belief_network
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Deep_belief_net.svg/220px-Deep_belief_net.svg.png)
Information (or misinformation) in higher layers have higher significance in moral judgement. It's comparable to the hierarchy I quoted before.
The deep belief layers above is similar to OSI model.
Quote
The Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI model) is a conceptual model that characterises and standardises the communication functions of a telecommunication or computing system without regard to its underlying internal structure and technology. Its goal is the interoperability of diverse communication systems with standard communication protocols.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
(https://www.9tut.com/images/ccna_self_study/OSI/OSI_Model_sending_receiving.jpg)
Morality concerns with errors/misinformation in high layers of the belief system. Errors in lower layers are less relevant to morality. They are more suitable to be fixed using technical controls.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 05:00:38
Quote
A Texas man charged with invading the Capitol and threatening Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that he was effectively following then-President Donald Trump’s orders when he joined a mob that stormed Congress on Jan. 6.
Garret Miller also apologized to Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for writing “Assassinate AOC” in a Twitter post. He said he would be willing to testify to Congress or in a trial about the riot.
Miller, 34, had on a social media account also threatened a Capitol Police officer who fatally shot a fellow rioter, saying he planned to “hug his neck with a nice rope,” authorities have said.
Quote
The Richardson resident’s apology came as a federal judge in Dallas ordered him detained without bail pending trial, after finding he was both a danger to the community and a flight risk, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.
MIller is one of dozens of people charged with participating in the riot, which began shortly after Trump held a rally outside the White House, where he urged supporters to pressure Congress to reject the election of Joe Biden as president.
In a statement released by defense attorney Clinton Broden, Miller said he had been motivated by Trump’s false claims about having been cheated out of reelection by ballot fraud and said, “I am ashamed of my comments.”
Quote
“I was in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, because I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump and he was my president and the commander-in-chief. His statements also had me believing the election was stolen from him,” Miller said.Manipulation of a belief system at high layers can make otherwise normal person to commit immoral actions. Similar thing happened in the mind of many terrorists.
“Nevertheless, I fully recognize Joe Biden is now the President of the United States and that the election is over. Donald Trump is no longer president and I would not have any reason to continue to follow his lead.”
“While I never intended to harm Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez nor harm any members of the Capitol police force, I recognize that my social media posts were completely inappropriate. They were made at a time when Donald Trump had me believing that an American election was stolen,” he said.
Miller said: “I want to publicly apologize to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and the Capitol police officers. I have always supported law enforcement and I am ashamed by my comments.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2021 05:46:17
It is at least the implicit basis of law in a civilised (i.e. non-theocratic) society. Why else would one-on-one assault, fraud, libel etc be considered wrong by a judge and jury who had no part in the process?Because if those actions are allowed without penalty, many more will be done by the same perpetrators as well as others who learn about them. The society as the bigger system where people are being part of will collapse and stop functioning.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/01/2021 17:25:53
If the majority of the population were inclined to consider an action desirable or even tolerable, it wouldn't be illegal. Hence a history of slavery, constitutional antisemitism and anticatholicism, and tolerance of wife-beating.
Nor does making something illegal stop it happening: the incidence of sheep-stealing has not increased since it ceased to be a capital offence, and 90% of BMW drivers consider 70 mph to be "purely advisory".
Post by: alancalverd on 27/01/2021 17:30:00
Manipulation of a belief system at high layers can make otherwise normal person to commit immoral actions. Similar thing happened in the mind of many terrorists.There are enough instances from psychological experiments and the recruitment of concentration camp torturers to suggest that all that is required to do things that are obviously immoral is the appearance of authority or permission.
Post by: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 18:51:13
Manipulation of a belief system at high layers can make otherwise normal person to commit immoral actions. Similar thing happened in the mind of many terrorists.There are enough instances from psychological experiments and the recruitment of concentration camp torturers to suggest that all that is required to do things that are obviously immoral is the appearance of authority or permission.
That is incorrect the milgram experiment showed about 61% of participants were prepared to follow the lead of an authority figure compared to the 39% who would resist.
If anything its evidence that the 60% need to be taught that it's ok to resist authority on occasion, not that the situation is helpless.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 04:50:32
That doesn't make them inherently wrong, nor is it particularly likely that everyone will do such things.Setting up moral rules is part of social engineering. They don't have to be perfect to get positive impacts.
It doesn't take the majority doing bad things, let alone everyone, to destroy a civilization. It only needs to pass a certain threshold, which can be very low. The value depends on the other characteristics of the society.
The functioning of a social structure is often compared to that of a human body. It could die if a few percentage of its cells turn into cancer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 05:07:14
If the majority of the population were inclined to consider an action desirable or even tolerable, it wouldn't be illegal. Hence a history of slavery, constitutional antisemitism and anticatholicism, and tolerance of wife-beating.That's what democracy is about, and that's why Socrates didn't like it. But as long as they survive, they still have a chance to improve so they can get closer to the best case scenario.
In ancient cultures, slavery can be viewed as a better alternative to genocide, at least for the winners of tribal wars. It's arguably better for the losers too.
Human sacrifice was thought to be a moral action. They didn't check its effectiveness since scientific methods weren't widely embraced yet.
Some ancient human societies might tolerate or even praise killing Neanderthals when they were still existing. But apparently there were rebels, which is indicated by DNA sequence of some modern human races.
We in modern societies think that they are immoral because we have found better alternatives which are more effective and efficient to get us closer to our common goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 05:16:10
What's obvious to you may not be obvious to them. Most of us may think that killing a terrorist is a moral action because it can save many more lives. It might happen that the recruits were told that they were facing terrorists or similar type of people who want to destroy their society.Manipulation of a belief system at high layers can make otherwise normal person to commit immoral actions. Similar thing happened in the mind of many terrorists.There are enough instances from psychological experiments and the recruitment of concentration camp torturers to suggest that all that is required to do things that are obviously immoral is the appearance of authority or permission.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 06:09:32
During wartime, resisting orders can get you into bad consequences. Deserters faced the risk of being executed. Wicked rulers may execute their family members as well. Its effectiveness to manipulate people's behavior may have inspired Trump to suggest punishments for family members of ISIS fighters.Manipulation of a belief system at high layers can make otherwise normal person to commit immoral actions. Similar thing happened in the mind of many terrorists.There are enough instances from psychological experiments and the recruitment of concentration camp torturers to suggest that all that is required to do things that are obviously immoral is the appearance of authority or permission.
That is incorrect the milgram experiment showed about 61% of participants were prepared to follow the lead of an authority figure compared to the 39% who would resist.
If anything its evidence that the 60% need to be taught that it's ok to resist authority on occasion, not that the situation is helpless.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2021 15:13:28
It doesn't take the majority doing bad things, let alone everyone, to destroy a civilization. It only needs to pass a certain threshold, which can be very low.One man with executive authority can demolish whatever veneer of civilisation the USA acquired over hundreds of years.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 21:19:33
I've seen many pundits argued that Trump is just a symptom. The root cause is deeper and may have started for decades. The last US election shows that more than 70 million people (still) have voted for him.It doesn't take the majority doing bad things, let alone everyone, to destroy a civilization. It only needs to pass a certain threshold, which can be very low.One man with executive authority can demolish whatever veneer of civilisation the USA acquired over hundreds of years.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 21:27:35
They're fed up with people like you.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 21:58:55
Could the reason 70,000,000 Americans voted for Trump, be this:Can you be more specific? I'm not even an American.
They're fed up with people like you.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 22:09:29
Could the reason 70,000,000 Americans voted for Trump, be this:Can you be more specific? I'm not even an American.
They're fed up with people like you.
I just want you to shut up.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 22:16:51
Why is that? You can simply stop reading my posts.Could the reason 70,000,000 Americans voted for Trump, be this:Can you be more specific? I'm not even an American.
They're fed up with people like you.
I just want you to shut up.
Alternatively, you can just point out which part of my reasoning that you think is wrong, and how to fix it.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 22:26:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 22:36:29
I've seen many pundits argued that Trump is just a symptom. The root cause is deeper and may have started for decades. The last US election shows that more than 70 million people (still) have voted for him.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility
The Peter Parker principle suggests that people with greater power should be restricted by higher moral standard, compared to those without such power. It's depicted in my previous post.
IMO, power acquisition is just an instrumental goal. The power can provide easy access to resources by shifting the burden of hard working to other people.
They need the resources to survive, getting pleasure and avoiding pain, which are basic instincts shaped by evolutionary process.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg/800px-Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg.png)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=30644)
In the light of universal terminal goal, the six stages above could be extended up and down to cover systems with higher as well as lower consciousness levels than average human individuals. The pattern here is that the lower the level, the more localized in space and time the causality of actions/decisions is under consideration.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 22:40:12
You write so many posts, so full of ideas, that I get jealous.You made me flattered.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2021 22:45:34
The Peter Parker principleWhereas the Peter Principle
Quote
that members of a hierarchy are promoted until they reach the level at which they are no longer competent.actually explains Trump, George W Bush and Boris Johnson.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 23:13:56
The Peter Parker principleWhereas the Peter PrincipleQuotethat members of a hierarchy are promoted until they reach the level at which they are no longer competent.actually explains Trump, George W Bush and Boris Johnson.
Why didn't you say Barack Obama? Is it because he was black
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2021 23:35:33
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2021 23:40:03
The Peter Parker principle suggests that people with greater power should be restricted by higher moral standard, compared to those without such power.Since killing people is immoral, that would prevent presidents from declaring war. But a nation is an area with a boundary that is defended by lethal force. So you are advocating a pretty significant change in the way the world is organised.
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 23:48:33
No, because he was competent.
I don't believe you. Even if he'd been the most incompetent president in the entire history of the USA, you wouldn't have mentioned him. That's true, isn't it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2021 23:49:38
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2021/01/28/epic-battle-over-gamestop-as-nerds-take-on-wall-street-.html
Quote
An epic battle is unfolding on Wall Street with a cast of characters clashing over the fate of GameStop, a struggling chain of video game retail stores.
The conflict has sent GameStop on a stomach-churning ride with amateur investors taking on the financial establishment in the mindset of the Occupy Wall Street movement launched a decade ago.
Quote
"It's a good reminder, though, that the stock market isn't the only measure of the health of our economy."
Quote
Senator Elizabeth Warren also called for scrutiny.
"For years, the same hedge funds, private equity firms, and wealthy investors dismayed by the GameStop trades have treated the stock market like their own personal casino while everyone else pays the price," she said in a statement.
"It's long past time for the SEC and other financial regulators to wake up and do their jobs.."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2021 05:23:00
In case we successfully pass through some layers of the great filters and build a level 2 or 3 civilization in Kardashev scale, we are likely to find extraterrestrial lifeforms, some of which may be conscious. Even if conscious lifeforms turn out to be so rare that they are absent in entire Milky Way except earth, homo sapiens are likely to diversify into many different groups of genetic makeups, especially when genetic engineering becomes as cheap and reliable as current smartphones. With such enormous power, people can become whatever they want. The possibilities are limited only by our imaginations. At this stage, we need to identify a universal terminal goal and how to achieve it. We can't possibly solve a problem which we can't identify. It is one of fundamental concepts in process safety.Because we don't live alone.you won't be able to build an interspecies moral system.And why would I want to? The dog is my friend, the flea is our common enemy. Actually, cat fleas are more of a problem: dog fleas don't much care for human blood.
Setting up moral rules based on a universal moral standard is necessary to make sure that those enormous powers we are about to have won't be directed toward our own destruction which cause us to fail in achieving that goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2021 07:24:35
Almost all of the ideas I posted here were already available somewhere in the internet. I just compiled them to fit into our topic of discussions. If there's contribution I've made can be considered new, it's perhaps the identification of the universal terminal goal and consequently, the best and worst case scenario. Someone else might have come up with similar idea, although I haven't found it yet.You write so many posts, so full of ideas, that I get jealous.You made me flattered.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2021 23:54:06
I don't believe you. Even if he'd been the most incompetent president in the entire history of the USA, you wouldn't have mentioned him. That's true, isn't it?I don't lie. And I don't correspond with people who pretend to know what I think. Goodbye.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2021 00:18:56
I consider this topic as a spinoff of my previous subjectIt's been so long since I first posted in this thread. It was intended to provide peer review process to the hypothesis I offered based on universal terminal goal. So hopefully, someone can give me some feedbacks, pointing out loopholes in my argumentation due to my blindspots by viewing it from different angles.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.0
It is split up because morality itself is quite complex and can generate a discussion too long to be covered there.
Before we start the discussion, it might be useful to have some background information to save our time and energy to prevent unnecessary debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoralityQuoteMorality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
I hope this topic can start a discussion which can eventually produce satisfactory answer to the question .
My thanks and appreciation to those who have contributed to this discussion. Some notable major contributors are Alan with his extended (or restricted) golden rule, David with extended utilitarianism, and Halc with his semi-nihilism (or restricted relativism).
Post by: alancalverd on 30/01/2021 11:27:04
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2021 21:33:04
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2021 22:19:53
“I was in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, because I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump and he was my president and the commander-in-chief. His statements also had me believing the election was stolen from him,” Miller said.My wife often says that regrets always come late. If they come early, they're called registration instead.
IMO, regret here means that someone has realized that they have used resources in a way that doesn't help achieving their goals effectively and efficiently.
It happens when new information become available which were not when a decision was being made.
Minimizing regrets is one benefit offered by an accurate and precise virtual universe.
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 17:40:34
It is always a pleasure to cross swords with a gentleman.
You're right. The crossing of swords between gentlemen, is a very great pleasure.
I
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2021 18:03:56
My wife often says that regrets always come late.That's a bit obvious, surely? You can't regret something that hasn't happened. But more to the point, regret is strictly for losers, as in this instance. Where a mob has successfully overturned the rule of law, they tend to rejoice - at least until they try to govern!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2021 21:22:55
Let's start with moral relativism. It seems to start from observations that there are many different moral systems in existence, which may or may not be compatible with one another. But to conclude that they are all equal, and claim that there is no way to compare which moral system is objectively better, is baseless.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2021 22:28:17
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2021 12:19:40
Yes, it's so obvious that we tend to take it for granted, which makes us forget about it sometimes. Otherwise, we wouldn't frequently see people regret about what they did or didn't do. We need a reminder about it every once in a while.My wife often says that regrets always come late.That's a bit obvious, surely? You can't regret something that hasn't happened. But more to the point, regret is strictly for losers, as in this instance. Where a mob has successfully overturned the rule of law, they tend to rejoice - at least until they try to govern!
Post by: alancalverd on 01/02/2021 12:30:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2021 13:07:20
No one can cinvincingly argue that morality of modern secular free society is equal to morality of Jim Jones' Peoples Temple. At least one of them still exists.Moral values are categorically memes. To be able to survive, they must conserve (at least some of) their media.
Good moralities are those which conserve their media better than their competitors. This conservation includes protecting their media from being "infected" by their competitors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 06:32:11
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/health/sperm-donor-fertility-meijer.html#click=https://t.co/qqLT0EKkMQ
Quote
The Case of the Serial Sperm Donor
One man, hundreds of children and a burning question: Why?
Quote
The first child of in vitro fertilization was born in 1978, and in the decades since, sperm donation has become a thriving global business, as fertility clinics, sperm banks and private donors have sought to meet the demand of parents eager to conceive.
As an industry, however, it is poorly regulated. A patchwork of laws ostensibly addresses who can donate, where and how often, in part to avoid introducing or amplifying genetic disabilities in a population. In Germany, a sperm-clinic donor may not produce more than 15 children; in the United Kingdom the cap is 10 families of unlimited children. In the Netherlands, Dutch law prohibits donating anonymously, and nonbinding guidelines limit clinic donors to 25 children and from donating at more than one clinic in the country. In the United States there are no legal limits, only guidelines from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: 25 children per donor in a population of 800,000.
Quote
In 2019, the Dutch Donor Child Foundation, an advocacy group that facilitates legal and emotional support for donor-conceived people and their families and helps search for biological relatives, determined through DNA testing that Dr. Jan Karbaat, a fertility specialist who died in 2017, had secretly fathered at least 68 children, born to women who visited his clinic near Rotterdam.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 06:40:32
Moral values are categorically memes.To clarify, here are some meanings of meme according to dictionary, and wikipedia.
Quote
Merriam-Webster
1 : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture. Memes (discrete units of knowledge, gossip, jokes and so on) are to culture what genes are to life.
Quote
A meme (/miːm/ MEEM)[1][2][3] is an idea, behavior, or style that becomes a fad and spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.[4] A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme.
Quote
An Internet meme, more commonly known simply as a meme (/miːm/ MEEM), is a type of idea, behaviour, or style (meme) that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms and especially for humorous purposes. Memes can spread from person to person via social networks, blogs, direct email, or news sources. They may relate to various existing Internet cultures or subcultures, often created or spread on various websites. Internet memes are "Often, modifications or spoofs add[ed] to the profile of the original idea thus turning it into a phenomenon that transgresses social and cultural boundaries".[1]Generally, a meme is information occupying memory space of conscious agents. It can affect the behavior of those agents, which in turn affect their environment too.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 07:36:55
Good moralities are those which conserve their media better than their competitors. This conservation includes protecting their media from being "infected" by their competitors.There is a way to rationalize the existence of various moral values in current societies. We can even identify that some of those values are harmful. Let's compare the situation with following analogy.
Let's say there was a large sinkhole several kilometers away from a river. A big flood raise the river water level and reach the sinkhole. It was filled with river water containing a school of fish from a certain species. When the flood subsided, the sinkhole is isolated again from other bodies of water, but now it contains water and some fishes. After a few millenia those fishes evolves and diverse into several species with different behaviors and genetic makeups. Some are adapted to near surface, while some are adapted to deeper and darker part of the sinkhole. They lose some funcionality of vision.
They can survive with any random changes as long as they are still tolerable by the range of conditions of their environment. The environment includes preys, predators, and competitors.
One day there is an earthquake which create a crack at the bottom of the sinkhole. The water is drained out and seeping into lower layer of earth crust.
The sinkhole end up dry just like how it began. The only fish can survive are those with ability to live on dry land.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 09:50:33
The tough challenge expected to come soon is due to competition from people whose moral values are more aligned to the universal terminal goal, which makes their actions and behaviors more effective and efficient in achieving their goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 12:22:40
Allons, enfants de la patrie..... or blame a corrupt ex-president for your failed attack on the Capitol? You see the importance of separating morality (an absolute) from right and wrong (defined by the winner).Who do you think decides the absolute morality? What is it based on?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/02/2021 13:21:08
The concept of morality has no meaning outside of human society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 14:21:47
I'll review some of alternative views of morality discussed here by collecting similarities and differences with universal morality that I've proposed.Now let's analyze the next type of morality, which is utilitarian. As the name suggests, it's about maximizing a utility function. Then it raised a question, what is meant by the utility function meant by a universal morality?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 15:26:11
At a glance, it may feel reasonable, since capacity for emotion is shown to increase as we move from non-conscious beings to conscious beings. Morality doesn't seem to care about the fate of non-conscious beings. We can destroy a rock and turn it into dust, and noone will say that our action is immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/02/2021 17:19:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 17:34:20
Previously, I've rejected this suggestion by mentioning that drugs can generate pleasure and eliminate pain, which are underlying feelings that form happiness and suffering. David Cooper countered this argument by suggesting that the accumulation of happines also takes into account the expected future feelings and emotions of all potentially existing conscious beings. Taking drugs only bring temporary happiness for someone, but potentially causes sadness and pain of their family and friends in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 17:50:43
Nothing immoral about eating a cow. Conscious beings have nothing to do with it - humans only. Though civilised humans do take a dim view of gratuitous harm to anything.Your view might be acceptable for current civilization. But when synthetic meat is abundant and easily accessible, and produce the exact same chemical structure and physical appearance, insisting to eat a cow just to cause their suffering will be judged as immoral.
As I mentioned earlier, morality of ancient civilizations allows genocide and slavery of outside group to generate resources they need to thrive. Those actions are now widely condemned as immoral since we've found better alternatives, e.g. through free market trade and machineries.
What makes you think that human is so special? How do you define human?
Are people who carry 4% Neanderthal DNA less valuable than those with pure Homo sapiens DNA? How about those who carry higher percentage of Neanderthal DNA, like 50%? Or those who also carry Denisovans DNA?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 19:12:28
David Cooper countered this argument by suggesting that the accumulation of happines also takes into account the expected future feelings and emotions of all potentially existing conscious beings. Taking drugs only bring temporary happiness for someone, but potentially causes sadness and pain of their family and friends in the future.Even with this tweak suggested by David, emotional based utilitarianism still have weaknesses, especially when related to utility monsters. Given the same amount of resources, someone may be happier than someone elses. On the other hand, given the same amount of loss, someone may feel suffering more than others.
This utilitarian morality suggests that most resources should be given to most emotional people, since they would generate more total amount of happines. Most losses should be distributed to least emotional people, since they would generate less total amount of suffering.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 22:39:44
This utilitarian morality suggests that most resources should be given to most emotional people, since they would generate more total amount of happines. Most losses should be distributed to least emotional people, since they would generate less total amount of suffering.Supporters of emotional based morality seems to forget that relationship between emotional capacity and consciousness is not linear. If they are plotted in an x-y graphic with consciousness on x axis and emotional capacity in y axis, the relationship would look like bell shaped curve.
Agents with lowest level of consciousness, such as human fetuses and babies have low emotional capacity. Higher level of consciousness like in teenagers have higher emotional capacity. But it doesn't seem to increase as they get older. Wiser adults can control their emotion, hence they have lower emotional capacity. Someone like Buddha feels almost no emotion in response to stimuli. They tend to be treated unfairly in a society embracing emotional based utilitarianism.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/02/2021 22:51:30
insisting to eat a cow just to cause their suffering will be judged as immoral.On a joyous occasion my aunt announced to the assembled relatives and friends "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens. L'chaim." The best opening toast ever.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/02/2021 22:57:21
What makes you think that human is so special?On a cosmic or even global scale, nothing. Just another temporary bit of chemistry. But from a human perspective, it's the only living thing with which we can communicate to the fullest extent of our own understanding, the species on whose collaboration we depend, and the only species that has not evolved to eat us or compete with us for food.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 23:08:59
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 23:14:05
Chickens have natural predators which would keep them under control, as long as we stop protecting them.insisting to eat a cow just to cause their suffering will be judged as immoral.On a joyous occasion my aunt announced to the assembled relatives and friends "If it wasn't for Jewish weddings, the country would be overrun with chickens. L'chaim." The best opening toast ever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2021 23:32:47
If you restrict the definition of morality into much narrower scope than its conventional definition, then this thread would simply discuss an extended version or a more general concept of morality which also covers other non-human conscious beings, including extraterrestrial conscious lifeforms and non-organic AGI.What makes you think that human is so special?On a cosmic or even global scale, nothing. Just another temporary bit of chemistry. But from a human perspective, it's the only living thing with which we can communicate to the fullest extent of our own understanding, the species on whose collaboration we depend, and the only species that has not evolved to eat us or compete with us for food.
On the other hand, if you already use conventional definition of morality, which doesn't restrict its usage to human, you can keep using it to join the discussion.
Human history contains a lot of atrocities by human beings to other human beings. Genocide and slavery were once widespread among humans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2021 02:16:07
The universal morality that I've proposed can be classified as a form of utilitarianism, but the utility function to be maximized is interpreted as the likelihood to keep the existence of conscious beings in universe. In other words, it's the probability to achieve the best case scenario, which is equivalent to the probability to avoid the worst case scenario.Setting up some general usage, simple moral rules is an instrumental goal as effort of social engineering which covers most of possible situations, so decision making can be done quickly in case of insufficient information. If some reliable information become available showing that in a particular case, following those simple rules will reduce the value of utility function instead, we should ignore those rules. Some example of those rules are don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, don't be wasteful, be nice and kind, be helpful.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2021 03:03:54
That's in contrast with Moral absolutism.The universal morality as I proposed here can be classified as both absolutism as well as objectivism/universalism. It's located at intersection between those schools of morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutismQuoteMoral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.
Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2]
Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.QuoteMoral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, (usually) perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.
Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.
The absolute rule which should never be violated in any situation is don't do any action which knowingly causes the best case scenario harder to achieve. This rule applies to any conscious beings having the mental capacity to understand this rule.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2021 11:10:35
The absolute rule which should never be violated in any situation is don't do any action which knowingly causes the best case scenario harder to achieve.In the simplest positive sentence, it becomes "Do what it takes to get more likely to achieve the best case scenario".
There are other sentences can be used to express similar idea, like "Don't do anything that leads to worst case scenario", or "Do what it takes to avoid worst case scenario".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2021 12:50:48
A free market supposed to be a self organizing system. But if some parts of the system aggregate and accumulate enough power to manipulate or bypass self regulatory functions, they can accumulate more resources for themselves while depriving and sacrificing others, making the entire structure to collapse. It's akin to behavior of cancerous cells.
Another gentle and funny reminder that morality is to protect the system as a whole, not just a few parts of it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2021 23:44:58
Let's say there was a large sinkhole several kilometers away from a river. A big flood raise the river water level and reach the sinkhole. It was filled with river water containing a school of fish from a certain species. When the flood subsided, the sinkhole is isolated again from other bodies of water, but now it contains water and some fishes. After a few millenia those fishes evolves and diverse into several species with different behaviors and genetic makeups. Some are adapted to near surface, while some are adapted to deeper and darker part of the sinkhole. They lose some funcionality of vision.The moral of the story, in case it hasn't been clear yet, is that any existing societies still embracing moral values which are not aligned with the universal moral standard, are still given a chance by their environments to change those moral values and make the necessary improvements.
They can survive with any random changes as long as they are still tolerable by the range of conditions of their environment. The environment includes preys, predators, and competitors.
One day there is an earthquake which create a crack at the bottom of the sinkhole. The water is drained out and seeping into lower layer of earth crust.
The sinkhole end up dry just like how it began. The only fish can survive are those with ability to live on dry land.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2021 06:05:26
Another form of interpretational differences of observations is about causality relationship. If event A is always accompanied by event B, it can be interpreted that A causes B, B causes A, or another event C causes both A and B. It took corroborating evidences to conclude which interpretation is the more likely.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2021 14:12:03
The advantage of golden rule is in its simplicity. It can be followed by most conscious agents. But the quality of their decisions depend on their capability to process information. For example, someone offering to give a cigarette to a stranger in a bus stop, thinking that it is a good thing to do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2021 19:25:04
This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2021 22:35:55
Someone more emotional will react differently than those who are less emotional. So when they equally follow golden rule, the decisions they make could be very different.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2021 23:57:51
This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2021 12:12:34
The original golden rule already tests an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver. It works well where all conscious agents engage self preservation. In most cases they do.This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.
Any organism willingly self destruct for no reason can't survive for long, hence it's not an evolutionary stable strategy.
Altruism through kin selection is an evolutionary stable strategy, although it seems to defy self preservation. Nonetheless they survive because they preserve the backup copy of the altruists.
That's when original version of golden rule is no longer adequate to guide morality. Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin. Naive golden rule allows them to sacrifice others to save their kin.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 00:11:13
Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin.which is why we need a second test to determine the morality of an action that might harm someone else.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2021 07:43:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2021 07:46:38
That's exactly what I said.Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin.which is why we need a second test to determine the morality of an action that might harm someone else.
This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2021 09:42:49
The next question would be, what's the boundary of kin? How much similarity could still be considered our kin? How much difference can there be before it's no longer a kin?
No need to complicate matters. If you'd be happy for me to do it to you, and for you to do it to your immediate family, it's moral. Necessity may require you to do things that don't meet those criteria.
It's no big deal.We know what black and white look like, but some things are green. If we map them to monochrome in a photograph the green may come out as light or dark depending on the characteristics of the film.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2021 21:45:54
No need to complicate matters. If you'd be happy for me to do it to you, and for you to do it to your immediate family, it's moral. Necessity may require you to do things that don't meet those criteria.Selfish organisms tend to be outcompeted by cooperative ones. The advantages to win the competition is bigger with bigger system and better organized the system we are cooperating with. A tribe with few individual members is likely outcompeted by tribes with more members. They are in turn outcompeted by polis/city states, kingdom, and empires.
The larger the system is, the more differences we must tolerate and call them our kin. What's intolerable is when some members of the system behave in such a way that's knowingly detrimental to the overall system.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2021 22:13:29
It's no big deal.We know what black and white look like, but some things are green. If we map them to monochrome in a photograph the green may come out as light or dark depending on the characteristics of the film.Complexity is required for more complex systems. More bits are required to describe something more precisely.
Oversimplification often bring unintended consequences.
You can't win a chess game against a world champion with simple shortcut rules such as values of pieces in decision making.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2021 12:06:59
Non-universal moralities try to build the bridge artificially. They provide shortcuts between those city parts, but only work for some cases, in specific time and space. In some other cases, other bridges are more suitable.
Universal morality employs naturally available connection between is and ought worlds, which is the cogito ergo sum. In our analogy, it's comparable to landmass around the river source. It may take longer route to proceed, but it works for all cases universally.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2021 23:23:23
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2021 23:48:36
You have chosen the problem: please now solve it using the UMS and a simpler alternative, and explain why the outcomes are different and which is preferable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2021 04:32:33
Bit of an oxymoron there, my friend. How can the UMS (whatever that may be) be "especially useful" if there are "simpler and more practical" rules?
You have chosen the problem: please now solve it using the UMS and a simpler alternative, and explain why the outcomes are different and which is preferable.
Universal moral standard is easy to state, but in an environment with complex relationships of causality chains, the step by step decisions become hard to obtain. That's where simpler but rough moral rules come in handy. So practically, a society choose some moral rules which are known to have positive impacts to be followed. The rules with with longer lasting effect should be put at higher priority, so if there are case where following a moral rule inevitably violates another rule, the higher priority moral rule must be obeyed.
UMS is the highest priority moral rules. Under no circumstances it can be violated.
The prescription is to follow simplest moral rules, unless more information become available that in that particular case, it would violate higher priority moral rules.
Engineers have similar structural rules to follow. We use first principle to guide us how the universe works at fundamental level. But we also often use rule of thumb for more practical purposes which can give us faster answer. Oppenheimer famously used it to assess the result of nuclear bomb test.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2021 14:45:07
Solving for universal morality inevitably forces us to somehow make a connection between is and ought world. It's like bridging two parts of a city separated by a river.Cogito ergo sum is the only naturally occuring connection between subjective and objective reality. The "ought world" only tells half story of subjective reality. The other half is its opposite, which is the "ought not world". Somehow Hume's guillotine left this part untouched.
Non-universal moralities try to build the bridge artificially. They provide shortcuts between those city parts, but only work for some cases, in specific time and space. In some other cases, other bridges are more suitable.
Universal morality employs naturally available connection between is and ought worlds, which is the cogito ergo sum. In our analogy, it's comparable to landmass around the river source. It may take longer route to proceed, but it works for all cases universally.
So the more complete map to describe those worlds would consist of a city part on the left side representing "ought not world" or something that conscious agents want to avoid, middle part of the city representing objective reality, city part on the right side representing "ought world", or something that is preferred by conscious agents. Those city parts are separated by two rivers, which represent natural separations between subjective and objective realities.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2021 12:11:37
Morality is the quality of an action that you would be happy to have others do to you, and you would be happy to do to your loved ones. An action is either moral or immoral. It can also be necessary or expedient, but these have no bearing on its morality.
The concept of morality has no meaning outside of human society.
Why I, as an Atheist, Am No Longer a Humanist
Quote
I no longer call myself a humanist. Here’s why.
In 2019, I was confronted with some ideas which lead to an ideological shift. Thanks to Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, and Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, I came to see morality a bit differently. Rather than humanism, I’ve taken to sentientism and ethical veganism (and have for some time now). Ultimately, I don’t think labels are nearly as important as the principles they’re meant to communicate, so I don’t care to squabble over labels or definitions when I could instead cut directly to the issues at hand.
The Great Demotions often contribute to the cessation of various kinds of human prejudice. Speciesism, I think, should be the next to go.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/02/2021 13:26:55
If you abandon speciesism, you place yourself as no more deserving of life, liberty and happiness than whatever wants to infect or eat you. That doesn't flow from atheism but from an implicit assumption of some external arbiter (if not creator) of worth!
The first lesson of every first aid, mountain or sea rescue course is always: protect yourself. That's not just speciesist, but necessarily selfish: you can't help others if you are dead. And before you mention rescuing battle casualties from no-man's land, it still applies: crouch and crawl, and show a red cross. The morality of kamikaze is left as an exercise for the reader (hint - it works best if the enemy has been dehumanised by propaganda)!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2021 05:32:03
Vanitas vanitatum!We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty. They were stepping stones for our existence, as we are stepping stones for our sucessors. If our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.
If you abandon speciesism, you place yourself as no more deserving of life, liberty and happiness than whatever wants to infect or eat you. That doesn't flow from atheism but from an implicit assumption of some external arbiter (if not creator) of worth!
The first lesson of every first aid, mountain or sea rescue course is always: protect yourself. That's not just speciesist, but necessarily selfish: you can't help others if you are dead. And before you mention rescuing battle casualties from no-man's land, it still applies: crouch and crawl, and show a red cross. The morality of kamikaze is left as an exercise for the reader (hint - it works best if the enemy has been dehumanised by propaganda)!
Universal consciousness is not limited by any particular species. With various environmental conditions in type 2 or 3 Kardashev level civilizations, it is more likely to have more than one species of conscious beings, whether or not they share common ancestors.
We should not limit our perspective to individual organism specimen's point of view. Let's remember that a multicellular organism is a collection of different types of cells working together to provide various functionalities necessary for their common survival. Those cells don't behave just for their own individual survivals, but rather for the larger system they are being part of. In turn, human individuals are just part of larger systems of consciousness.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2021 09:35:10
We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty.I must reject the vanity of presuming that you know what our ancestors thought. Recent history is indeed perverted by belief in the supernatural but you have no right to inflict that disease retrospectively.
Quote
If our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.Do you have any evidence for voluntary or intentional evolution? "What man is there among you that by taking thought could add one cubit to his stature?" (Jesus, somewhere in the book). Resistance to change is however common - most groups reject the abnormal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2021 10:12:09
You approached the problem from the opposite direction. When I said that they didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty, there are two possibilities. Either they did think that earthly life is NOT ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.We came from ancestors who didn't think that earthly life is ultimately empty.I must reject the vanity of presuming that you know what our ancestors thought. Recent history is indeed perverted by belief in the supernatural but you have no right to inflict that disease retrospectively.QuoteIf our fish ancestors thought that their lifeform and lifestyle were the most suitable in the universe, and resist changes to improve and adapt to changing environment, we won't be here to talk about this.Do you have any evidence for voluntary or intentional evolution? "What man is there among you that by taking thought could add one cubit to his stature?" (Jesus, somewhere in the book). Resistance to change is however common - most groups reject the abnormal.
In order to survive in harsh environment, any living organism must make some effort. If they actively suppress their survival instinct and reflex due to their belief that earthly life is ultimately empty, they are very likely to go extinct.
Our fish ancestors survived and evolved into many other species because they followed their instinct. To handle more complex problems, their descendants developed more complex data processing system, such as emotion and thoughts. The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2021 14:50:35
Either they did think that earthly life is ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.Or they thought about it and didn't think it was ultimately empty. That pretty much covers all the possibilities, and the answer is that we don't and can't know.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2021 15:03:45
The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.Speak for yourself! I think that earthly life is ultimately empty and have no evidence to the contrary, but I have plenty of survival instinct because my emotions tell me that life is enjoyable.
My nephew teaches people to jump out of aeroplanes with a parachute because it is fun. I have dealt with others who jump out of windows without a parachute because life is not fun.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2021 10:47:35
Sorry, my typo confused you.Either they did think that earthly life is NOT ultimately empty, or they didn't think about it at all.Or they thought about it and didn't think it was ultimately empty. That pretty much covers all the possibilities, and the answer is that we don't and can't know.
Fixed that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2021 10:55:00
Your believe is not strong enough to suppress your survival instinct. Inadvertently, you just admitted that for you, nothing is more important than having fun.The thought that earthly life is ultimately empty can suppress those necessary instinct and emotion.Speak for yourself! I think that earthly life is ultimately empty and have no evidence to the contrary, but I have plenty of survival instinct because my emotions tell me that life is enjoyable.
My nephew teaches people to jump out of aeroplanes with a parachute because it is fun. I have dealt with others who jump out of windows without a parachute because life is not fun.
On the other hand, 911 hijackers have a believe that is strong enough to overcome their survival instinct. So did kamikaze pilots, Bruce Willis' character in the movie Armageddon, and Iron Man in the End Game.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2021 21:52:00
Your believe is not strong enough to suppress your survival instinct. Inadvertently, you just admitted that for you, nothing is more important than having fun.No, I have no beliefs, but the principle of minimum assumption is efficient and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I see no purpose in earthly life nor any reason to want or assume one. Survival is essential in order to have fun, and like the advert says, when the fun stops, stop. One thing humans are pretty good at, is predicting the near future. Why would anyone want to continue a life of predictable misery? We also have a large dose of empathy, and making life good for others can be pleasurable, but there's a point at which the balance tips.
Quote
On the other hand, 911 hijackers have a believe that is strong enough to overcome their survival instinct. So did kamikaze pilots, Bruce Willis' character in the movie Armageddon, and Iron Man in the End Game.Hence my contempt for belief, loathing of the parasites who sell faith/patriotism/loyalty, and compete lack of interest in fictional characters.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2021 22:07:21
No, I have no beliefs, but the principle of minimum assumption is efficient and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I see no purpose in earthly life nor any reason to want or assume one. Survival is essential in order to have fun, and like the advert says, when the fun stops, stop. One thing humans are pretty good at, is predicting the near future.You believe that earthly life is ultimately empty.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2021 22:12:01
Why would anyone want to continue a life of predictable misery?To save resources to be used by someone else to achieve their common goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2021 22:18:09
We also have a large dose of empathy, and making life good for others can be pleasurable, but there's a point at which the balance tips.Emotion and reflex are shortcuts to achieve target while saving time and energy to process information. Nonetheless, they have lower accuracy and precision than well thought actions.
They are especially useful when time is limited to make decisions.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2021 23:01:47
You believe that earthly life is ultimately empty.Please accept that I have no beliefs. I am simply unaware of any purpose to life.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2021 23:06:02
Emotion and reflex are shortcuts to achieve targetAs they rarely lead to an improved outcome, I think you are a bit short of convincing evidence for that statement. Reflex blinking and some learned driving reflexes are logical but actions motivated by love or hate have a pretty mixed record of achieving anything of value.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2021 23:08:26
Apart from giving blood or a live kidney, that is clearly wrong. Living consumes resources.Why would anyone want to continue a life of predictable misery?To save resources to be used by someone else to achieve their common goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2021 05:48:05
You believe that earthly life is ultimately empty.Please accept that I have no beliefs. I am simply unaware of any purpose to life.
So why did you write this?
Vanitas vanitatum!
Quote
Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas definition is - vanity of vanities, all (is) vanity : earthly life is ultimately empty.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanitas%20vanitatum%2C%20omnia%20vanitas
Whether we realize it or not, every conscious agent has mental map of the universe representing themself and their environments. Some of them are accurate, some aren't. I believe that there is an objective reality which I share with other conscious agents. I also believe that I exist within that objective reality, at least for now. Do you share those beliefs? Your responses so far indicate that you do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2021 05:53:26
If you compare them with well thought decisions, of course the outcomes won't impress much. But if you compare them with the cases where they are not present, the improvement will be huge.Emotion and reflex are shortcuts to achieve targetAs they rarely lead to an improved outcome, I think you are a bit short of convincing evidence for that statement. Reflex blinking and some learned driving reflexes are logical but actions motivated by love or hate have a pretty mixed record of achieving anything of value.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 11:57:13
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 12:00:03
I believe that there is an objective reality which I share with other conscious agents.Belief is acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of facts. I have no need of or use for this hypothetical concept, just lots of experience of the behavior of objects.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2021 13:02:15
You are confusing between believe and faith.I believe that there is an objective reality which I share with other conscious agents.Belief is acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of facts. I have no need of or use for this hypothetical concept, just lots of experience of the behavior of objects.
I believe that the sun is hotter than the moon because I can feel it.
I believe that the sun is bigger than the moon because the moon can be in front of the sun while their sizes look similar.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2021 13:03:21
Serial killers would disagree. You can't let reflex or emotion get in the way of God's given task to rid the earth of left-handers, or whatever your destiny may demand.Why would they?
Let's make a thought experiment. Get two groups of average persons. The control group is left as it is. Take away reflex, instinct, and emotion from members of the other group.
People without emotion will find it hard to gain trust from others and cooperate. Those without instinct to find mate when reaching adulthood won't pass their genes to the next generation. Those without instinct to eat when hungry nor reflex to breath when CO2 level in their bloodstream rises won't survive.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 14:21:04
You are confusing between believe and faith.No. Faith is acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of the facts.
I believe that the sun is hotter than the moon because I can feel it.
I believe that the sun is bigger than the moon because the moon can be in front of the sun while their sizes look similar.
You know the sun is hotter than the moon because you can feel and measure their effect.
You know the sun is bigger than the moon because the eclipse is consistent with all you have ever observed about perspective and geometric optics.
If advised by a jockey I might believe that Wobbly Donkey will win the 4.30 race, because I have no other information. But backing him at 50:1 when he has a broken leg would be faith.
King Canute had faith in his power to halt the tide, and drowned.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2021 14:25:28
Post by: alancalverd on 18/02/2021 16:09:59
People without emotion will find it hard to gain trust from othersHow do you think telephone scams work? If there is any emotion involved, it is only contempt for the victim.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2021 22:19:51
You are confusing between believe and faith.No. Faith is acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of the facts.
I believe that the sun is hotter than the moon because I can feel it.
I believe that the sun is bigger than the moon because the moon can be in front of the sun while their sizes look similar.
You know the sun is hotter than the moon because you can feel and measure their effect.
You know the sun is bigger than the moon because the eclipse is consistent with all you have ever observed about perspective and geometric optics.
If advised by a jockey I might believe that Wobbly Donkey will win the 4.30 race, because I have no other information. But backing him at 50:1 when he has a broken leg would be faith.
King Canute had faith in his power to halt the tide, and drowned.
Let's use standard definition of words whenever possible. Otherwise, we should express it clearly that we are using an alternative definition.
Quote
BeliefBy your definition, faith cannot exist without evidence.
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself"
Quote
Faith
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
Post by: ukmicky on 21/02/2021 22:25:09
Now that foundations for universal moral standard are generally complete, I'll demonstrate how to use them in real life case. Let's start with the famous trolley problem.QuoteYou see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:Let's start with the most basic version, with following assumptions:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option?
1. There's no uncertainty about the statements describing the situation.
2. The outcome solely depends on the choice made by the subject. Nothing else can interfere the course of the events.
3. All of those six people have equal positive contributions to the society.
4. The switching action requires negligible amount of resources.
Here the math shows that you should pull the lever.
The moral answer
You pull the lever and send it to the single person not because it’s better to kill one person rather than 5 ,you send it to the single person because there is more chance of a single person being rescued or getting out of the way in time than 5 people.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2021 22:37:10
Reflex, instinct, and emotions are shortcuts to process information to make decisions and take actions. They worked well most of the time when life was simpler. But evolutionary arms race forced us to employ more complex information processing by analyzing situation, deceiving opponents, and detection of deceptions.People without emotion will find it hard to gain trust from othersHow do you think telephone scams work? If there is any emotion involved, it is only contempt for the victim.
When time is less restricted, thought often gives better results since it takes into account longer term effects.
Expressing emotion is especially useful when communication methods are limited, but our lives depend on the cooperation with others, like in wolf packs or prehistoric tribal societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2021 22:49:53
The moral answerWhat if the case is reversed? It's easier for 5 people to stop the train by cooperation, while it's harder to stop it alone. Let's say it can be done by bending the railway.
You pull the lever and send it to the single person not because it’s better to kill one person rather than 5 ,you send it to the single person because there is more chance of a single person being rescued or getting out of the way in time than 5 people.
But the basic experiment stated that there are only two possible outcomes. No chance is involved which can produce other results.
Post by: ukmicky on 21/02/2021 23:17:17
There would never be only 2 possible outcomes. However If there was and i had to decide whether to pull the lever or not which then changes the fate of the single person as it would send the train to him , I would do nothing and allow fate to continue along the path it was going to runThe moral answerWhat if the case is reversed? It's easier for 5 people to stop the train by cooperation, while it's harder to stop it alone. Let's say it can be done by bending the railway.
You pull the lever and send it to the single person not because it’s better to kill one person rather than 5 ,you send it to the single person because there is more chance of a single person being rescued or getting out of the way in time than 5 people.
But the basic experiment stated that there are only two possible outcomes. No chance is involved which can produce other results.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2021 23:38:24
FaithMy point precisely.
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
"bereaved people who have shown supreme faith"
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2021 02:25:22
We learn from simplified problems. The intention of the thought experiment was to find out how people's moral values affect their decisions.There would never be only 2 possible outcomes. However If there was and i had to decide whether to pull the lever or not which then changes the fate of the single person as it would send the train to him , I would do nothing and allow fate to continue along the path it was going to runThe moral answerWhat if the case is reversed? It's easier for 5 people to stop the train by cooperation, while it's harder to stop it alone. Let's say it can be done by bending the railway.
You pull the lever and send it to the single person not because it’s better to kill one person rather than 5 ,you send it to the single person because there is more chance of a single person being rescued or getting out of the way in time than 5 people.
But the basic experiment stated that there are only two possible outcomes. No chance is involved which can produce other results.
It's interesting that you think that following fate is higly important. Let's see how far would it go. Would you still do nothing if the one person on the other track is replaced by a bear? or a dog? or a mannequine?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2021 13:09:58
Belief
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
To be explicit, I used the first definition of belief, which is more aligned with its usage in machine learning.
Quote
A Bayesian network (also known as a Bayes network, belief network, or decision network) is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph (DAG). Bayesian networks are ideal for taking an event that occurred and predicting the likelihood that any one of several possible known causes was the contributing factor. For example, a Bayesian network could represent the probabilistic relationships between diseases and symptoms. Given symptoms, the network can be used to compute the probabilities of the presence of various diseases.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_network
Our beliefs can be true or false. Our confidence to the correctness of our beliefs should be proportional to the evidence supporting them.
Post by: ukmicky on 22/02/2021 15:16:44
Then I would pull the lever, as a bear etc is not a human being and has less worth and they don’t have families that would morn their death to the level of of a person or be financially impacted by the loss.We learn from simplified problems. The intention of the thought experiment was to find out how people's moral values affect their decisions.There would never be only 2 possible outcomes. However If there was and i had to decide whether to pull the lever or not which then changes the fate of the single person as it would send the train to him , I would do nothing and allow fate to continue along the path it was going to runThe moral answerWhat if the case is reversed? It's easier for 5 people to stop the train by cooperation, while it's harder to stop it alone. Let's say it can be done by bending the railway.
You pull the lever and send it to the single person not because it’s better to kill one person rather than 5 ,you send it to the single person because there is more chance of a single person being rescued or getting out of the way in time than 5 people.
But the basic experiment stated that there are only two possible outcomes. No chance is involved which can produce other results.
It's interesting that you think that following fate is higly important. Let's see how far would it go. Would you still do nothing if the one person on the other track is replaced by a bear? or a dog? or a mannequine?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2021 18:49:35
a bear etc is not a human being and has less worth and they don’t have families that would morn their death to the level of of a person or be financially impacted by the loss.which shows your ignorance of other species, and the utter stupidity and fragility of most humans. Neither of which is a particularly sound foundation for a scientific argument.
Post by: ukmicky on 22/02/2021 20:33:25
I'm not ignorant of other species I just know what has more worth .a bear etc is not a human being and has less worth and they don’t have families that would morn their death to the level of of a person or be financially impacted by the loss.which shows your ignorance of other species, and the utter stupidity and fragility of most humans. Neither of which is a particularly sound foundation for a scientific argument.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2021 23:05:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/02/2021 03:43:38
Then I would pull the lever, as a bear etc is not a human being and has less worth and they don’t have families that would morn their death to the level of of a person or be financially impacted by the loss.Would you still pull the lever if it's a dying old man whose life expectancy is just a few hours? or a few days? or months?
What's the reasoning?
Post by: ukmicky on 24/02/2021 15:11:35
No he is a human being and has a right to live even if it’s only hours so I would let fate determine which way the train went.Then I would pull the lever, as a bear etc is not a human being and has less worth and they don’t have families that would morn their death to the level of of a person or be financially impacted by the loss.Would you still pull the lever if it's a dying old man whose life expectancy is just a few hours? or a few days? or months?
What's the reasoning?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2021 19:50:28
Post by: ukmicky on 24/02/2021 20:34:49
Do you let fate determine everything in your life, or do you look before you cross the road?Yes I look before I cross the road but not all situations require actions and those that don’t are often determined by fate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2021 22:37:37
No he is a human being and has a right to live even if it’s only hours so I would let fate determine which way the train went.What if his life is just a few minutes? or seconds? Is he still worthy enough to sacrifice five other persons?
How do you define human being? What are the boundaries?
Is it determined by genetic? How much genetic difference is tolerated to include a specimen into human category?
Do you know that most people alive today carry some non-human DNA?
Emergency responders faced real life situations similar to the thought experiment, like in accidents involving mass transportation. They must optimize limited resources to save people who need them, and avoid wasting resources trying to save victims who have no chance to survive due to the type, location, and magnitude of the injuries, even when they were still alive.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2021 23:22:16
I look before I cross the road but not all situations require actions and those that don’t are often determined by fate.Can you draw a line between "leaving it to fate" and criminal negligence, in the particular case in question?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2021 23:22:23
On one side the cost is lost of one human life, and additional cost of switching the direction of the train. On the other side, the cost is lost of one human life, and additional cost of several other human lives which supposedly compensate for the cost of switching.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2021 23:24:26
Do you know that most people alive today carry some non-human DNA?Only the unacknowledged offspring of certain Conservative politicians.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2021 23:32:05
Emergency responders faced real life situations similar to the thought experiment, like in accidents involving mass transportation. They must optimize limited resources to save people who need them, and avoid wasting resources trying to save victims who have no chance to survive due to the type, location, and magnitude of the injuries, even when they were still alive.
It's called triage. Group A will survive if we do nothing, group B will not recover whatever we do, group C will survive if we treat them . So we treat group C. You can refine it in practice by offering cups of tea to A and B, some of whom may then slip into C.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2021 02:35:48
The trolley problem is basically a decision making process with two options. Each sides have their own costs and benefits.In the original thought experiment, the additional cost to compensate the switching cost is four other human lives in the track traversed by the train if it's not switched. Explicit cost of the switching is supposedly negligible, depicted by pulling a lever or pushing a switch button. So, how can this be compared to sacrificing additional 4 human lives? There must be implicit assumptions embedded to the cost of switching.
On one side the cost is lost of one human life, and additional cost of switching the direction of the train. On the other side, the cost is lost of one human life, and additional cost of several other human lives which supposedly compensate for the cost of switching.
A possible assumption is fear of retaliation by relatives of the person sacrificed by the switching. Another possibility is fear of backlash from the society, which can take various forms. That's why the survey can produce different results when done in different types of societies, and can be affected by mental states of the participants.
As I mentioned in my older post, virtually noone would do the switch if there is only one person on each track (no compensation for the cost of switching). Some may start to consider switching when there are 2 persons in the original track (cost of switching is compensated by 1 additional human life). More people will switch when the compensation is higher number of human lives. I think I can safely assume that most people will switch the track if the cost of switching is compensated by a million human lives.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2021 02:54:11
Do you know that most people alive today carry some non-human DNA?Only the unacknowledged offspring of certain Conservative politicians.
Quote
Melanesians were found to have a mysterious third archaic Homo species along with their Denisovan (3–4%) and Neanderthal (2%) ancestors in a genetic admixture with their otherwise modern Homo sapiens sapiens genomes.[15] Their most common Y-chromosome haplogroup is M-P256.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesia#Genetic_studies
Quote
The first Neanderthal genome sequence was published in 2010, and strongly indicated interbreeding between Neanderthals and early modern humans.[75][348][349][350] The genomes of all non-sub-Saharan populations contain Neanderthal DNA.[75][77][351][352] Various estimates exist for the proportion: 1–4% in modern Eurasians,[75] 3.4–7.9%,[353] One study, using the IBDmix method, concluded that the all genomes of modern people from the 1000 genomes project, including Africans, had Neanderthal genes (with the amount of Neanderthal DNA in Asians being 55 megabases (Mb) or 1.8%, in Europeans - 51 MB or about 1.7%,[354] and in Africans about 17 MB or 0.3% of their genome,[355] while previous findings have found that Africans have significantly less megabase - in the previous lakh from 0.026 Mb for the people ishan to 0.5 Mb for the peoples Luhya). Africans share 7.2% of their Neanderthal admixture exclusively with Europeans, significantly higher than the 2% that Africans share exclusively with East Asians. 1.8–2.4% in modern Europeans and 2.3–2.6% in modern East Asians.[356] However, some scientists, such as geneticist David Reich, dispute the study's conclusions suggesting widespread Neanderthal admixture in sub-Saharan Africans.[357] Pre-agricultural Europeans appear to have had similar percentages to modern East Asians, and the numbers may have decreased in the former due to dilution with a group of people which had split off before Neanderthal introgression.[87] Such low percentages indicate infrequent interbreeding.[358] However, it is possible interbreeding was more common with a different population of modern humans which did not contribute to the present day gene pool.[87] Of the inherited Neanderthal genome, 25% in modern Europeans and 32% in modern East Asians may be related to viral immunity.[359] In all, approximately 20% of the Neanderthal genome appears to have survived in the modern human gene pool.[82]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding_with_modern_humans
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Homo_sapiens_sapiens%2C_Oase%2C_Rum%C3%A4nien_%28Daniela_Hitzemann%29.jpg/220px-Homo_sapiens_sapiens%2C_Oase%2C_Rum%C3%A4nien_%28Daniela_Hitzemann%29.jpg)
Reconstruction of the upper Palaeolithic human Oase 2 with around 7.3% Neanderthal DNA (from an ancestor 4–6 generations back)
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 12:52:01
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 12:55:47
Post by: ukmicky on 25/02/2021 14:30:39
in a real world example I would certainly perform an action which would hopefully preserve life rather than leave something to fate but in the case in question as is a kind of dumb question it’s impossible to find a position as to where the line should be drawnI look before I cross the road but not all situations require actions and those that don’t are often determined by fate.Can you draw a line between "leaving it to fate" and criminal negligence, in the particular case in question?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 16:50:49
At the end of the day the farmer opened the barn and found the civil servant staring intently at an apple in his hand. He said "I picked up two apples and put the larger one on the left and the smaller one on the right. Now would you call this a big apple or a small apple?"
It's good to meet a fellow civil servant, but not in a crisis.
Post by: charles1948 on 25/02/2021 20:37:27
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2021 23:42:17
As I got into a Dublin taxi the driver said "So you're a civil servant from London, then." I asked him how he knew. He said "You hailed the taxi like you were in charge of a flight deck."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2021 04:17:59
Apropos the trolley problem, it is clearly invented by a philosopher with no understanding of reality. If you half-switch the points, or switch it when the front wheels have passed, the trolley will derail without hitting anyone.Let's not belittle someone else's professions. Engineers who built the tracks and train most likely had built safety precautions to prevent those kind of things. For example, the switch is designed not to react untill it's fully switched, and it doesn't react when a train is already in the mid of crossing the intersection.
In introductory physics, students learn about pulley problem. Some idealizations are common:
- the ceiling and the strings have infinite strength.
- the strings and the pulley have 0 mass and 0 elasticity.
- no friction by air nor contact between string and pulley
- gravitational acceleration is unaffected by object's position, either in magnitude or direction.
(https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/week-4-drag-forces-constraints-and-continuous-systems/12.1-pulley-problems-part-i-set-up-the-equations/ropes_and_pulley_intro.svg)
It doesn't necessarily mean that the teachers don't understand real world physics. They just don't want their students to be distracted from the core issue they want to discuss. The idealized situations are a middle road between giving a sense of real world practicality and pure math equations detached from reality.
So does it seems for the trolley problem. It was meant to find out what people think as morally valuable things by balancing both sides of a weighing balance depicted by two rail tracks. The philosophers don't want us to be distracted by remotely related details.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2021 05:54:38
No he is a human being and has a right to live even if it’s only hours so I would let fate determine which way the train went.
Is it still worthy to sacrifice 5 lives to save the one with a few seconds left to live, just to follow you principle? Even if that means you end up with six dead bodies when the train stops?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/02/2021 06:07:46
In this scenario, both decisions involve you action. Hence there is no excuse of being a passive bystander.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2021 13:30:41
Let's not belittle someone else's professions.I distinguish between professionals and parasites.
Quote
Engineers who built the tracks and train most likely had built safety precautions to prevent those kind of things. For example, the switch is designed not to react untill it's fully switched, and it doesn't react when a train is already in the mid of crossing the intersection.Have you ever travelled by train? We are talking about large mechanical structures driven mostly by electric motors with worm gears, pneumatics (fairly quick but not instantaneous) or, in the case of a goods yard where you are likely to encounter a loose driverless trolley, simple manual levers and pushrods. The cool safety feature is usually a brake on the trolley which can only be released by a person standing on it or by being coupled to the train vacuum system. So my suggestion is far more realistic than any notion of brakeless trolleys and instantaneous switches.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2021 00:09:22
I distinguish between professionals and parasites.How can a philosopher who teach about trolley problem becomes a parasite?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2021 00:12:43
Have you ever travelled by train?How does it make a difference?
How many people traveled in a car, bus, train, without knowing how they work.
On the other hand, designers of Mars landers never travel to Mars.
Post by: ukmicky on 27/02/2021 01:01:31
Here the math shows that you should pull the lever.
However even if you were correct and the Math (or should that be Maths ,mathematics or even arithmetic ) shows that you should pull the lever . Pulling the lever would of course cause the death of an innocent party which would be either murder or manslaughter ,so in reality no one except an idiot would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would win .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2021 04:01:12
so in reality no one except would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would winExcept who?
Real life experiment in the mindfield video shows that some people are really willing and capable of pulling the lever.
Fate is determined after the fact. So, it's not surprising that it always win. It's a circular logic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/02/2021 04:03:47
However even if you were correct and the Math (or should that be Maths ,mathematics or even arithmetic ) shows that you should pull the lever . Pulling the lever would of course cause the death of an innocent party which would be either murder or manslaughter ,so in reality no one except would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would winHow do you answer my alternative case? Will you switch back the lever to cancel your inadvertent action?
Here is another plot twist I just thought of. You have inadvertently switched the track when you learn about the situation, so the train is heading toward one person. Will you switch it back to its original track, which will kill 5 people, instead of letting your mistake inadvertently kill 1?
In this scenario, both decisions involve you action. Hence there is no excuse of being a passive bystander.
Post by: ukmicky on 27/02/2021 13:36:08
An idiotso in reality no one except would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would winExcept who?
Real life experiment in the mindfield video shows that some people are really willing and capable of pulling the lever.
Fate is determined after the fact. So, it's not surprising that it always win. It's a circular logic.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2021 15:45:14
A philosopher is a parasite. All he has done so far is to waste your time.I distinguish between professionals and parasites.How can a philosopher who teach about trolley problem becomes a parasite?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/02/2021 05:28:56
You're redefining word. Most people in many surveys said they would pull the lever to save 5 people and sacrifice 1. Many of the surveys participants are college students, which must have passed some preliminary cognitive tests.An idiotso in reality no one except would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would winExcept who?
Real life experiment in the mindfield video shows that some people are really willing and capable of pulling the lever.
Fate is determined after the fact. So, it's not surprising that it always win. It's a circular logic.
You can accuse others who disagree with you of being idiot. But if the evidences are against you, you are putting your own credential in jeopardy.
Post by: ukmicky on 28/02/2021 14:53:22
No I just live in the real worldYou're redefining word. Most people in many surveys said they would pull the lever to save 5 people and sacrifice 1. Many of the surveys participants are college students, which must have passed some preliminary cognitive tests.An idiotso in reality no one except would pull the lever and as I said previously fate would winExcept who?
Real life experiment in the mindfield video shows that some people are really willing and capable of pulling the lever.
Fate is determined after the fact. So, it's not surprising that it always win. It's a circular logic.
You can accuse others who disagree with you of being idiot. But if the evidences are against you, you are putting your own credential in jeopardy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2021 08:02:52
No I just live in the real worldOK. For now I believe that you are not a chatbot.
But your judgement you've made which contradicts available evidence reduces your credibility to make a judgement.
Why don't you try to answer the alternative plots of the trolley problem presented here?
- Will you still refuse to pull the lever if you know that the person on second track has only a few seconds to live?
- Will you still refuse to pull the lever if letting the train to pass through first track would kill more people? say a hundred? a thousand? a million?
- Will you switch back to the original track after you already pulled the lever?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2021 08:08:47
Here is another plot twist I just thought of. You have inadvertently switched the track when you learn about the situation, so the train is heading toward one person. Will you switch it back to its original track, which will kill 5 people, instead of letting your mistake inadvertently kill 1?Another variation of the plot twist. You didn't pull the lever inadvertently. You pulled it because you weren't aware of the one person on the second track.
In this scenario, both decisions involve you action. Hence there is no excuse of being a passive bystander.
When you become aware of that person, will you switch back to the original track, which will eventually kill 5 people?
Post by: ukmicky on 01/03/2021 14:29:52
Post by: ukmicky on 01/03/2021 14:31:27
hmmmmHere is another plot twist I just thought of. You have inadvertently switched the track when you learn about the situation, so the train is heading toward one person. Will you switch it back to its original track, which will kill 5 people, instead of letting your mistake inadvertently kill 1?Another variation of the plot twist. You didn't pull the lever inadvertently. You pulled it because you weren't aware of the one person on the second track.
In this scenario, both decisions involve you action. Hence there is no excuse of being a passive bystander.
When you become aware of that person, will you switch back to the original track, which will eventually kill 5 people?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2021 22:17:33
hmmmmIt seems like you haven't thought much about this problem. There are many variations of it out there. They are tools to check the consistency of your decision making process. Sanity check for our moral standards, which we need to figure out urgently more than ever, as full self driving vehicles are becoming reality. The understanding of the universal moral standard becomes a necessity when we are engaging AGI and genetic engineering. Economic competition is forcing us to get there sooner, rather than later.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2021 23:19:57
The understanding of the universal moral standard becomes a necessity when we are engaging AGI and genetic engineering. Economic competition is forcing us to get there sooner, rather than later.No. What we need to do is to impress a human moral standard on semiautonomous machines.
A classic example of not doing so is the use of "altitude hold" in a simple autopilot. Most of the time this just saves you having to make continuous minor adjustments of power and trim as you burn fuel, fly into a different weather system, or the passengers start walking around. But there is a dangerous temptation to let "George" fly the plane in strong turbulence, because his reactions are quicker and he doesn't get tired. This can be fatal. If you hit a strong downdraft, George will point the nose of the plane upwards to regain altitude and you may stall. Unfortunately the strong downdrafts are found in dense cloud, so the plane will quite suddenly flip, spin, or do a dozen ballistic things all at once and topple the gyro horizon, making recovery to aerodynamic flight quite a conundrum and in some cases impossible. The proper thing to do is to fly by hand in strong turbulence, accepting that you will not maintain constant speed or altitude, but simply keep the wings generating lift even when the meal trays hit the ceiling, in a compromise with the forces of nature. Given the choice between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, you must accept the unpalatable to survive.
Which takes us back to the "immoral but right" decisions of conflict, which cannot be universal because the rest of the universe is at best indifferent to human life, and at worst, opposed to it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2021 03:48:36
No. What we need to do is to impress a human moral standard on semiautonomous machines.To accept your suggestion, you need to define what human is, and why it is necessary to be followed by non-human conscious agents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2021 03:54:13
A classic example of not doing so is the use of "altitude hold" in a simple autopilot. Most of the time this just saves you having to make continuous minor adjustments of power and trim as you burn fuel, fly into a different weather system, or the passengers start walking around. But there is a dangerous temptation to let "George" fly the plane in strong turbulence, because his reactions are quicker and he doesn't get tired. This can be fatal. If you hit a strong downdraft, George will point the nose of the plane upwards to regain altitude and you may stall. Unfortunately the strong downdrafts are found in dense cloud, so the plane will quite suddenly flip, spin, or do a dozen ballistic things all at once and topple the gyro horizon, making recovery to aerodynamic flight quite a conundrum and in some cases impossible. The proper thing to do is to fly by hand in strong turbulence, accepting that you will not maintain constant speed or altitude, but simply keep the wings generating lift even when the meal trays hit the ceiling, in a compromise with the forces of nature. Given the choice between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, you must accept the unpalatable to survive.You can put the handwritten codes of known practical rules into the machines' algorithm. Alternatively, you can train the machine using reinforced learning, given that you can provide a virtual environment accurate enough to represent parts of the real world which is considered relevant to the application. Tesla's Dojo clearly takes the second route.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2021 03:57:01
Which takes us back to the "immoral but right" decisions of conflict, which cannot be universal because the rest of the universe is at best indifferent to human life, and at worst, opposed to it.What you do is a better representation of your morality than what you say. In your case, I'll call them fake morality and real morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2021 09:53:46
Alternatively, you can train the machine using reinforced learning, given that you can provide a virtual environment accurate enough to represent parts of the real world which is considered relevant to the application.And look what happened to the 737 Max. One jammed sensor and several hundred dead. But apparently cheaper than putting a warning in the pilot's notes and spending an extra hour on type training.
Back in the days of Tridents, a friend was flying a Trident 3 from Belfast to London when he noticed "it felt a bit heavier than usual". Looked at the fuel ticket and saw that he had been given the fuel for a much thirstier T2, so he called back to Belfast who called the next guy who had just departed in a T2 for Paris, checked his fuel ticket, and diverted to Birmingham rather than ditch in the Channel. Not sure how you could program that into anything except three humans, never mind getting Birmingham Control to reorganise all their traffic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2021 22:54:16
And look what happened to the 737 Max. One jammed sensor and several hundred dead. But apparently cheaper than putting a warning in the pilot's notes and spending an extra hour on type training.It was human error in design phase.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 00:29:21
Not sure how you could program that into anything except three humans, never mind getting Birmingham Control to reorganise all their traffic.Perhaps the plane engine shouldn't be able to start with incorrect fuel amount or type for the planned journey. It would be easier to fix.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 05:43:09
WOTM: In-Group Morality
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 08:39:54
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 10:40:33
Not at all. The design was perfect and simply introduced an interesting new characteristic in the flight envelope. The wrong decision was to substitute weak automation for an hour's training.And look what happened to the 737 Max. One jammed sensor and several hundred dead. But apparently cheaper than putting a warning in the pilot's notes and spending an extra hour on type training.It was human error in design phase.
Almost every time you get to fly a new type or even a significant variant of a familiar type, you fly a simulator or "live" with an instructor, to learn where the new bits are and how it handles differently from the old one, then you get a formal "type rating" added to your licence. Boeing management, not engineering, decided that this could be avoided by automating the pitch control, despite several previous problems with auto pitch control mechanisms on various jets including some famous fatalities.
The sudden pitch up of a 737MAX after rotation was known (other aircraft have similar characteristics) and entirely simulable or teachable, and indeed the European Aviation Safety Authority, despite its appalling record of shambolic maladministration, now insists that pilots must have an examined rating for the MAX including how to switch the bloody system off!
In each of the fatal cases the pilots knew something was wrong and tried but couldn't override the servo.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 11:02:27
Yes, one more thing to go wrong. Suppose we have planned Belfast- Heathrow but a passenger gets sick so we divert to Birmingham. Will the machine say "fuel overload - switch off engine"? Or Heathrow is fogged so we make a late divert to Southend. Is that another 30 miles (insufficient fuel - switch off engine) or had we planned to approach Heathrow from the east anyway, plus a go-around plus a divert plus extra taxi time?Not sure how you could program that into anything except three humans, never mind getting Birmingham Control to reorganise all their traffic.Perhaps the plane engine shouldn't be able to start with incorrect fuel amount or type for the planned journey. It would be easier to fix.
Fueller overloads the plane, or you have a late change of destination. Offloading fuel is a hell of a faff, but flying another 30 minutes to get below landing weight is no big deal.
And will the machine talk to Heathrow/Birmingham/Southend/Airways Control and request priority? What will it do if Birmingham says "negative, go to Manchester"?
The great thing about flying is that you have dozens of options until the fuel runs out, so why not leave it to a human to negotiate with other humans and decide what to do next? I have been rightly criticised by an examiner for rushing towards a preplanned diversion instead of reviewing the situation with some arithmetic and a radio chat. He said "Yes, Southend is nearest but there's no direct train to Cambridge - can we reach Norwich?"
The Trident story just illustrates the importance of checking that third parties have indeed done what they should have, and recognising when things have changed. Humans are generally good at that. One neat gadget that deserves to be resurrected is the electromechanical final checklist. This is a row of switches labelled "fuel" "flaps" etc which you have to flip upwards before takeoff and downwards before landing, and when they are all in the same orientation you get a green light. It just reminds you to do all the stuff in the handbook, but it doesn't interrupt the fuel flow to the engines, or attempt to take control of the flight surfaces.
Anyway it's a long way from morality. Apologies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 12:50:24
WOTM: Objective Morality
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 12:53:56
Not at all. The design was perfect and simply introduced an interesting new characteristic in the flight envelope. The wrong decision was to substitute weak automation for an hour's training.Not providing redundancy for critical components which can cause a single point failure is a sign of bad design.
How did they fix the problem? By changing the design.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 12:57:56
Yes, one more thing to go wrong. Suppose we have planned Belfast- Heathrow but a passenger gets sick so we divert to Birmingham. Will the machine say "fuel overload - switch off engine"? Or Heathrow is fogged so we make a late divert to Southend. Is that another 30 miles (insufficient fuel - switch off engine) or had we planned to approach Heathrow from the east anyway, plus a go-around plus a divert plus extra taxi time?The machine should tell before the engine even started.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 13:46:52
Human pilots just allow for the possibility by uploading enough fuel for at least 40 minutes holding, two approaches, and a nominated divert, plus 30 minutes fuel remaining after all that.
Our Masters at EASA even went so far as to say that you may not make an approach with less than 40 minutes fuel remaining. That isn't what they meant, but it was what they said, and AFAIK it is still the law!
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 13:51:05
There were no critical components in the original design. The flying characteristics of any aircraft change in different phases of flight, but rather than teach people to fly the MAX throughout the modified takeoff envelope they installed two wholly unnecessary critical components (yes, the system incorporated redundancy) and software that made things worse if one failed.Not at all. The design was perfect and simply introduced an interesting new characteristic in the flight envelope. The wrong decision was to substitute weak automation for an hour's training.Not providing redundancy for critical components which can cause a single point failure is a sign of bad design.
How did they fix the problem? By changing the design.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 14:41:23
There were no critical components in the original design. The flying characteristics of any aircraft change in different phases of flight, but rather than teach people to fly the MAX throughout the modified takeoff envelope they installed two wholly unnecessary critical components (yes, the system incorporated redundancy) and software that made things worse if one failed.I've read the summary of the investigation report. It was the system design flaw which allows a single sensor failure to cause disastrous consequence.
Having a secondary component standby as a backup is not necessarily means you have effective redundancy, if the backup can't take over the functionality of the primary component when it fails.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2021 16:22:35
Quote
During the certification of the MAX in 2017, Boeing removed a description of MCAS from the flight manuals, leaving pilots unaware of the system when the airplane entered service.[1][2] The Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing had failed to share information about that issue for "about a year" before the crash of Lion Air Flight 610.[3] Twelve days after the Lion Air accident, on November 10, 2018, Boeing publicly revealed MCAS in a message to airline operators, noting that the system operates "without pilot input."
Reminds me of the only time I have been scared in any kind of machine. I rented a car with an early "stop-start" antipollution system. No problem untiI I stopped in the middle of a crossroads in Edinburgh and the engine just died, with traffic converging in all directions. Never mind air quality, the first thing I do in an unfamiliar rental nowadays is to switch the damn thing off!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2021 21:44:14
You missed the point! The entire MCAS system is probably unnecessary: an angle of attack warning should suffice, along with sufficient training to anticipate and correct for the sudden increase in lift on rotation. Apparently the system was developed to assist the pilots of airforce tankers, which are subject to rapid oscillation as the cargo slops around, and was shoved into service on a passenger/ regular cargo ship where the load remains pretty stable, to overcome a minor oddity on the departure characteristic.It was an attempt to bypass a long regulatory process which Boeing must go through if they made significant structural design changes to improve fuel efficiency, which was triggered by Airbus' success to do it.
If only it was done correctly, it shouldn't cause accidents.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2021 12:46:09
No aircraft is indefinitely stable, and the instabilities change with speed, load and angle of attack. Hence mandatory type ratings, operating manuals, simulators, Company pilots, instructors and examiners.
Post by: charles1948 on 04/03/2021 17:53:37
No additional regulatory process was required. A new type requires a new operating manual and it is then up to the regulatory authorities to decide what level of type rating is required for pilots. The new EASA type rating syllabus for the MAX includes learning how to switch off the MCAS, though it is possible that people flying a non-European registered MAX on a non-EASA licence may not require such training.
No aircraft is indefinitely stable, and the instabilities change with speed, load and angle of attack. Hence mandatory type ratings, operating manuals, simulators, Company pilots, instructors and examiners.
The points you make are valid. But don't you think that Boeing's essential error was this:
They kept trying to "stretch" the old 737 too far. Because "stretching" it was cheaper, so they thought, than designing and building a completely new aircraft.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2021 00:57:53
All large passenger jets trace their ancestry to the B29. The only significant departures were the Comet (based on fighter designs with the engines buried close to the fuselage, so very difficult to maintain or upgrade) and Concorde (uneconomic). What would you suggest?
Most of the cockpit of the BA146 was copied from a Boeing 707 because it had four jet engines and worked fairly well - why reinvent the wheel? Increasing the capacity or range of the 737 is entirely logical because it's a fundamentally well-sorted design.
Fitting a bigger engine is entirely normal on all successful designs from the Piper Cub (originally 40 HP, modern "Super Cubs" up to 180 HP) to the Spitfire (1030 HP to 2300 HP) but always involves a change in flight characteristics and in practically every case some formal type conversion training. That's the only bit that Boeing and the FAA missed out, assuming that the MCAS computer would cover it, and not mentioning it in the handbook. Funny, that. If you modify the oven or the toilet, the ground and cabin crews get introductory training, but if you add a wholly unnecessary flight control that overrides the pilot, you don't have to tell him.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2021 16:54:05
Funny, that. If you modify the oven or the toilet, the ground and cabin crews get introductory training, but if you add a wholly unnecessary flight control that overrides the pilot, you don't have to tell him.Do you think that what they did is evil? is it immoral? why so?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2021 18:13:43
Evil? Not sure. I don't detect any malice. In fact the MCAS addition was well-intended but incompetent, and not including it in the operating manual should fall into the category of criminal negligence.
Funnily enough I just remembered two parallel incidents. Some years ago I fitted an experimental electronic ignition system to my father's car. But it was done with his knowledge and consent, and there was an "override" switch. Massive improvement in performance, but the system died about two years later: no problem because he had read the manual and just flipped the switch! And from my father's recollection: he was issued with a company car in the days when motor vehicles were rare, because he was on call for emergencies. One day he complained to the mechanic that the brakes were noisy. He picked the car up at the end of the day to drive home and found the brakes didn't work at all - not the sort of thing you want to discover in London traffic. Turned out that the mechanic had cured the squealing brakes by lubricating them with graphite. Boeing employee, perhaps?
Truly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2021 01:43:10
Evil? Not sure. I don't detect any malice. In fact the MCAS addition was well-intended but incompetent, and not including it in the operating manual should fall into the category of criminal negligence.Is there a hard line to tell if some action is evil or not? How can we tell if something is done with malice intention?
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways, including:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Probably named after a Robert J. Hanlon, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.
The term stupidity can be generalized by replacing it with false believe/assumption. Take any example of something you think as immoral. You can always find something that you think is false in the believe of someone who commit that immoral thing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2021 08:46:57
Quote
The future economy won't be built by people and factories, but by algorithms and artificial intelligence, says data scientist Mainak Mazumdar. But what happens when these algorithms get trained on biased data? Drawing on examples from Shanghai to New York City, Mazumdar shows how less-than-quality data leads to AI that makes wrong decisions and predictions -- and reveals three infrastructural resets needed to make ethical AI possible.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2021 08:48:27
Quote
Greg Koukl was asked why the idea that “we develop morality out of our desire to survive” fails to stand as a basis for morality. But Scott Clifton joins me to discuss why Greg's attempt to find failure is itself a failure.
Post by: charles1948 on 07/03/2021 20:23:04
Some years ago I fitted an experimental electronic ignition system to my father's car. But it was done with his knowledge and consent, .died about two years later.
Well, as long as he consented to you experimenting with his car, how can you be held legally responsible for the fatal outcome.
Of course, from a moral viewpoint, shouldn't you have fitted the experimental system in your own car first?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2021 23:59:14
I did. His was the Mark 2.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2021 00:06:33
Is there a hard line to tell if some action is evil or not? How can we tell if something is done with malice intention?Not easy to state a general case but indicative symptoms are prior behavior, expressed intent, motive, prior history of conflict, religion, politics, and philosophy. Malice is generally aimed at a specific individual or group. Not mentioning MCAS in the operating manual would be an unusual case of malicious intent to kill large numbers of random customers and bankrupt the company if and only if the system failed.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/03/2021 03:21:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/03/2021 09:36:57
Do you think that people enjoy seeing other people get into trouble. Especially when the person who gets into trouble is your friend. Don't you feel pleasure, when your friend gets into trouble?There are some people who do, such as pranksters and bullies. They have different levels of trouble they enjoy to inflict to other people. Some can feel those events as funny, some other disturbed, or even call them evil.
Physical harms or perhaps some psychological harms can be put as limiters for the jokes/pranks, hence they also depend on the strength of the victims.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2021 10:20:38
I don't think Boeing management were expecting to sit at the right hand of any particular deity, but I had a salutary warning from an architect. He arrived at a site progress meeting one Monday morning and announced to the assembled engineers, craftsmen, doctors and accountants that he had just returned from a visit to Auschwitz "which was built by people just like us."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2021 13:56:23
It means that the harm is intentional, at least it's a part of the goal of malicious actions, rather than collateral damage.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2021 15:13:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2021 15:43:00
In non-malicious actions, less harm is more preferrable by the actor, and vice versa.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2021 20:25:02
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2021 03:12:02
Let's see another case: Killing a group of terrorist inside a building using hellfire missiles from a drone, which inadvertently also kill some civilians nearby.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the terrorists or their allies, it's malicious.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the civilians, it's non-malicious.
If this action is viewed from the point of view of the actors, it's clearly non-malicious. Can it be otherwise?
If this action is viewed from the point of view of bystanders or other people not directly affected, it may be mixed.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2021 12:17:12
Apropos collateral casualties: no, they are not the victims of malice but of circumstance, though the enemy will claim malice. There are a couple of good films on the subject, my favorite being "Good Kill" with Ethan Hawke, and "Eye in the Sky" (Helen Mirren) has almost the same plot, a year later. What they both ignore, however, is that drone strikes can minimise collateral damage on both sides compared with any other means of eliminating a target. This makes them objectively more moral than manned bombing, but the hero of Good Kill confuses it with "one on one" dogfighting - different objective!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2021 15:17:28
I don't think that result of the battle is adequate to justify that the winner is morally better than the loser.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2021 15:24:55
There are a couple of good films on the subject, my favorite being "Good Kill" with Ethan Hawke, and "Eye in the Sky" (Helen Mirren) has almost the same plot, a year later.Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful. Would you let those terrorists go to save some nearby civilians, in the expense of much more other civilians' lives? The decision has time constraint, hence having a thought about it beforehand can give us a favor.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2021 15:30:19
A philosopher is a parasite. All he has done so far is to waste your time.In case you have some time to waste.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2021 00:44:16
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2021 00:52:57
If our enemies use the same tactic against us, what could be our moral defense/justification for our usage of technology against them?The moral argument begins and ends with the casus belli.
I don't think that result of the battle is adequate to justify that the winner is morally better than the loser.
Why is he an enemy? If he has attacked us, fighting back passes the tests, and the sooner we can end the conflict with the least casualties, the better.
Why would we want to attack him? The only moral justfication would be to pre-empt a greater wrong or to come to the aid of a friend.
The winner is the stronger or better fighter - nothing to do with morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2021 01:00:45
Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful.No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells' The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 19:21:51
Those situations are where our exercises on morality using trolley problems become fruitful.No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells' The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.
Do you think H G Wells should be on relied for guidance. Didn't he write a book, in which he envisioned that pilots of future military aircraft carrying atomic bombs, would have to bite the grease off the bomb-fuse, before throwing it out of the plane, onto the target?
I'm pretty sure that's correct.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2021 23:17:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2021 00:26:57
No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells' The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.I was referring to unexpected costs which only reveal right before the plan is executed, such as unaware civilians coming closer to the location. Will you proceed to execute the plan, or cancel it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2021 08:15:15
"To say a person ought to do X implies that he can do X " Obvious rubbish. Why bother with the rest of the lecture?Why is it so?
Can someone be expected to do something that he/she can't?
Take the original trolley problem for example. If the person on the train is disabled, hence has no power to pull the lever, can we say that he/she ought to pull the lever? Can we blame him/her for not pulling the lever?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2021 11:08:44
You ought to feed your children, but if you have spent all your money on slow horses and fast women, you can't.
Philosophers often use imprecision instead of logic, and wonder why they come up with absurd answers. It's excusable if your native language is French, because the vocabulary is limited, but English has an unlimited vocabulary and permits very precise shades of meaning.
There is no implication of ability in "ought".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2021 13:13:13
There is no implication of ability in "ought".You ought to defuse an active bomb in public place if you can. If you can't do you still ought to?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2021 13:19:26
You ought to be able to walk.You ought to learn or try to walk. But if the result is that you still can't walk and it's not caused by your own decisions, it's not due to your moral failure.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2021 14:54:21
Absolutely not.There is no implication of ability in "ought".You ought to defuse an active bomb in public place if you can. If you can't do you still ought to?
The original statement said that duty implies ability. The reverse is true: noblesse oblige etc., but your duty to pay taxes doesn't guarantee your ability to do so.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2021 00:50:23
Absolutely not.Your inability frees you up from your duty. You ought not pay taxes while you can't. How can you?
The original statement said that duty implies ability. The reverse is true: noblesse oblige etc., but your duty to pay taxes doesn't guarantee your ability to do so.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/03/2021 07:15:22
But the point I forgot to make was that it is not a good idea for an amateur to attempt to defuse a bomb. Nor, if your leg is broken, should you try to walk on it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2021 11:56:32
Income and corporation tax are based on notional profit.So a homeless man without obvious income or profit ought not pay taxes. Do Sentinelese ought to pay taxes?
Quote
If you have spent the profits on drink and drugs, you still have to pay the tax.I ought to pay my taxes before I spent my profit. It implies that I could have paid those taxes then.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/03/2021 12:15:28
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
Post by: alancalverd on 13/03/2021 14:34:16
There is a classic example due to some ancient philosopher whose name I can't recall from my schooldays. He began with "In boxing, as in other sports, good attack goes with good defence" and ends up proving that black is white because the opening proposition is actually meaningless. It is obvious that a good boxer will be adept at both, and this is true for all combat sports including rugby, cricket and chess, but has no meaning outside of combat. "Goes with" deceives the listener with flattery and seduces him into the next charitable (i.e. ambiguous or meaningless) interpretation.
Force, power, energy and strength are synonymous in philosophy and journalese, but are not dimensionally equivalent in physics.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/03/2021 23:02:59
That is the point of "Good Kill" and "Eye in the Sky". You can make a decision to proceed, wait or abort right up to the moment you release the missile because the drone can loiter at high altitude or orbit "up sun". If your target moves, you can follow a car and take him out on the road. These options are not available with a manned fixed-wing strike aircraft, and not safe with a helicopter. It is entirely possible that you will accept some collateral deaths if the threat or prize justifies it.No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells' The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.I was referring to unexpected costs which only reveal right before the plan is executed, such as unaware civilians coming closer to the location. Will you proceed to execute the plan, or cancel it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2021 08:15:08
The principle of charity means that almost any collection of words could be regarded as conveying a profound truth.The charity principle is meant to counter a common logical fallacy, namely strawman fallacy, which presents worse interpretations of the original statements, hence easier to attack.
The principle is necessary if a debate is meant to reveal the fundamental weakness or flaws in an argumentation, rather than finding trivial errors/mistakes, or chances for exploiting loopholes and misinterpretations. It merely suggests us to engage with the least ridiculous version of someone's assertions.
If someone sincerely believe in a statement, there might be some good reasons, based on some information that they have. It's possible that they have some good information that we don't have, or we have some good information that they don't. That's why presenting information as accurate and precise as possible, and minimizing hidden assumptions, can save us some time and efforts to rectify misunderstandings.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2021 08:53:04
It is entirely possible that you will accept some collateral deaths if the threat or prize justifies it.That's the point of trolley problems: weighing in costs and benefits of our actions for our society. To do that, we need to project them into one axis, because we can't compare apples and oranges objectively.
The axis I proposed was the chance/likelyhood to achieve the societies' goals.
By considering all possible scenarios we can think of in advance, we can set up some standard operation and procedure, like in emergency drill by emergency response teams.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2021 10:47:20
Emergency response plans are all subject to the best piece of civil service prose I ever encountered. The 1985 Approved Code of Practice for the use if ionising radiation included the timeless phrase "The bizarre need not be taken into account". We generally plan responses to a single failure, and allow for single failures in the response. Sadly, the phrase has disappeared as knowledge, intelligence and literacy have been eliminated from the Health and Safety Executive.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2021 10:55:28
The charity principle is meant to counter a common logical fallacy, namely strawman fallacy, which presents worse interpretations of the original statements, hence easier to attack.Better to make an unequivocal statement of fact, and advance an explanatory and testable hypothesis. But that's science, not philosophy.
"I have observed that successful boxers are competent in both attack and defence". Test, observe, refine, and coach Muhammad Ali. That's science. Not sure any philosopher has achieved as much as a county bronze, never mind olympics and world championships.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2021 15:24:55
There is no benefit to the actor in the trolley problem. He is not in danger and has no presumed political, military or economic reason to kill anyone.There is a risk of retaliation from relatives of the victims, whether or not his action is morally accepted by general society.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2021 16:25:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2021 04:06:25
So the answer is to kill the fewest people. Retaliation is statistical.Most people agree with you in the case of the original trolley problem, but there are notable dissents from this view.
They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.
Post by: Colin2B on 15/03/2021 08:49:31
They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.Is there a reason it’s a fat man?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2021 11:46:45
The research said that the weight of the fatman is expected to be adequate to stop the trolley before hitting the victims. It may sound unrealistic, but that aside, the point remains.They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.Is there a reason it’s a fat man?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2021 11:52:03
They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing.The stench of philosophy is evident. Active killing = killing. No problem. What on earth is passive killing? Negligence, criminal negligence, failing to investigate an ongoing crime, failing to report an ongoing crime, failing to intervene in an ongoing crime, causing collateral harm during an active pursuit, taking the wrong action when attending to an injured person, taking no action, calling the wrong emergency service, funding concentration camps through your taxes, voting Conservative, eating the last grain of rice, buying diamonds, not buying diamonds, driving a diesel car....?
Post by: Colin2B on 15/03/2021 13:37:45
The research said that the weight of the fatman is expected to be adequate to stop the trolley before hitting the victims. It may sound unrealistic, but that aside, the point remains.Ok, I can see that dropping 2 thin people of wht=1fatman would be considered less acceptable.
Just wanted to check this wasn’t a fatist group!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2021 14:02:57
Trolley problem, its variations, and many others show that "Nothing in Morality Makes Sense Except in the Light of a terminal goal". Universal morality only makes sense in the light of universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/03/2021 15:10:02
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2021 21:46:05
Your insistence on a universal terminal goal may be selfdefeating. Suppose the UTG is maximum number of happy people. And let everyone's immediate moral goal be the same. So you are polite to a Christian you met in the street and we now have two moderately happy people. Or you slaughter a dozen Christians in the gladiatorial arena, and delight a crowd of thousands.Your insistence to see morality from human individual's point of view makes you conclude that more inclusive moralities don't exist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2021 22:24:36
There are at least 3 strategies they can adopt to survive. First by spontaneously generated into existence. It's only feasible for simple moral values, which usually come from more basic mechanisms, such as instinct. Another strategy is by helping their media, which are conscious agents, to survive and thrive. The other strategy is by infecting other conscious agents.
Post by: charles1948 on 16/03/2021 01:02:51
When they bite us
Why deny them our blood
When it makes fleas feel good
Post by: charles1948 on 16/03/2021 01:18:37
It gives out a purr
Because the caress of your hand
Reminds the cat of when it was licked by its mother
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2021 10:54:53
Your insistence to see morality from human individual's point of view makes you conclude that more inclusive moralities don't exist.Even if they do, if they are to be universal they must be applicable to humans, so the quickest test of universality is its applicability to humans.
It might contain sulfur or chlorine, but if it doesn't turn litmus red, it isn't an acid!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2021 13:09:29
Of course they are. At least for now, humans are important parts of a superorganism conscious system known to exist in the universe. But it's important to acknowledge that it is not always the case. It was not the case in the past, before humans exist. It won't be the case when humans go extinct, or evolve into different species.Your insistence to see morality from human individual's point of view makes you conclude that more inclusive moralities don't exist.Even if they do, if they are to be universal they must be applicable to humans, so the quickest test of universality is its applicability to humans.
It might contain sulfur or chlorine, but if it doesn't turn litmus red, it isn't an acid!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2021 13:19:21
Fleas are happy
When they bite us
Why deny them our blood
When it makes fleas feel good
Your insistence to see morality from an individual's point of view makes you conclude that every individual has the same significance to morality. At least for now, humans are important parts of a superorganism conscious system known to exist in the universe. If all humans suddenly extinct now, this conscious system would stop functioning. It's a different story if the fleas are the ones which go extinct.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2021 13:41:23
A moral value is a meme. It will compete with other moral values for their existence in the minds of conscious agents.Individual moral values in the mind of a conscious agent will compete with collective moral values, such as family, tribe, region, nation, species, planet, etc. Each type of moral value draws a boundary between in-group and out-group of self. Individual moral value is the most exclusive one, which put everything except the individual conscious agents themselves as out-groups, which makes their well-beings ignored in decision making process. In the more inclusive moral values, there are more things included into in-group, and less things are left as outgroups.
There are at least 3 strategies they can adopt to survive. First by spontaneously generated into existence. It's only feasible for simple moral values, which usually come from more basic mechanisms, such as instinct. Another strategy is by helping their media, which are conscious agents, to survive and thrive. The other strategy is by infecting other conscious agents.
The universal moral value put the maximum limit of inclusiveness. It leaves non-conscious things as outgroups. Pushing the boundary further would lead to nihilism, which belief that life is meaningless, because we would no longer differentiate between conscious and non-conscious things.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2021 14:29:13
superorganism conscious system known to exist in the universe.Evidence?
If humans are an essential element, at what point in the evolution of homo sapiens did this superorganism suddenly appear?
Us fleas are the key element of universal consciousness. Humans are merely an irritation that tries (unsuccessfully) to commit flea genocide. But if dogs were to suddenly disappear, we'd be in real trouble.
Less vanity, more science, please.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2021 03:55:47
AFAIK, we still haven't found any conscious system coming from extraterrestrial origin.superorganism conscious system known to exist in the universe.Evidence?
If humans are an essential element, at what point in the evolution of homo sapiens did this superorganism suddenly appear?
Us fleas are the key element of universal consciousness. Humans are merely an irritation that tries (unsuccessfully) to commit flea genocide. But if dogs were to suddenly disappear, we'd be in real trouble.
Less vanity, more science, please.
The superorganism which we currently have is a growing system, which keeps getting bigger over time. It's enabled by realtime communication system which is continuously improved. This system is the product of merger of smaller systems which independently evolved previously. It doesn't appear suddenly.
How do fleas affect the currently existing universal consciousness? Can they maintain or improve its functionality?
As you wish, since you asked politely.
35C3 - Information Biology - Investigating the information flow in living systems
Quote
From cells to dynamic models of biochemical pathways and information theory, and back.
How to apply Shannon's information theory to biology.
Cells, from bacteria to human cells, constantly take up, store, retrieve, communicate and make decisions based on information. How they realise all this computation using very unreliable components is still largely an open question. Instead of transistors they have to employ proteins, but proteins constantly degenerate and are re-built making their numbers fluctuate. If cellular signalling is impaired severe diseases can be the result, for instance cancer or epilepsy.
As cellular communication is so pervasive and essential, researchers start to look into this information flow in biological systems in more detail. My research group at the BioQuant centre, Heidelberg University, is also active in this area, an area which I would call Information Biology — the study of how biological systems deal with information.
I will show you how you can apply Shannon's information theory to biological systems. For this we need three ingredients, namely dynamic models of biological pathways, stochastic simulation algorithms (that take into account intrinsic fluctuations in molecular numbers), and, of course, Shannon's theory of information.
I will give brief and user-friendly introductions to these three ingredients. After that I am going to talk about a number of use cases, such as:
How much memory does a bacterium have? And how long can it remember things?
How many bits per second can a liver cell process via its calcium signalling pathway?
How must signalling pathways be constructed, structurally and dynamically, for certain stimuli to be decoded?
and others…
I will also give links to (open source) software that is being developed in my group, which you can use to simulate and play around with biochemical pathways, and also to estimate information flows and do information biology.
FYI: The research I am talking about here is part of a research area which is called Computational Systems Biology. Systems Biology is a field which studies biological systems not by reducing them to their constituent parts, such as single receptors, genes, molecular complexes etc., but by viewing them in the cellular or organismal context and, importantly, as (dynamic) systems. And Computational Systems Biology is Systems Biology done with the help of mathematical models and simulation/analysis algorithms.
https://sciworthy.com/the-information-flow-of-life/
Quote
Atoms make molecules and molecules make proteins, like the keratin in your hair or hemoglobin in your blood. These proteins interact in complex ways to create movement, metabolism, consciousness, and everything we call life. But there is a vast divide in complexity between the simplest amoeba and a human being. How do those chemicals self-assemble to breathe and communicate? Information control is one of the key hallmarks of life, but we don’t know a lot about how information is organized in biology, or how information is held in chemistry. There is a fascinating complexity gap that is begging to be understood, and this is why Sara Imari Walker does science. I got the chance to chat with her about ways of thinking about this complexity gap to further our understanding on this question.
When trying to understand how the interactions of life came to be, Sara and her lab start by looking at the networks of life. There are gene networks that control how and when our body makes proteins, protein networks that create tissues and organs, and organ networks that create individuals. Individuals interact to create populations, and social networks of those populations form communities, and those communities form ecosystems. There are also non-living networks, such as computer networks. The big question to ask here is, what are the key parallels between a living network and a non-living network? Are there common features among these networks that will give us a universal blueprint for life?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2021 04:30:58
Quote
If biology is the study of self-replicating entities, and we want to
understand the role of information, it makes sense to see how information theory is connected to the 'replicator equation' - a simple model of population dynamics for self-replicating entities. The relevant concept of information turns out to be the information of one probability distribution relative to another, also known as the Kullback-Liebler divergence. Using this we can get a new outlook on free energy, see evolution as a learning process, and give a clearer, more general formulation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2021 04:31:24
QuoteIf biology is the study of self-replicating entities, and we want to
understand the role of information, it makes sense to see how information theory is connected to the 'replicator equation' - a simple model of population dynamics for self-replicating entities. The relevant concept of information turns out to be the information of one probability distribution relative to another, also known as the Kullback-Liebler divergence. Using this we can get a new outlook on free energy, see evolution as a learning process, and give a clearer, more general formulation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2021 06:52:00
The big question to ask here is, what are the key parallels between a living network and a non-living network?The non-living network is created for a purpose. The living network evolves in response to its environment. The parallels are of no importance.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2021 15:09:26
The non-living network is created for a purpose.The purpose is a response to the environment of its creators.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2021 17:49:18
If I want 36, I can write down 36 - purposive design. Or I can throw 6 dice 50,000 times and write down the answer each time - evolution.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2021 03:17:04
The difference is in intentional design versus the survival of random variants with no purpose. Evolution of living things is unbelievably wasteful compared with the design of nonliving things.Design is an information optimization process done in virtual environments, such as human brains, beaver brains, computer memory. Design may contain trial and errors, but since they are done in virtual environments, they can be done more efficiently, i.e. use less energy, less time. Selecting components and tuning the parameters in designing reusable rockets or competitive electric cars involve a lot of trial and error process.
If I want 36, I can write down 36 - purposive design. Or I can throw 6 dice 50,000 times and write down the answer each time - evolution.
On the other hand, biological evolution is an information optimization process done in physical environments. There are a lot of restrictions in this process, which makes it take longer to get the desired results. It's not a purely random process, hence rolling dice analogy is not representative for this.
Genetic algorithm is a similar process to biological evolution, but done in a virtual environment. It is widely used in design process involving many parameters which form complex interplay.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2021 05:54:06
Could humans ever evolve to have wings? Why don’t fish have propellers? Why don’t tigers have wheels? Why don’t zebras have laser turrets? These might all seem like stupid questions (and maybe they are!) but they can teach us a lot about how evolution actually works, and how it doesn’t work.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2021 05:19:15
Just like languages, numerical writings have evolved too.
If I want 36, I can write down 36 - purposive design. Or I can throw 6 dice 50,000 times and write down the answer each time - evolution.
(https://res.cloudinary.com/practicaldev/image/fetch/s--mGcOz2Xw--/c_limit%2Cf_auto%2Cfl_progressive%2Cq_auto%2Cw_880/https://thepracticaldev.s3.amazonaws.com/i/aqh3oysgnli4i7i6u25v.png)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2021 06:12:29
Quote
Dr. Thomas Sowells book, A Conflict of Visions, discusses the ideological roots of modern day political battles. He argues that many of modern day political battles are merely a distant reflections on what we believe human nature is capable of.
The Constrained Vision believes that human nature is unchanging, that we can try all we want to make humans inherently smarter or better, more moral people, but that is doomed.
The Unconstrained Vision believes human nature is capable of continuous improvement. That if we simply put enough effort into ourselves, we’d be ables to make a perfect world.
Its important to note that Constrained & Unconstrained are not the same as Conservative & Liberal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2021 07:13:32
Quote
There is a test that is more powerful than any IQ test, that measures you resilience against making simple investing mistakes. Technically the test is called the CRT (or Cognitive Reflection Task) & it measure the likelihood of tripping over common behavioral biases.
I was inspired to make this video after rereading The Little book of Behavioral Investing by James Montier.
There are a lot of books out there on Behavioral thinking, you’ve probably heard of Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
Moral decision making such as in trolley problem involves quick information processing to estimate costs and benefits of each available options. Using shortcut thinking and intuition may be helpful some times. But if we want to minimize regrets, a more thorough analysis is necessary.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/03/2021 10:00:58
Could humans ever evolve to have wings? Why don’t fish have propellers? Why don’t tigers have wheels? Why don’t zebras have laser turrets? These might all seem like stupid questions (and maybe they are!) but they can teach us a lot about how evolution actually works, and how it doesn’t work.
Winged mammals exist but the surface/volume ratio of a mammal doesn't allow for large ones to fly - you need to redesign the sternum, pectoral muscles, lungs and bones, and you end up with something like an albatross.
Freely rotating systems are extremely rare in nature due to the difficulty of supplying nutrients to and extracting waste from the distal part.
Why would a zebra benefit from projecting coherent light? Fish and fireflies emit incoherent light sufficient for their purposes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2021 21:48:31
Why would a zebra benefit from projecting coherent light?In the video depiction, the laser turrets can ward off predators.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/03/2021 22:01:31
The Constrained Vision believes that human nature is unchanging, that we can try all we want to make humans inherently smarter or better, more moral people, but that is doomed.It should have been obvious that my view falls into unconstrained vision category. Human can improve through genetic or memetic changes. We can only say that some changes are improvements if they get us closer to our terminal goals.
The Unconstrained Vision believes human nature is capable of continuous improvement. That if we simply put enough effort into ourselves, we’d be ables to make a perfect world.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2021 22:50:50
OK. Evolution is a very slow process. Let's see what happens.Why would a zebra benefit from projecting coherent light?In the video depiction, the laser turrets can ward off predators.
Quote
Human can improve through genetic or memetic changes.But radical genetic change would produce a new species, so it wouldn't be human improvement but human replacement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 05:24:16
But radical genetic change would produce a new species, so it wouldn't be human improvement but human replacement.Why is that bad? Humans evolved from other species anyway. Some of our cousins may haven't changed a lot since humans split from our common ancestors. What makes us better than them? Are we already perfect?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 05:31:22
Quote
CRISPR gene-editing technology is advancing quickly. What can it do now—and in the future?Most ethicists disapprove gene editing on human embryo based on inaccuracies of current CRISPR methods. Will they approve it if the accuracy can be improved to be comparable to current heart surgery?
The revolutionary gene-editing tool known as CRISPR can alter, add, and remove genes from the human genome. The implications are immense: It could help eliminate illnesses like sickle cell disease and muscular dystrophy, and could even allow us to alter the genes of future generations of humans, leading to so-called designer babies. But will this ever really happen?
Medical journalist and pediatrician Alok Patel investigates the current state of CRISPR—starting with a bull calf named Cosmo. Patel discovers how scientists edited Cosmo’s genome so he would produce more male offspring, and what that means for humans. In conversation with scientists, artists, and ethicists, Patel explores what kind of gene editing is actually possible right now—and what we should be thinking about when we consider manipulating human traits and, ultimately, the human experience.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 12:30:11
Quote
Through life changing accidents, and data minded through NASCAR, human beings are finding ways to rebuild one another so that we are better, faster, and stronger than ever before and all with the help of A.I.. Once nothing more than the stuff of comic books and TV shows, we truly have the technology to become modern superheroes.
The Age of A.I. is a 8 part documentary series hosted by Robert Downey Jr. covering the ways Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Neural Networks will change the world.
0:00 Introduction
1:34 The End of Disability?
13:40 Enhancing Our Abilities
26:33 Life And Death Situations
36:36 Facing Cathedral Ledge
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2021 12:31:56
not bad, but makes the argument irrelevant!But radical genetic change would produce a new species, so it wouldn't be human improvement but human replacement.Why is that bad?
Quote
Humans evolved from other species anyway. Some of our cousins may haven't changed a lot since humans split from our common ancestors. What makes us better than them? Are we already perfect?I can see no way in which we are "better" than any other ape - or indeed any other species at all. Taking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2021 12:38:23
Most ethicists disapprove gene editing on human embryo based on inaccuracies of current CRISPR methods. Will they approve it if the accuracy can be improved to be comparable to current heart surgery?The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities. I've never subscribed to that line of thought. As far as I'm concerned, those who don't exist have no rights, and those who do exist have full rights. What you make and how you make it is of no concern, but you have a duty to support and care for whatever you make.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 13:37:04
not bad, but makes the argument irrelevant!Nothing is particularly important in having 23 pairs of chromosomes. Or being a homo sapiens, or Neanderthal hybrids. They are stepping stones or scaffolding to achieve universal consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 15:34:31
Taking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.On what ground can we claim that it is indeed morally bad? Is it universally accepted? Is there any exception? What's the reason for the exceptions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2021 15:45:02
The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.Is there any supporting data to support this claim?
To win a competition, there are two major ways:
Improving oneself to be better than our competitors.
Preventing our competitors from being better than us.
If most contestants adopt the first strategy, the overall competition tends to be better off over time.
If significant number of contestants adopt the second strategy, the competition tends to be worse off. The winners of this kind of competition will have smaller chance to compete against the winners of other competitions that proceed independently.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2021 16:49:02
1. You wouldn't like it if I killed you for my pleasure or to please my godTaking pleasure from unnecessary killing makes the species morally worse than anything except a fox, and killing for the greater glory of god or a politician is utterly despicable and entirely human.On what ground can we claim that it is indeed morally bad? Is it universally accepted? Is there any exception?
2. You wouldn't kill your nearest and dearest for pleasure. Though plenty of perverts have killed their families to please a god.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2021 16:52:04
The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.Is there any supporting data to support this claim?
Not since the fall of the Third Reich, but that doesn't stop people making it!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2021 00:14:16
1. You wouldn't like it if I killed you for my pleasure or to please my godIt's possible if we share the same god.
2. You wouldn't kill your nearest and dearest for pleasure. Though plenty of perverts have killed their families to please a god.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2021 00:18:49
I asked about the data showing that more ethicists disapprove genetic modification on humans due to devaluation of the disabled, rather than on the risk of the new and immature technology.The ethical argument more often involves concern that producing "perfect" babies devalues those with disabilities.Is there any supporting data to support this claim?
Not since the fall of the Third Reich, but that doesn't stop people making it!
If the first case is true, then they would still disapprove even when the technology gets better and more reliable.
If the second case is true, then they will approve it when the technology gets better and more reliable beyond some threshold.
The ethicist interviewed in the video seems to take the second case.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2021 03:08:35
To win a competition, there are two major ways:New Rule: Equality of Outcomes | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
Improving oneself to be better than our competitors.
Preventing our competitors from being better than us.
If most contestants adopt the first strategy, the overall competition tends to be better off over time.
If significant number of contestants adopt the second strategy, the competition tends to be worse off. The winners of this kind of competition will have smaller chance to compete against the winners of other competitions that proceed independently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2021 05:47:34
Quote
Visionary biochemist Jennifer Doudna shared the Nobel Prize last year for the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), which has the potential to cure diseases caused by genetic mutations. Correspondent David Pogue talks with Doudna about the promises and perils of CRISPR; and with Walter Isaacson, author of the new book "The Code Breaker," about why the biotech revolution will dwarf the digital revolution in importance.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2021 19:57:51
I asked about the data showing that more ethicists disapprove genetic modification on humans due to devaluation of the disabled, rather than on the risk of the new and immature technology.I've never heard it uttered in an ethics committee or even directly by person affected by the outcome, but often in discussions about assistive or corrective technology. One that crops up frequently is in relation to Downs Syndrome and similar chromosomal anomalies, and another in relation to cochlear implants for profound deafness. The argument runs "there is a perfectly happy community of [whatever....] who have a right to bring [...] babies into the world to join their community."
This does raise a problem with respect to cochlear implants, oddly. You'd think that giving a profoundly deaf person useable hearing would be a Good Thing, but it has to be done at an early age if it is to be successful. Problem is that (a) the child never gets fully immersed in sign language and lip reading, so finds it difficult to participate in the deaf community and (b) he is now dependent (to a far greater extent than someone with occupational or senile loss of hearing) on a technology which is unlikely to outlive him. You can't get spare parts for a mass-produced 10-year-old computer, never mind a device that was only ever made in tens or hundreds, so when you drop the transmitter down the toilet you need a very complicated and risky opearation to implant a new receiver, and then have to learn to hear and speak all over again.
To my mind a much more complicated ethical problem than editing a gene so you are less susceptible to breast cancer than your mother, for ever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2021 04:49:28
The biggest obstacle to solve problems is unwillingness to spend time and energy for it, or unwillingness to accept some necessary facts because they would cost us in something else that we think more important.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2021 18:36:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2021 11:40:32
Compliance to technical rules, or its non-compliance, brings technical consequences. They usually occur automatically, without the need for conscious agent to enforce them.
On the other hand, moral consequences usually require conscious agents to enforce them.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2021 18:48:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2021 23:22:21
Technical standards reflect what is possible at the time they are written, and therefore develop towards greater complexity or a presumption of improved safety, performance or interoperability. I haven't seen any change in my moral standard tests since they were coined in the distant mists of history.Ethical or moral standards also have developed over time. What were done by Moses, Joshua, and David to non-Jewish people were considered moral by their own moral standard. Slavery and caste system were once morally acceptable.
The trend is that moral standards are getting more inclusive. The second world war gave us universal human right. If one day we can find or create non-human conscious beings, our current moral standard would be extended to include them too.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2021 00:34:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2021 03:01:26
I have several non-human conscious beings in my garden. Four of them lay eggs every day and one keeps predatory conscious beings like thieves rats and foxes away. I treat them as I would wish to be treated and they look after me. No need to invent anything new.The problem is that they don't coordinate their actions effectively and efficiently to achieve a common goal. Humanity can do it better, but it's still not perfect. Hence, there is still opportunity for improvement. But it requires our willingness to make some changes.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2021 07:51:49
There is no common goal for humans. We collaborate in small groups to compete with other small groups - witness the Euroshambles over COVID vaccine! Having a goal in common (personal survival) is not the same as having a common goal - ants and bees are very different from humans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2021 13:45:52
Actually they do. The chickens move around the garden in a phalanx for mutual protection, warn each other of danger (birds of prey) and huddle together for warmth at night. One dog doesn't have much opportunity for collaboration but dogs in the local parkland and especially wild dogs go hunting in quite efficient groups, and working dogs collaborate with humans in all sorts of ways.their effectiveness is very limited, especially when compared to modern human global civilization. They have no chance to survive giant asteroid impact.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2021 13:47:53
There is no common goal for humans. We collaborate in small groups to compete with other small groups - witness the Euroshambles over COVID vaccine! Having a goal in common (personal survival) is not the same as having a common goal - ants and bees are very different from humans.What would you count as a common goal?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2021 22:18:45
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2021 22:22:26
their effectiveness is very limited, especially when compared to modern human global civilization. They have no chance to survive giant asteroid impact.There are far more chickens than humans on the planet, and whilst many humans are devoted to looking after chickens, the converse is not true. The human population is fragile (almost totally dependent on having fresh water on tap) and self-destructive when stressed, but chickens are happy to forage in the dirt and drink from puddles.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2021 05:39:29
The common goal of hive populations is the survival of the hive, which takes precedence over survival of the individual. There's little evidence of such behavior in human society: self-sacrificing heroes are rare enough to make history, and the sacrifice is always for a small group - family or crew, not the entire human race.But that doesn't meant that it doesn't exist, nor that it will not exist in the future.
If we don't limit the sacrifice with ending of one's life, we can find some missions or actions close to that. Space explorations done by the like of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, or humanitarian projects done by Bill and Melinda Gates foundation are some closest examples. What they've sacrificed are their money, time and effort.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2021 06:13:24
There are far more chickens than humans on the planet, and whilst many humans are devoted to looking after chickens, the converse is not true. The human population is fragile (almost totally dependent on having fresh water on tap) and self-destructive when stressed, but chickens are happy to forage in the dirt and drink from puddles.For now, until synthetic chicken meat becomes good enough and cheap enough which makes it well accepted and ubiquitous.
Modernity has made the world more tolerant to humans' flaws and limitations. But we can't deny that there are some humans with strong characters, real life heroes out there. Some of them are well documented, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Post by: Physikfreak59 on 31/03/2021 09:49:54
For now, until synthetic chicken meat becomes good enough and cheap enough which makes it well accepted and ubiquitous.I agree, I think the only way for synthetic products to become mainstream is for them to be as affordable or more affordable than the Meat products. Maybe really only when they are more affordable because then people would have a bigger incentive, then if it would be "just" for the good of the animals, which is sadly sometimes not enough.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2021 15:45:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/04/2021 05:49:56
Way off topic, but synthetic meat isn't really necessary. Most of what we grow is inedible for humans: we throw away at least 60% of all the grass crops (wheat, corn, rice...) and a fair bit of root vegetable leaf. All of that is consumable by insects, some of which are amazingly efficient at turning carbohydrates into fat and protein, and chickens turn insects and scrap leaves into very high quality protein. Pigs do a good job too. The only process that could be more efficient is the direct processing of insects to acceptable human food.
It is hard to argue against efficiency as a universal instrumental goal.
Coming Soon: A Post-Cow World - Precision FermentationQuoteWe are on the cusp of a major disruption in how we feed ourselves. This video is a quick summary of a report from RethinkX on where agriculture is headed over the next decade, and it's mind blowing!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/04/2021 06:07:47
Quote
So. Are you your body? And if so, how exactly does this work? Lets explore lots of confusing questions.Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Problems of morality becomes complicated if we can't let go erroneous assumptions which we are already comfortable with, such as individualistic point of view. They can prevent us from seeing the bigger picture.
You Are Two
Do You Really Have Two Brains?
Quote
Are you a left-brained person or a right-brained person? Spoiler: You're neither. Each of us uses both sides of our brain for most of what we do. But still, there are a number of brain functions that do show lateralization, where they are localized to one side or another. Why is this? And how does it influence our definition of consciousness? People with "split brains" can help us figure it out.
Split Brain Patient - Both Atheist & Christian!
Quote
Does the soul exist? Does science prove the soul or disprove it? Explore the oddest clinical cases in the world of neuroscience that raise some very interesting questions about the soul.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/04/2021 09:43:02
This Ciliate Is About to Die
Quote
It's time to explore a big question while we watch a ciliate go through its last moments.
Quote
Death is inevitable and mysterious, even in the microcosmos. Stentors, heliozoans, and yes, even tardigrades, experience death in many different ways.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/04/2021 13:51:58
Intro 0:00
Question One 1:07
Question Two 8:10
Question Three 9:59
Closing Thoughts 18:16
Do you agree with the video host? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/04/2021 17:26:27
2. No question. Criminal activity is wrong by definition and failing to report a crime is a crime. Everyone is somebody's "brother", so there's no excuse!
3. Not seen
4. 10:1 may well apply in wartime, but the question is vague. How much harm? How much good? If I can save a life by taking 1% of 100 people's income, that's very different from killing one to amuse another. It's a serious current question because we can expect a few fatalities from mass vaccination, so we look at the ethics from an individual "acceptable risk" perspective. If we take no precautions, there is a 4% probability that you will eventually die from COVID. That is not considered an acceptable risk by sane people, because there is no concomitant benefit. If you receive a vaccine there is a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that it will kill you. Most people consider that an acceptable risk because it reduces the risk of COVID death from 4% to "negligble" even if we ignore the societal benefit.
Nice guy, but the problems aren't particularly difficult.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2021 00:01:02
1. It is morally good to do stuff that you would like others to do to you or that you would do to your nearest and dearest. You can be prosecuted for failing to render obvious assistance to someone in immediate danger. Problem with human rights legislation is that everyone's right is someone else's duty, which is why the EU is a Bad Thing. But whilst helping the obvious acute case is morally good, not intentionally seeking out people in distress is not morally bad because we quickly run into questions of judgement: what do we mean by "better off"? I have two televisions and a crippling mortgage, you have no TV but own your house: who pays whom?Many moral research, test or survey consist of presenting the test subject into dilemmatic situations to reveal which value is viewed as higher priority by most people questioned. They are presented as possible real situations instead of simply asking which value do you think has the highest priority among some presented options. The real life examples can help us to imagine what are the consequences of each options we choose. They can be intended or unintended, immediate or long term.
But since the questionaires are usually presented in few sentences only, many details cannot be specified, hence they let the people to fill in the gap with their own assumptions. Thus the statistic results may be significantly affected by the common circumstances faced by the subjects, rather than the actual priority of moral values that they hold.
For example, the first question only tells about an emergency situation on the street. But the video host puts his assumptions about charity, and how easy it is to donate. He assumes that the risk of falling into scam is negligible. In reality, there are some terrorist organizations raising funds by disguising as charity. Even in the street situation, we have some risk of being the victim to a bait for robbery, or pranks of April fool.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2021 06:19:51
Those things don't apply for charity. Anyone can make donation anytime. Delayed donation can still be useful for someone else in the need.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2021 06:47:20
Nice guy, but the problems aren't particularly difficult.Moral questions don't suppose to be difficult, as long as we've made up our mind on what moral standard to use, and what its terminal goal is.
Uncertainty and false assumptions can make our actions produce unintended or unwanted results. But they are not usually seen as moral failure.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2021 11:39:00
A shallow thinker may not see the difference, but whilst I would try to save a baby's life, you would worry about whether it might survive to become the Duchess of Sussex or some other disgrace to our species.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2021 11:47:02
We can however distinguish between a living thing and a dead thing, so death is what occurs between those states.
Having chosen our favored species, say homo sapiens, we feel justified in inflicting death on any species that would inflict death on our favorite if not killed first. "Let's do it to them before they do it to us".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2021 15:20:26
The difference between us seems to be that you are convinced there is, must be or should be a universal goal to which all actions should be directed, but I evaluate every action in terms of its first or second order effect on other living things i.e. the living environment "as is".You have limited the scope of your morality to biological systems, especially humans. Furthermore, it's limited to individualistic point of view.
In contrast, I put no arbitrary limit to the scope of universal morality. The only limit is inherently embedded to the word goal itself, which is consciousness. The universal terminal goal is the only thing separating universal morality from nihilism. The later basically says anything goes, while the former says anything goes, as long as it can increase the chance to achieve that terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2021 15:52:42
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/04/2021 09:15:37
But you are presuming that a universal morality could or should exist, and that whatever you determine the goal to be, should be equally and totally acceptable to every living or dead thing that ever existed. That's a fine Buddhist attitude, but nothing that would please a malaria parasite, would please me.Consequences of our decisions become clearer when we see them retrospectively. Some uncertainties would be eliminated. It means that morality is better evaluated by conscious systems that still exist in the future. A universal morality must be timeless, hence it must be viewed from the point of view of conscious systems that still exist in the most distance future as possible. Based on extrapolated current trend, they would take the form of AGI.
Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/04/2021 09:28:09
The best case scenario for non-universal moralities are being a stepping stone, scaffolding, or precursor to universal morality. They are instrumental, hence temporarily needed, to help achieving the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/04/2021 18:23:00
Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?Which one gave birth to Pol Pot, or voted for Donald Trump?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/04/2021 22:30:45
which one can stop them?Imagine that you are an AGI that exists thousands of years from now. Between human and mosquito, which one do you think is most likely to bring you into existence?Which one gave birth to Pol Pot, or voted for Donald Trump?
For a future AGI, they are merely small glitches in the past.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2021 10:53:38
Not sure now whether you are a Buddhist who considers present suffering and injustice to be an insignificant glitch in the cosmos, or a politician who tells you that history is something that happens in the future (along with other lies). Come on, HY, you can do better than either!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/04/2021 11:57:03
Do you really think that preserving mosquitoes is better than preserving humans just because you don't like what some of them have done?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/04/2021 12:05:12
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2021 15:37:16
The question is whether you would have liked to live in Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Trump's USA, or whether you would have suggested your nearest and dearest would have enjoyed the experience. If not, then they were immoral.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/04/2021 21:35:57
Cosmically, the extinction of humanity is of no consequence.
You're claiming that the extinction of humanity would be a mere biological incident of " no consequence".
I don't think your claim is justified by the evidence available to us.
So far, all investigations into the possibility of intelligent life in the Universe, have shown no evidence that it exists anywhere except on Earth.
This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.
Someone has to be first! Why can't it be us?
If it is, and we get extinguished, that may end intelligence in the Universe
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/04/2021 23:07:24
Cosmically, the extinction of humanity is of no consequence. Complex water-based organic chemistry is rare in the universe but other species have come and gone, and mosquitoes have been around a lot longer than homo sapiens.I think you need to get you priority straight. You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.
Unicellular organisms have been around for much longer. It doesn't mean that their life form is the most preferable on earth.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/04/2021 23:23:25
The question is whether you would have liked to live in Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Trump's USA, or whether you would have suggested your nearest and dearest would have enjoyed the experience. If not, then they were immoral.What are the consequences for someone whom you think is immoral?
If you want to convince others to follow you morality, you'll need to define its terminal goal, propose some of possible instrumental goals, and explain the reasons why. You'll have to state underlying assumptions explicitly to avoid misunderstandings.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2021 23:47:54
This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2021 23:53:21
You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.There's a difference between alive and dead.
What happens after my death is of no significance to me. I would prefer it if my descendants had a happy life and died peacefully, but whether they exist at all is of no consequence to even our nearest neighbors on Mars, let alone the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, as part of the way I think and act whilst alive, I object to parasites of any species causing the death of other humans.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/04/2021 23:58:21
What are the consequences for someone whom you think is immoral?History shows that they mostly prosper. Even those who are hunted down and killed, suffer a cleaner and more humane death than their own victims.
Like the declaration of human rights, I think my moral tests are selfevident. I have never needed to discuss terminal goals, instrumental goals or assumptions when considering ethics: everyone knows or can evaluate whether an action is desirable for themselves or their loved ones.
Post by: charles1948 on 06/04/2021 00:14:01
.This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.
Perhaps all the other intelligent species, went "Green", abandoned high technology, climbed back into their trees, and swung about eating fruit, gibbering mindlessly.
I must say you present a very depressing picture of the future.
On the other hand , if these other intelligent species have regressed so deplorably, they'll be
wide open to conquest by humans, when we set forth in our FTL spaceships and establish our new human Galactic Empire!
You see, there's always hope, despite your pessimism!
Post by: charles1948 on 06/04/2021 00:20:05
You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.There's a difference between alive and dead.
What happens after my death is of no significance to me. I would prefer it if my descendants had a happy life and died peacefully, but whether they exist at all is of no consequence to even our nearest neighbors on Mars, let alone the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, as part of the way I think and act whilst alive, I object to parasites of any species causing the death of other humans.
You make an important point. Why should you care what happens after you are dead?
Once you're dead, the Universe ceases to exist. So what does anything matter?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 07:48:34
Quote
Described as a “truly mind-expanding” journey through today’s most pressing issues, "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" reminds us to maintain our collective focus in the midst of dizzying and disorienting change.The live question from 54:55 tells how some form of immorality happened repetitively.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 07:51:36
If you think that current condition is not perfect, it means you've found something to improve, which means something can be changed to be better. If you continue doing that, you'll eventually figure out what the universal utopia is.This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.On the contrary, by overpopulation, extermination of other species, and toxification of the environment, we may be the last intelligent species.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 08:04:28
You don't mind if humanity goes extinct, but complain about a few people cause death of some others.There's a difference between alive and dead.
What happens after my death is of no significance to me. I would prefer it if my descendants had a happy life and died peacefully, but whether they exist at all is of no consequence to even our nearest neighbors on Mars, let alone the rest of the universe. Meanwhile, as part of the way I think and act whilst alive, I object to parasites of any species causing the death of other humans.
You make an important point. Why should you care what happens after you are dead?
Once you're dead, the Universe ceases to exist. So what does anything matter?
What you expect to happen in the future, including after you die, would affect how you act and make decisions while you're alive. You might want better lives for your descendants, family, friends, neighbors, tribe members, fellow citizens, etc.
We can have better lives than most other species because most of our ancestors wanted better lives for their descendants, and they acted accordingly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 08:08:59
I have never needed to discuss terminal goals, instrumental goals or assumptions when considering ethicsIf you think that you have no terminal goal, then you have effectively made "following your own instinct" as your terminal goal. Note that other people may have different set of instincts than yours.
everyone knows or can evaluate whether an action is desirable for themselves or their loved ones.Are you sure about this?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 16:34:06
Who is the most immoral person in history of mankind? why?
You can pick more than one if you think they are pretty close.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2021 17:26:50
Sometimes we learn easiest way using examples and counter examples. In your opinion, who is the most moral person in history of mankind? why?Me. Because I've never knowingly hurt or insulted anyone.
Quote
Who is the most immoral person in history of mankind? why?Feel free to pick any Nazi. I don't know enough history to choose one above the others, though Mengele and Heydrich seemed to take particular pleasure in their work.
You may disagree, but I'm speaking from a very limited knowledge of the species.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2021 17:29:11
We can have better lives than most other species because most of our ancestors wanted better lives for their descendants, and they acted accordingly.No other species has inflicted war, politics or religion on its descendants.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2021 17:31:15
Once you're dead, the Universe ceases to exist. So what does anything matter?Plenty of other people have died but the universe exists. Why do you think I am special?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2021 23:37:16
No other species has inflicted war, politics or religion on its descendants.Are you sure? Social insects are known to wage war, commit genocide and slavery. Some parasites turn their preys into zombies, controlling their minds. Some others eat them alive from inside out. Some are cannibals.
Cuckoos are famous as brood parasites, enslaving other species to raise their young.
Most predatory wasps paralyze their prey and lay eggs directly upon the bodies, and the wasp larvae consume them.
Chimps have also been documented to attack and kill other chimps from different group.
At least for now, human is the only species with a good chance to expand consciousness beyond earth, which is necessary to expand even further and outlive the earth itself.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2021 15:09:28
You don't seem to hang out with many good people. If you think you are the smartest person in a room, it's likely you are in the wrong room. It's the same with morality.Sometimes we learn easiest way using examples and counter examples. In your opinion, who is the most moral person in history of mankind? why?Me. Because I've never knowingly hurt or insulted anyone.QuoteWho is the most immoral person in history of mankind? why?Feel free to pick any Nazi. I don't know enough history to choose one above the others, though Mengele and Heydrich seemed to take particular pleasure in their work.
You may disagree, but I'm speaking from a very limited knowledge of the species.
Interesting. Do you think they are more immoral than Hitler or Polpot?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2021 15:16:52
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2021 15:20:30
Not that it matters, since they all fail my tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2021 22:43:53
I repeat, no other species has inflicted pointless suffering on itself and its own descendants. Insects and chimpanzees do indeed compete for territory or other resources, but we have no evidence of religious crusades or ideological warfare among these more rational animals. Can you imagine an ant stoning another ant because he attends a different church?How do you define pointless?
Immorality is not necessarily religious. Remember Ted Bundy or Pol Pot.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2021 22:55:39
Not that it matters, since they all fail my tests.Some actions may comply with one or more moral standard, but violate some others. Some actions done by nihilists, psychopaths and masochists may be considered immoral by most existing moral standards, but still comply with your moral tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2021 04:50:51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regret
Quote
Regret is the emotion of wishing one had made a different decision in the past, because the consequences of the decision were unfavorable.
Regret is related to perceived opportunity. Its intensity varies over time after the decision, in regard to action versus inaction, and in regard to self-control at a particular age. The self-recrimination which comes with regret is thought to spur corrective action and adaptation.
Quote
Determinants of intensityMaking wrong decisions could induce regret in the future. But then it depends on how we define wrong.
Action versus inaction
There is an interplay between action versus inaction and time. Regrets of an action are more intense in the short term, whereas regrets of inaction are more intense over the long term.[15]
Age
See also: Locus_of_control § Age
In a 2001 study, high intensity of regret and intrusive thoughts in older adults was related to self-control, and low internal control was expected to be self-protective and help to decrease regret. In younger adults, internal-control facilitated active change and was associated with low intensity of regret.[16]
Opportunity
People's biggest regrets occur where they perceive the greatest and most important opportunity for corrective action.[1] When no opportunity exists to improve conditions, thought processes mitigate the cognitive dissonance caused by regret, e.g. by rationalization, and reconstrual.[1] Regret pushes people toward revised decision making and corrective action as part of learning that may bring improvement in life circumstances. A 1999 study measured regret in accordance to negative reviews with service providers. Regret was an accurate predictor of who switched providers. As more intense regret is experienced, the likelihood of initiating change is increased. Consequently, the more opportunity of corrective action available, the larger the regret felt and the more likely corrective action is achieved. Feeling regret spurs future action to make sure other opportunities are taken so that regret will not be experienced again. People learn from their mistakes.[17]
Lost opportunity principle
With a lost opportunity regret should intensify, not diminish, when people feel that they could have made better choices in the past but now perceive limited opportunities to take corrective action in the future. "People who habitually consider future consequences (and how they may avoid future negative outcomes) experience less, rather than more, intense regret after a negative outcome." [18] This principle offers another reason as to why education is the most regretted aspect in life. Education becomes a more limited opportunity as time passes. Aspects such as making friends, becoming more spiritual, and community involvement tend to be less regrettable which makes sense because these are also aspects in life that do not become limited opportunities. As the opportunity to remedy a situation passes, feelings of hopelessness may increase.[19] An explanation of the lost opportunity principle can be seen as a lack of closure: Low closure makes past occurrences feel unresolved. Low closure is associated with "reductions in self-esteem and persistent negative affect over time" and with the realization and regret of lost opportunity. High closure is associated with acceptance of lost opportunity.[20]
The lost opportunity principle suggests, that regret does not serve as a corrective motive (which the opportunity principle suggests). Instead, regret serves as a more general reminder to seize the day. [21]
Regret lingers where opportunity existed, with the self-blame of remorse being a core element to ultimately spur corrective action in decision-making.[1]
Neuroscience
Research upon brain injury and fMRI have linked the orbitofrontal cortex to the processing of regret.[22][23]
Completeness of feedback about the outcomes after making a decision determined whether persons experienced regret (outcomes from both the choice and the alternative) vs. disappointment (partial-feedback, seeing only the outcome from the choice) in a magnetoencephalography study. Another factor was the type of agency: With personal decision making the neural correlates of regret could be seen, with external agency (computer choice) those of disappointment. Feedback regret showed greater brain activity in the right anterior and posterior regions, with agency regret producing greater activity in the left anterior region.[4] Both regret and disappointment activated anterior insula and dorsomedial prefrontal cortex but only with regret the lateral orbitofrontal cortex was activated.[24]
Psychopathic individuals do not show regret and remorse. This was thought to be due to an inability to generate this emotion in response to negative outcomes. However, in 2016, people with antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder were found to experience regret, but did not use the regret to guide their choice in behavior. There was no lack of regret but a problem to think through a range of potential actions and estimating the outcome values.[25]
Quote
adjectiveHumans generally try to prevent regrets, whether or not they are related to morality.
1.
not correct or true; incorrect.
2.
unjust, dishonest, or immoral.
Regrets always involve undesired results, but not every undesired result generates regret. It also takes wrong decisions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2021 05:03:17
Here is one famous example.Not that it matters, since they all fail my tests.Some actions may comply with one or more moral standard, but violate some others. Some actions done by nihilists, psychopaths and masochists may be considered immoral by most existing moral standards, but still comply with your moral tests.
Quote
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an American mass murderer who became infamous as the "Texas Tower Sniper". On August 1, 1966, he used knives to kill his mother and his wife in their respective homes, then went to the University of Texas in Austin with multiple firearms and began indiscriminately shooting at people. He fatally shot three people inside the university tower. He then went to the tower's 28th-floor observation deck, where he fired at random people for some 96 minutes, killing an additional 11 people and wounding 31 others, including a woman whose injuries prevented her pregnancy from coming to term, before he was shot dead by Austin police officers. Whitman killed a total of 15 people and a fetus; the 15th victim died 35 years later from injuries sustained in the attack.
Quote
The day before the shootings, Whitman bought a pair of binoculars and a knife from a hardware store, and some Spam from a 7-Eleven convenience store. He picked up his wife from her summer job as a telephone operator before he met his mother for lunch at the Wyatt Cafeteria, which was close to the university.[39]
At about 4:00 p.m. on July 31, 1966, Charles and Kathy Whitman visited their close friends John and Fran Morgan. They left the Morgans' apartment at 5:50 p.m. so Kathy could get to her 6:00–10:00 p.m. shift.[39]
At 6:45 p.m., Whitman began typing his suicide note, a portion of which read:
I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks.[40]
In his note, he went on to request an autopsy be performed on his remains after he was dead to determine if there had been a discernible biological contributory cause for his actions and for his continuing and increasingly intense headaches. He also wrote that he had decided to kill both his mother and wife. Expressing uncertainty about his reasons, he nonetheless stated he did not believe his mother had "ever enjoyed life as she is entitled to",[39] and that his wife had "been as fine a wife to me as any man could ever hope to have". Whitman further explained that he wanted to relieve both his wife and mother of the suffering of this world, and to save them the embarrassment of his actions. He did not mention planning the attack at the university.[41]
Just after midnight on August 1, Whitman drove to his mother's apartment at 1212 Guadalupe Street. After killing his mother, he placed her body on her bed and covered it with sheets.[42] Just how he murdered his mother is disputed, but officials believed he rendered her unconscious before stabbing her in the heart.[42]
He left a handwritten note beside her body, which read in part:
To Whom It May Concern: I have just taken my mother's life. I am very upset over having done it. However, I feel that if there is a heaven she is definitely there now [...] I am truly sorry [...] Let there be no doubt in your mind that I loved this woman with all my heart.[43]
Whitman then returned to his home at 906 Jewell Street, where he killed his wife by stabbing her three times in the heart as she slept. He covered her body with sheets, then resumed the typewritten note he had begun the previous evening.[44] Using a ballpoint pen, he wrote at the side of the page:
Friends interrupted. 8-1-66 Mon. 3:00 A.M. BOTH DEAD.[42]
Whitman continued the note, finishing it by pen:
I imagine it appears that I brutally killed both of my loved ones. I was only trying to do a quick thorough job [...] If my life insurance policy is valid please pay off my debts [...] donate the rest anonymously to a mental health foundation. Maybe research can prevent further tragedies of this type [...] Give our dog to my in-laws. Tell them Kathy loved "Schocie" very much [...] If you can find in yourselves to grant my last wish, cremate me after the autopsy.[40]
He also left instructions in the rented house requesting that two rolls of camera film be developed and wrote personal notes to each of his brothers.[42]
Whitman last wrote on an envelope labeled "Thoughts for the Day", in which he stored a collection of written admonitions. He added on the outside of the envelope:
8-1-66. I never could quite make it. These thoughts are too much for me.[42]
At 5:45 a.m. on August 1, 1966, Whitman phoned his wife's supervisor at Bell System to explain that Kathy was ill and unable to work that day. He made a similar phone call to his mother's workplace five hours later.
Whitman's final journal entries were written in the past tense, suggesting that he had already killed his wife and mother.[40]
Quote
Investigating officers found that Whitman had visited several university physicians in the year before the shootings; they prescribed various medications for him. Whitman had seen a minimum of five doctors between the fall and winter of 1965, before he visited a psychiatrist from whom he received no prescription. At some other time he was prescribed Valium by Dr. Jan Cochrum, who recommended he visit the campus psychiatrist.[51]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
Whitman met with Maurice Dean Heatly, the staff psychiatrist at the University of Texas Health Center, on March 29, 1966.[52] Whitman referred to his visit with Heatly in his final suicide note, writing, "I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt come [sic] overwhelming violent impulses. After one visit, I never saw the Doctor again, and since then have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail."[40]
Heatly's notes on the visit said, "This massive, muscular youth seemed to be oozing with hostility [...] that something seemed to be happening to him and that he didn't seem to be himself."[53] "He readily admits having overwhelming periods of hostility with a very minimum of provocation. Repeated inquiries attempting to analyze his exact experiences were not too successful with the exception of his vivid reference to 'thinking about going up on the tower with a deer rifle and start shooting people.'"[54]
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2021 16:40:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2021 16:54:08
Post by: charles1948 on 08/04/2021 20:58:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2021 22:36:01
In my own experience, all that "moral standards" cause is a life-long regret for not having broken many of them.That's because you think that those moral standards don't align with your terminal goal, hence violating them would not prevent you from achieving your goals.
If a moral standard is aligned with your terminal goal, you will think that it's a good standard, and you'll have no motivation to violate it.
If you did broken many of moral standards in your society, other members of your society who think that their terminal goals are aligned with those moral standards will regret for not stopping you from breaking them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2021 06:06:19
Which moral standard causes your biggest regret for not breaking it?In my own experience, all that "moral standards" cause is a life-long regret for not having broken many of them.That's because you think that those moral standards don't align with your terminal goal, hence violating them would not prevent you from achieving your goals.
If a moral standard is aligned with your terminal goal, you will think that it's a good standard, and you'll have no motivation to violate it.
If you did broken many of moral standards in your society, other members of your society who think that their terminal goals are aligned with those moral standards will regret for not stopping you from breaking them.
Do you regret for not killing someone you hate?
Do you regret for not killing someone you love?
Do you regret for not killing strangers?
Do you regret for not owning slaves?
Coveting with your neighbor's wife?
Robbing banks?
Stealing from the rich?
Stealing from the poor?
Polluting the air?
Contaminating ground water?
Working on Sabbath?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2021 09:19:06
Quote
Techno-Religions and Silicon Prophets: Will the 21st century be shaped by hi-tech gurus or by religious zealots – or are they the same thing?
What is the current status of religions and ideologies in the world, and what will be the likely impact of 21st-century technological breakthroughs on religion and ideology? Will traditional religions and ideologies—from Christianity and Islam to Liberalism and Socialism—manage to survive the technological and economic revolutions of the 21st century? What would be the place of Islam, for example, in a world of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence? The talk addresses these questions, and argues that the future belongs to techno-religions, which promise salvation through technology, and which are already gathering believers in places such as Silicon Valley.
The video contains a lot of interesting ideas, and at 36:00 he talks about decision making process, which is closely related to our discussion here.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/04/2021 14:32:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/04/2021 14:55:43
Establishing moral standards is just one of many ways to avoid regret. A society which doesn't have their moral rules obeyed by its members are likely to suffer by immoral actions that they do.Ancient Jewish people created a moral standard meant to protect Jewish community from harmful actions done by Jewish people. It doesn't protect non-Jewish people. It doesn't protect Jewish people from foreign invaders either.
That's why they were allowed to commit genocide to their neighboring tribes, and enslave them. But the exclusiveness of their moral standard prevented it from being adopted by other tribes, hence left them exposed to the risk of being attacked by other tribes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/04/2021 16:25:05
That failure left a hole in our understanding of decision making process which will be filled with some alternatives such as instinct, emotion, and irrational beliefs.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/04/2021 17:50:10
Perhaps someone who did immoral actions don't regret them. But someone else who still live afterwards may regret their failure to prevent those actions. In Whitman's case, the psychiatrists who diagnosed him may feel biggest regret.The Whitman case fell within the scope of a brilliant Texas judicial ruling:
A "genetic predisposition to murder" is a valid defence. Public safety demands that anyone with a genetic predisposition to murder must be executed.
Post by: charles1948 on 12/04/2021 19:53:25
Perhaps someone who did immoral actions don't regret them. But someone else who still live afterwards may regret their failure to prevent those actions. In Whitman's case, the psychiatrists who diagnosed him may feel biggest regret.The Whitman case fell within the scope of a brilliant Texas judicial ruling:
A "genetic predisposition to murder" is a valid defence. Public safety demands that anyone with a genetic predisposition to murder must be executed.
We all have a genetic predisposition to murder. That's why we like having wars and battles.
In a battle, the soldiers on one side, set out to murder the soldiers on the other side.
And the more murders a soldier commits. the more the soldier is praised. And gets given medals for "Distinguished Conduct" or the "Congressional Medal of Honor" for doing the murders.
This seems to raise certain questions about the universality of morality.
I mean is it moral to commit murder on the battlefield, but not moral to do it in the street.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/04/2021 23:15:49
The Whitman case fell within the scope of a brilliant Texas judicial ruling:When more precise solution is not available, a machine with some broken parts must be replaced. But it requires a complete unit for replacement. In a large but primitive society, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
A "genetic predisposition to murder" is a valid defence. Public safety demands that anyone with a genetic predisposition to murder must be executed.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/04/2021 00:12:25
That's why we like having wars and battles.You are obviously a politician. When you say "we" you mean "you". And probably a Tory politician, since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't met anyone who was involved in a war and liked it. The only people who look forward to war are those who stand to profit by it, not those who have to fight it.
You would do well to stand at a border and address the approaching refugees. Tell them that they should go home because they are missing all the fun.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2021 01:11:29
We all have a genetic predisposition to murder. That's why we like having wars and battles.In game theory, a complete dove behavior is not a stable strategy, and they will eventually go extinct.
In a battle, the soldiers on one side, set out to murder the soldiers on the other side.
And the more murders a soldier commits. the more the soldier is praised. And gets given medals for "Distinguished Conduct" or the "Congressional Medal of Honor" for doing the murders.
This seems to raise certain questions about the universality of morality.
I mean is it moral to commit murder on the battlefield, but not moral to do it in the street.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/game-theory-evolutionary-stable-strategies-and-the-25953132/
On the other hand, a complete hawkish behavior leads to selfish individuals who depend on their victims to survive. They can't cooperate with others either. They can't survive when no more victims can be found. They can't compete with other organisms who can cooperate effectively.
It leaves us with organisms that at some point will fight back, and able to cooperate well.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2021 06:14:38
You're claiming that the extinction of humanity would be a mere biological incident of " no consequence".The article below says that life is abundant in the universe. We haven't made contact with extraterrestrial lives because of transportation and accommodation problems. If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.
I don't think your claim is justified by the evidence available to us.
So far, all investigations into the possibility of intelligent life in the Universe, have shown no evidence that it exists anywhere except on Earth.
This is possibly because humans, on Earth, are the first intelligent species in the entire Universe.
Someone has to be first! Why can't it be us?
If it is, and we get extinguished, that may end intelligence in the Universe
https://www.sci-nature.vip/2020/10/astronomers-admit-we-were-wrong100.html?m=1&s=03
Astronomers Admit: We Were Wrong—100 Billion Habitable Earth-Like Planets In Our Galaxy Alone
Quote
Estimates by astronomers indicate that there could be more than 100 BILLION Earth-like worlds in the Milky Way that could be home to life. Think that’s a big number? According to astronomers, there are roughly 500 billion galaxies in the known universe, which means there are around 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (5×1022) habitable planets. That’s of course if there’s just ONE universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/04/2021 07:09:30
In the twenty-first century, humankind faces a set of unprecedented challenges, such as nuclear war, climate change and technological disruption. Are nations still capable of handling such challenges effectively? Watch Prof. Harari explore this question in detail at the India Today Conclave, in Mumbai - March 2018.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/04/2021 11:09:47
The only new challenge for the remaining 80% of the 21st century will be mass migration of armed populations, thanks to the brilliance of Sergeant Kalashnikov (1945) giving everyone the ability to kill anyone at negligible cost and risk.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/04/2021 15:03:47
Quote
Myths. We tend to think they’re a thing of the past, fabrications that early humans needed to believe in because their understanding of the world was so meagre. But what if modern civilisation were itself based on a set of myths? This is the big question posed by Professor Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, which has become one of the most talked about bestsellers of recent years. In this exclusive appearance for Intelligence Squared, Harari will argue that all political orders are based on useful fictions which have allowed groups of humans, from ancient Mesopotamia through to the Roman empire and modern capitalist societies, to cooperate in numbers far beyond the scope of any other species.Interesting statement by YNH at 9:20.
To give an example, Hammurabi, the great ruler of ancient Babylon, and the US founding fathers both created well-functioning societies. Hammurabi’s was based on hierarchy, with the king at the top and the slaves at the bottom, while the Americans’ was based on freedom and equality between all citizens. Yet the idea of equality, Harari will claim, is as much a fiction as the idea that a king or rich nobleman is ‘better’ than a humble peasant. What made both of these societies work was the fact that within each of them everyone believed in the same set of imagined underlying principles. In a similar vein, money is a fiction that depends on the trust that we collectively put in it. The fact that it is a ‘myth’ has not impeded its usefulness. It has become the most universal and efficient system of mutual trust ever devised, allowing the development of global trade networks and sophisticated modern capitalism.
A sheep with nuclear weapon is far more dangerous than a wolf with nuclear weapon.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/04/2021 18:46:20
Hammurabi’s was based on hierarchy, with the king at the top and the slaves at the bottom, while the Americans’ was based on freedom and equality between all citizensNot a good starting point for an argument, I feel. The US economy was built on slavery and extermination, not equality. You'd think a professor of history would know this.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2021 10:39:18
He was talking about US today, not some centuries back.Hammurabi’s was based on hierarchy, with the king at the top and the slaves at the bottom, while the Americans’ was based on freedom and equality between all citizensNot a good starting point for an argument, I feel. The US economy was built on slavery and extermination, not equality. You'd think a professor of history would know this.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2021 14:09:23
Quote
The iPhone used by a terrorist in the San Bernardino shooting was unlocked by a small Australian hacking firm in 2016, ending a momentous standoff between the U.S. government and the tech titan Apple.
Azimuth Security, a publicity-shy company that says it sells its cyber wares only to democratic governments, secretly crafted the solution the FBI used to gain access to the device, according to several people familiar with the matter. The iPhone was used by one of two shooters whose December 2015 attack left more than a dozen people dead.
The identity of the hacking firm has remained a closely guarded secret for five years. Even Apple didn’t know which vendor the FBI used, according to company spokesman Todd Wilder. But without realizing it, Apple’s attorneys came close last year to learning of Azimuth’s role — through a different court case, one that has nothing to do with unlocking a terrorist’s device.
Five years ago, Apple and the FBI both cast the struggle over the iPhone as a moral battle. The FBI believed Apple should help it obtain information to investigate the terrorist attack. Apple believed that creating a back door into the phone would weaken security and could be used by malicious actors. The FBI sought a court order to compel Apple to help the government. Weeks later, the FBI backed down after it had found an outside group that had a solution to gain access to the phone.
The tale of the unlocking of the terrorist’s iPhone, reconstructed through Washington Post interviews with several people close to the situation, shines a light on a hidden world of bug hunters and their often-fraught relationship with the creator of the devices whose flaws they uncover. Azimuth is a poster child for “white hat” hacking, experts say, which is good-guy cybersecurity research that aims to disclose flaws and disavows authoritarian governments.
Two Azimuth hackers teamed up to break into the San Bernardino iPhone, according to the people familiar with the matter, who like others quoted in this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. Founder Mark Dowd, 41, is an Australian coder who runs marathons and who, one colleague said, “can pretty much look at a computer and break into it.” One of his researchers was David Wang, who first set hands on a keyboard at age 8, dropped out of Yale, and by 27 had won a prestigious Pwnie Award — an Oscar for hackers — for “jailbreaking” or removing the software restrictions of an iPhone.
Quote
In September 2015, Apple released its new operating system, iOS 9, which it billed as having enhanced security to “protect customer data.” The new iOS was running on the iPhone 5C used by Syed Rizwan Farook, a public health inspector for San Bernardino County.
The FBI suspected the iPhone 5C might have valuable clues about why Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire on a holiday party at Farook’s office. Both Farook and Malik were killed in a shootout with police.
Before the attack, Malik had posted a message on her Facebook page, pledging loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. (Baghdadi died in a U.S. Special Forces raid in Syria in 2019.) The FBI had few leads on whether the couple had accomplices or whether it was directed by the Islamic State, which was directing similar attacks around the world at the time. The FBI thought the contents of Farook’s iPhone 5C might provide useful information, such as who he had been communicating with in the lead-up to the attack.
But the phone, which belonged to Farook’s employer, was locked with Apple’s new security. In the past, the FBI could use software to quickly guess every possible combination of numbers for the four-digit passcode, a “brute force” effort that would normally take about 25 minutes. But the 5C included a feature that erased itself if the wrong password was entered more than 10 times.
Months of effort to find a way to unlock the phone were unsuccessful. But Justice Department and FBI leaders, including Director James B. Comey, believed Apple could help and should be legally compelled to try. And Justice Department officials felt this case — in which a dead terrorist’s phone might have clues to prevent another attack — provided the most compelling grounds to date to win a favorable court precedent.
In February 2016, the Justice Department obtained a court order directing Apple to write software to bypass the security feature. Apple said it would fight the order. Its argument: the government was seeking to force the company to break its own security, which could pose a threat to customer privacy.
Quote
During a deposition, Apple questioned Wang about the morality of selling exploits to governments, according to court records. A lawyer pressed him during the deposition on whether he was aware of any bugs that were not reported to Apple but were later found by malicious hackers.Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.
Apple “is trying to use a trick door to get [classified information] out of him,” Corellium attorney Justin Levine said, according to a transcript. Corellium declined to comment for this story.
In its statement, Apple said the case “is about Corellium attempting to profit by selling access to Apple’s copyrighted works.”
In its lawsuit, Apple argued that Corellium has “no plausible defense” for infringing on Apple’s copyright, in part because it “indiscriminately markets its iPhone replicas to any customer, including foreign governments and commercial enterprises.”
Corellium has denied the allegation. It has countered that the lawsuit is an attempt to put it out of business following a failed effort by Apple in 2018 to purchase the company.
“If Apple wants to make their phones more secure against these government-affiliated bug hunters, then they should make their phones more secure,” said Matthew D. Green, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University, who has led research that found holes in Apple’s encryption. “They shouldn’t be going after people in a courtroom.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2021 14:14:29
Quote
Something is called good or bad depend on its effect to the achievement of its terminal goal. We can't say if something is good or bad without defining its terminal goal first. This rule apply for moral rules too.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2021 14:36:44
The article below says that life is abundant in the universe. We haven't made contact with extraterrestrial lives because of transportation and accommodation problems. If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.
https://www.sci-nature.vip/2020/10/astronomers-admit-we-were-wrong100.html?m=1&s=03
Astronomers Admit: We Were Wrong—100 Billion Habitable Earth-Like Planets In Our Galaxy Alone
Perhaps some of you have objection to my statement above, especially about philosophy. What does it have to do with alien contact? Having inferior technology is obviously not preferred when we encounter with strangers whose intentions are unknown. But having inferior philosophy, especially ethics or morality, doesn't seem to affect much.
IMO, technology can help us achieve our goals effectively and efficiently. On the other hand, philosophy can help us to select the goals worth pursuing.
In my other thread, I've said that any goals other than the universal terminal goal are temporary and local. There are time and place where they are meaningless/pointless/vain/useless.
Post by: charles1948 on 16/04/2021 20:54:11
All they've done is write words without any experimental verification Instead relying on purely theoretical ideas.
A prime example of this was the "philosopher" Aristotle, in Ancient Greece. He decided, for theoretical reasons, that all celestial bodies, such as planets, must revolve in perfect circles. Or in combinations of circles, called "epicycles".
This false and completely unfounded philosophical theory set back the progress of astronomy for 1500 years.
Until real scientists, such as Kepler, Galileo, and Isaac Newton arrived on the scene, and busted Aristotle's "theory" by supplying observational and mathematical evidence that it was carp..
Aren't these scientists, the people we should admire and praise - not "philosophers"?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 11:27:15
What have philosophers ever contributed to the betterment of humanity?They tried to build a model which represents objective reality accurately and precisely, based on common knowledge of their time, as well as their own experience and contemplations. Our finding that their results are inaccurate doesn't mean that they are useless. Even the works of Newton, Galileo, Huygen, Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr,
All they've done is write words without any experimental verification Instead relying on purely theoretical ideas.
A prime example of this was the "philosopher" Aristotle, in Ancient Greece. He decided, for theoretical reasons, that all celestial bodies, such as planets, must revolve in perfect circles. Or in combinations of circles, called "epicycles".
This false and completely unfounded philosophical theory set back the progress of astronomy for 1500 years.
Until real scientists, such as Kepler, Galileo, and Isaac Newton arrived on the scene, and busted Aristotle's "theory" by supplying observational and mathematical evidence that it was carp..
Aren't these scientists, the people we should admire and praise - not "philosophers"?
Maxwell, and others are known to contain errors. At least they have turn our attention to what they thought was important.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 11:48:02
He was talking about US today, not some centuries back.Not so many centuries. Slavery was abolished in the US only 150 years ago, and race discrimination (slavery by another name) was outlawed (but not actually abandoned) in my lifetime. Native lands have shrunk from 100% to 2% ownership.
And where is Hammurabi's strong and stable civilisation today?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 11:49:24
philosophers seem to fail to achieve consensus about morality.Of course! Like priests and politicians, their careers depend on continuously inventing disagreements!
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 11:55:44
Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 11:59:12
If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.You need to define an advanced philosophy. Clearly, Shariah law has evolved since the days of the Spanish Inquisition, and Nazism is even more "advanced". Under which philosophy would you prefer to serve?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 14:32:03
Those confirm that non universal morality has limited applicability, both in time and space.He was talking about US today, not some centuries back.Not so many centuries. Slavery was abolished in the US only 150 years ago, and race discrimination (slavery by another name) was outlawed (but not actually abandoned) in my lifetime. Native lands have shrunk from 100% to 2% ownership.
And where is Hammurabi's strong and stable civilisation today?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 14:34:10
It is, because you can only have one by sacrificing the other. You can't have both desired things.Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 15:19:57
A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality. It can provide a better moral compass to help us making decisions by prioritizing things. Those can only be achieved by first identifying our terminal goal.If someday we eventually make first contact with them, it would be preferable to be on the side which has more advanced technology and philosophy.You need to define an advanced philosophy. Clearly, Shariah law has evolved since the days of the Spanish Inquisition, and Nazism is even more "advanced". Under which philosophy would you prefer to serve?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 16:24:07
Philosopher's use of "you" to mean two different things!It is, because you can only have one by sacrificing the other. You can't have both desired things.Here is an example of real life case of moral dilemma. Judges must decide between preserving privacy or sacrificing it for safety and security.Not a moral dilemma. Copyrights and patents grant and protect monopoly subject to the overriding interests of the state. Whatever software you choose to use, it is only protected by copyright.
It was presumably the terrorists who wanted privacy and the state that wanted information. The judge ruled in favor of the state.
Coding and decoding are as old as written communication, with historic high points in the Elizabethan court and Bletchley Park. The only question here was whether the public interest outweighed the copyright monopoly.
Are you suggesting that robbery is not immoral, because both parties want money?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 16:25:20
A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2021 16:26:19
Those confirm that non universal morality has limited applicability, both in time and space.Pretty much a definition of non-universal, eh?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 17:01:42
Are you suggesting that robbery is not immoral, because both parties want money?It depends on which party is the more likely to help us achieve our terminal goal. French resistance forces frequently robbed Nazi's assets.
“An injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater injustice.” — John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 19:57:37
The prescriptions must be based on the description of reality. You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened. Otherwise it would be a random act.A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.
For any true proposition, there are infinitely many alternatives which are false.
Let me revise my statement above. A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of objective reality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 20:17:02
It was presumably the terrorists who wanted privacy and the state that wanted information. The judge ruled in favor of the state.We need to see other possible scenarios, such as what happened in countries with authoritarian governments like Myanmar, North Korea, or Venezuela. They can easily call the opposition as terrorists.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2021 20:58:53
Quote
The human spirit is capable of doing both things. Practical things and impractical things which may have practical consequences later.https://mindmatters.ai/2021/04/why-impractical-things-like-philosophy-are-actually-quite-useful/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 12:27:24
Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.The prescriptions must be based on the description of reality. You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened. Otherwise it would be a random act.A philosophy is more advanced if it is more accurate in describing objective reality.Philosophy does not describe, it prescribes, which is why it is wrong.
For any true proposition, there are infinitely many alternatives which are false.
Let me revise my statement above. A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of objective reality.
Just look at genocide and slavery done by ancient Jews, Europian colonizers, Nazi, and ISIS. Or the practice of human sacrifice by the Aztecs. Or sati and caste system by Hindus. Or mass suicide by followers of Jim Jones. Or serial killing by Ted Bundy. You name it.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2021 12:56:48
You can't prescribe something without at least guess what has actually happened.Heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and the sun goes round the earth, because a philosopher said so. You can be excommunicated or burnt at the stake for disagreeing. That's prescription, not description.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2021 12:57:59
Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.No, the perpetrators were motivated by greed or power and got their priorities right.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2021 12:59:32
They can easily call the opposition as terrorists.'Twas ever thus, until the terrorists win and become the next legitimate government. See Northern Ireland.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 13:05:40
Heavy objects fall faster than light ones, and the sun goes round the earth, because a philosopher said so. You can be excommunicated or burnt at the stake for disagreeing. That's prescription, not description.Your first sentence above is a description. The second one is a prescription.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 13:14:12
What are their greed and power for? Those are meaningless for them once they die. Conscious entities which still exist and aware of the situation will regard them as on the wrong side of history, and should try to prevent the situation from repeating in the future.Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.No, the perpetrators were motivated by greed or power and got their priorities right.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 17:05:27
Let's evaluate all immoral actions through out history. You will find that the perpetrators used inaccurate model of reality which made them got their priorities wrong.If only their claims and assumptions are true, what the've done would be considered moral actions.
Just look at genocide and slavery done by ancient Jews, Europian colonizers, Nazi, and ISIS. Or the practice of human sacrifice by the Aztecs. Or sati and caste system by Hindus. Or mass suicide by followers of Jim Jones. Or serial killing by Ted Bundy. You name it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 22:40:39
Quote
Summary: Teens who display callous-unemotional traits are at higher risk of developing psychopathic traits as they enter adulthood.
A pioneering study with the Portuguese population shows that adolescents with high levels of callous-unemotional traits demonstrate lower levels of anticipated guilt towards the possibility of committing an immoral act and struggle to judge an immoral act as a wrong one.
Although the callous-unemotional traits in adolescents are known to be precursors of psychopathy in adulthood, the results of the study differ from what is known about psychopaths. “Adults with psychopathic traits show low levels of anticipated guilt but consider immoral actions as wrong. However, in our study, adolescents with high CU levels show levels of guilt and judge immoral actions as less wrong,” explains Margarida Vasconcelos, first author.
However, researchers have found evidence of a dissociation between moral emotions and moral judgment, that is, between the feelings of guilt and the judgment of immoral actions. “Even in adolescents with sub-clinical levels of callous-unemotional traits, this dissociation typical in psychopathy in adulthood is already happening during development,” explains the study coordinator Ana Seara Cardoso.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2021 23:26:31
What are their greed and power for? Those are meaningless for them once they die.Which is why they do their evil when they are alive.
My father was working on the ground stability of a new power station, right up to the day of his retirement. At his leaving party someone asked him what they should do if it slid down the hill into the sea. He said "If it happens after 4 pm today, don't phone me."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2021 23:35:58
Summary: Teens who display callous-unemotional traits are at higher risk of developing psychopathic traits as they enter adulthood.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.
Psychopathic persons have reduced ability to subconsciously model surrounding situations from the perspective of other human beings. They may still have ability to consciously model surrounding situations from the perspective of other human beings. Psychopathic criminals need it to deceive their victims or law enforcers.
People also developed anthropomorphism, which attribute human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It may be done consciously or subconsciously. Some non-human entities do show some human traits, humanlike emotions and intentions. In some situations they can behave just like how average humans would behave.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 14:29:18
Which is why they do their evil when they are alive.Of course. How would they do it when they are dead already?
IMO, there are some possible things that makes them did those evil actions.
- They believe that their evil actions are necessary to prevent greater evil. Nazis and Aztecs examples above may be grouped here. Ironically, Nazi's reasonings to commit genocide on Jews were similar to ancient Jews' toward Canaanites.
- They didn't think that their actions were evil by moral standards of their successors. Slavery by US forefathers may be an example.
- They believe that their own pleasure or instinct is the highest moral standard, regardless of the consequences to others. It implies that there is no moral standard higher than on individual level. Serial killing by Ted Bundy may be an example.
We can see a pattern here that all of those points above stem from false beliefs or assumptions.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2021 14:32:00
A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of objective reality.That's the basis of science, not philosophy.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2021 14:34:20
Summary: Teens who display callous-unemotional traits are at higher risk of developing psychopathic traits as they enter adulthood.
In other words, an old psychopath is a young psychopath who got older. I'm sure that discovery cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2021 14:45:11
Nothing to do with morals, just the everyday business of politics.
There's no evidence that the early Nazis believed their own propaganda, but that's not the point: the object is to get everyone else to believe it. Problems arise when you believe it yourself, and invade Russia.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 16:22:49
Science started as a branch of philosophy, namely natural philosophy.A philosophy is more advanced if it is based on more accurate description of objective reality.That's the basis of science, not philosophy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 16:31:13
Not all psychopaths end up as criminal. Many successful surgeons are known to have psychopathic traits at various degrees.Summary: Teens who display callous-unemotional traits are at higher risk of developing psychopathic traits as they enter adulthood.
In other words, an old psychopath is a young psychopath who got older. I'm sure that discovery cost the taxpayer a lot of money.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2021 17:18:11
Science 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.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2021 17:24:24
Not all psychopaths end up as criminal.I haven't suggested that they do.
Quote
Many successful surgeons are known to have psychopathic traits at various degrees.I can strongly recommend "The Knife's Edge", an autobiography by an old friend and colleague Stephen Westaby. It's a good racy read and a great insight into the mind of a surgeon and the stupidity of modern management. 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 23:28:30
Nothing to do with morals, just the everyday business of politics.If their decisions and actions, or inaction, can bring good or bad consequences to conscious beings, then they are subject of morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 23:32:31
Do you know the title of the books regarded as starting point of modern science?Science 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.
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton, often referred to as simply the Principia, is a work in three books written in Latin, first published 5 July 1687.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2021 23:37:43
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.The empathic response can be generated subconsciously/spontaneously, hence uncontrolled, and also consciously, which makes it under control.
The research I mentioned previously seems to focus on subconscious empathy. Being subconscious, the computational process can be more energy efficient and done quickly, although the accuracy may be not so good for some unusual cases.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/04/2021 14:39:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/04/2021 14:49:30
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.
Quote
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.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 06:06:30
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.
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.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/04/2021 09:43:00
Morality 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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 11:39:12
Human morality is taken from the perspective of humans.Morality 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.
Jewish morality is taken from the perspective of Jews.
Nazi's morality is taken from the perspective of Nazis.
Universal morality is taken from the perspective of universal consciousness.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/04/2021 14:17:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 14:21:13
About which you know nothing - even the concept is meaningless.Just read English dictionary. You will find its meaning.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/04/2021 17:42:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 21:39:02
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.Not yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/04/2021 23:00:16
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.An individual human trying to see from the perspective of universal civilization is like an ant trying to see its environment from the perspective of ant colony, or a human cell trying to see its environment from the perspective of human individuals. Human cells that become overly selfish that they consume more resources than their contribution to the well being of the human individual are called cancer. If this cancerous behavior were done by human individuals toward their society, we call them immoral.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/04/2021 07:02:10
Post by: charles1948 on 24/04/2021 21:57:36
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" wants
2. 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 morals
2. The system is ruled by a human Dictator, who is ruthless and has no morals
Both of these answers don't seem very nice. So perhaps your theory is wrong?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2021 02:31:51
That doesn't sound very "moral". You seem to be suggesting this:It just means that your currently held moral standard is not universal.
1. Reward people, if they do what "the system" wants
2. Punish people, if they don't do what "the system" wants.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2021 08:06:09
This leads to the obvious question : who, or what, is "the system"?The system is the collection of conscious entities that exist in the future.
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.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2021 08:12:57
To which, there seem to be only two answers, according to your theory:Perhaps it means that you need to think harder to find other possible answers.
1. The system is ruled by Darwinian Natural Selection, which is ruthless and has no morals
2. The system is ruled by a human Dictator, who is ruthless and has no morals
Both of these answers don't seem very nice. So perhaps your theory is wrong?
Post by: charles1948 on 25/04/2021 16:46:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2021 23:23:01
Perhaps you should stop asking meaningless questions.First, the question is not meaningless. You can find it in dictionaries. Our answer to the question will determine who should live or die, and what kind of life we and our successors would have in the future.
Second, I've already answered the question. You just don't seem to agree with it. If you think that you have better answer, you can try to convince us with your reasonings, and why you couldn't find a better alternative to your currently best answer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/04/2021 05:33:44
Quote
Neither Yuval Noah Harari nor Max Tegmark need much in the way of introduction. Both are avant-garde thinkers at the forefront of 21st century discourse around science, technology, society and humanity’s future. This conversation represents a rare opportunity for two intellectual leaders to apply their combined expertise — in physics, artificial intelligence, history, philosophy and anthropology — to some of the most profound issues of our time. Max and Yuval bring their own macroscopic perspectives to this discussion of both cosmological and human history, exploring questions of consciousness, ethics, effective altruism, artificial intelligence, human extinction, emerging technologies and the role of myths and stories in fostering societal collaboration and meaning. We hope that you’ll join the Future of Life Institute Podcast for our final conversation of 2019, as we look toward the future and the possibilities it holds for all of us.
Topics discussed include:
-Max and Yuval’s views and intuitions about consciousness
-How they ground and think about morality
-Effective altruism and its cause areas of global health/poverty, animal suffering, and existential risk
-The function of myths and stories in human society
-How emerging science, technology, and global paradigms challenge the foundations of many of our stories
-Technological risks of the 21st century
You can find the page and transcript for this podcast here: https://futureoflife.org/2019/12/31/o...
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
3:14 Grounding morality and the need for a science of consciousness
11:45 The effective altruism community and it's main cause areas
13:05 Global health
14:44 Animal suffering and factory farming
17:38 Existential risk and the ethics of the long-term future
23:07 Nuclear war as a neglected global risk
24:45 On the risks of near-term AI and of artificial general intelligence and superintelligence
28:37 On creating new stories for the challenges of the 21st century
32:33 The risks of big data and AI enabled human hacking and monitoring
47:40 What does it mean to be human and what should we want to want?
52:29 On positive global visions for the future
59:29 Goodbyes and appreciations
01:00:20 Outro and supporting the Future of Life Institute Podcast
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/04/2021 17:00:21
Taken for granted, feeling or intuition based decisions are better than randomly picked decisions. But we could do even better with thoughtful decisions, especially for long term consequences.
Feelings and emotions also provide feedback mechanism for the neural networks. They become internal leading indicators so the system know whether it is going to the right direction.IMO, having feelings and emotions are just instrumental goals for survival. No working formal moral system is based on feelings. People can have different emotional sensitivity towards a particular case, even between twins.
Simple organisms with no internal feedback mechanism must rely on external feedbacks to evaluate their actions. Their survival from an event is their positive feedback, while their death is their negative feedback. It's extremely hard to learn when your own death is your only negative feedback. In artificial neural networks, the learning process is done by adjusting weight of neural connections through back propagation. No learning is possible when the whole network is destroyed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/04/2021 22:44:04
Post by: alancalverd on 28/04/2021 10:06:05
In some societies, majority of people get their feelings hurt more by cartoon drawings rather than mass killings.I doubt it. It is clear that various old perverts teach their flock to hate anyone who says that a drawing represents the Prophet, but that clearly isn't a genuine personal insult because nobody knows what he looked like anyway (assuming that he actually practised what he is said to have preached).
Just one more example of why religion is evil. It provides an excuse to do things that a rational man would consider immoral.
And whilst I'm on my high horse, can you think of a sentence in which deleting the fashionable word "existential", alters its meaning?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2021 13:42:19
Feel free to have a doubt. That was just how they expressed it in some interviews during their protests and demonstrations. It's possible that there is a bias for loudest crowds to catch wider news coverage.In some societies, majority of people get their feelings hurt more by cartoon drawings rather than mass killings.I doubt it. It is clear that various old perverts teach their flock to hate anyone who says that a drawing represents the Prophet, but that clearly isn't a genuine personal insult because nobody knows what he looked like anyway (assuming that he actually practised what he is said to have preached).
Post by: alancalverd on 28/04/2021 13:46:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2021 13:57:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2021 05:08:50
I am quite sure that those who claimed to have been insulted were all Muslims and therefore had been indocrtrinated by the disgusting perverts who peddle hatred in the name of brotherhood. No sane man gets upset by the suggestion that a drawing represents someone they don't know who died 1500 years ago, unless he has been taught to respond thus.Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere, whether or not their beliefs are true.
Someone who indoctrinated them are likely have been victims of indoctrination themselves by someone else.
By the example above, I just wanted to point out that feeling and emotion are not reliable/consistent enough to become basis of morality.
IMO, having feelings and emotions are just instrumental goals for survival. No working formal moral system is based on feelings. People can have different emotional sensitivity towards a particular case, even between twins.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/04/2021 12:55:14
Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere,As were those of the Nazis, Stalinists, Thatcherites, supporters of Idi Amin.... Sincerity does not confer moral authority.
Post by: Jolly2 on 29/04/2021 13:22:50
Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere,As were those of the Nazis, Stalinists, Thatcherites, supporters of Idi Amin.... Sincerity does not confer moral authority.
"Always wIth the best of intentions is the worst work is done" Oscar Wilde.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/04/2021 04:40:57
What do you think can turn best intentions into the worst work? Surely not all efforts with best intentions end up as worst work.Nevertheless, their feelings can be real and sincere,As were those of the Nazis, Stalinists, Thatcherites, supporters of Idi Amin.... Sincerity does not confer moral authority.
"Always wIth the best of intentions is the worst work is done" Oscar Wilde.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/05/2021 00:16:47
What do you think can turn best intentions into the worst work? Surely not all efforts with best intentions end up as worst work.Let me help you to answer the question. It's because of one or more false assumptions. Someone with good intentions must expect his actions would give good results. It's absurd to claim that we have good intentions while expecting that our actions will bring worst results.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/05/2021 23:53:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/05/2021 05:07:08
Post by: alancalverd on 02/05/2021 14:21:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2021 04:55:05
I made the point some pages ago that morality does not define good and bad!You just redefined morality against currently accepted dictionary.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/05/2021 09:59:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2021 12:06:51
Actually I didn't define morality, just proposed tests of whether an action could be regarded as moral or not.Consequentially, you just declared that the definition of morality found in currently used dictionaries are incorrect.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2021 12:48:46
Mark Zuckerberg & Yuval Noah Harari in a Conversation
In 1:06:30, Harari gave his thought on free will.QuoteThe people that are easiest to manipulate are the people who believe in free will, and will simply identify with whatever thought or desire pops up in their mind because they cannot even imagine that this desire is not a result of my free will, it is the result of some external manipulation.
In 1:07:30
Quote
The tools to do [mind manipulation] on a massive scale has been developed over the last few decades. And they may have been developed with the best intentions of just selling stuff to people.
But now the same tools that can be used to sell me something I don't really need, can now be used to sell me a politician I really don't need. Or an ideology that I really don't need. It's the same tool, the same hacking the human animal, and manipulating what's happening inside.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/05/2021 09:34:21
Let us know what you think.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/05/2021 20:01:06
Quote
we need moral rules to guide/direct/control our free will, which require the existence of free will in the first place.
Who we? I invent and promulgate moral rules to persuade you to act in ways that I find acceptable. You don't need my rules, or any others: you could perfectly well survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable (think professional criminal, despot, pedophile priest....)
Free will or not, I can use various forms of force, moral, physical, or the threat of harm, to constrain your behavior. Free will is irrelevant.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/05/2021 21:12:02
Who we? I invent and promulgate moral rules to persuade you to act in ways that I find acceptable. You don't need my rules, or any others: you could perfectly well survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable (think professional criminal, despot, pedophile priest....)Perhaps you can survive by breaking some moral rules, but
you can't survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable, especially the "you should not commit suicide" one. You can argue that it's not part of your moral rules, but it's clearly part of some moral rules held by some human societies.
In some ancient societies, you can't even survive by working on holiday. You can't survive long after being caught stealing or killing someone.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/05/2021 11:49:26
Free will or not, I can use various forms of force, moral, physical, or the threat of harm, to constrain your behavior. Free will is irrelevant.Traditionally, free will was used to determine accountability and responsibilities of persons to their actions. It then determined the extent of reward and punishment as consequences of their actions. Without free will, rewards and punishments were thought to be useless.
Some people thought that free will is a material part of human individuals. Some others think that it's a supernatural thing. Some others think that it's an illusion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/05/2021 23:11:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/05/2021 15:08:44
Reward and punishment system is just a function to modify weights of neural connections in the agent's internal feedback mechanism, so the agent know if their current action is aligned with its terminal goal or not. Whether or not the agent is made up of organic chemistry is irrelevant.
Post by: Eternal Student on 08/05/2021 16:40:01
The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop appropriate moral rules
Yes. Autonomous vehicles are exactly what has made the "trolley problem" and similar discussions of ethics and morality popular again. I think you've already discussed this and I'm sorry for joining the discussion this late.
An autonomous vehicle should consider the option to drive the vehicle off a cliff, killing all occupants if that would avoid a greater loss of life by continuing along the road and running over other people. People may not want to buy or get into such a vehicle, so the research being done by some of the big technology developers is not always about the nature of ethics but more about what the general public would want and find acceptable. The technology developers make the weak argument that if the people did not consider killing the occupants, then that would be the appropriate ethical resolution just because it mimics human behaviour. This matches up with earlier posts you (Hamdani) have made about morality being defined as a "meme" and the argument that the fundamental nature of morality must be self-protecting.
I am equally suspicious that the development of AGI will not be governed by ethics. Although, I admire your desire to get other people involved and considering the issue. Like many areas of scientific development it is something that all people should be involved with and informed about. Sadly, history doesn't set a good precedent for this sort of consultation with the general public. Nobody asked me if I was happy to continue miniaturising microprocessors and nobody seems to be asking me if I'm happy with the use of CRISPR and Cas9 technology, for example.
Good luck to you.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2021 22:45:11
you can't survive by breaking every moral rule imaginable, especially the "you should not commit suicide" oneThat may be your moral rule but it isn't mine. You might consider it immoral to eat animals (vegan) or onions (Jain) but lot of people survive on beefburgers.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2021 22:48:06
The rise of autonomous vehicles reminds us on the need to develop appropriate moral rules applicable for non-human conscious agents.The Laws of Robotics superficially cover all the requirements, but Asimov made a living by pointing out the practical limitations and complications of mechanistic application of moral rules.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2021 22:51:05
You can't survive long after being caught stealing or killing someone.There's difference between breaking a rule and being caught. Crime pays at least as well as legitimate stock investment.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/05/2021 08:38:42
There's difference between breaking a rule and being caught. Crime pays at least as well as legitimate stock investment.Usually, immoral actions don't immediately bring unwanted consequences to the perpetrators. Genocides, rapes and slaveries done by ancient people are some examples. It took other conscious agents to bring the unwanted consequences as punishment or revenge, to deter conscious agents in the future from committing the same immoral actions.
Many actions that immediately bring unwanted consequences to the perpetrators without the need for other conscious entities to bring them to reality, are not called immoral. Some examples are playing with venomous snakes, drinking bleach, or touching a hot stove.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2021 17:02:41
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2021 06:50:00
It's Alive, But Is It Life: Synthetic Biology and the Future of CreationProfound question about morality was asked in 1:00:00 mark. It's remarkable that this video was uploaded in 2016, as if it's foreseeing our current situation.QuoteFor decades, biologists have read and edited DNA, the code of life. Revolutionary developments are giving scientists the power to write it. Instead of tinkering with existing life forms, synthetic biologists may be on the verge of writing the DNA of a living organism from scratch. In the next decade, according to some, we may even see the first synthetic human genome. Join a distinguished group of synthetic biologists, geneticists and bioengineers who are edging closer to breathing life into matter.
This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.
Original Program Date: June 4, 2016
MODERATOR: Robert Krulwich
PARTICIPANTS: George Church, Drew Endy, Tom Knight, Pamela SilverQuoteSynthetic Biology and the Future of Creation 00:00
Participant Intros 3:25
Ordering DNA from the internet 8:10
How much does it cost to make a synthetic human? 13:04
Why is yeast the best catalyst 20:10
How George Church printed 90 billion copies of his book 26:05
Creating synthetic rose oil 28:35
Safety engineering and synthetic biology 37:15
Do we want to be invaded by bad bacteria? 45:26
Do you need a human gene's to create human cells? 55:09
The standard of DNA sequencing in utero 1:02:27
The science community is divided by closed press meetings 1:11:30
The Human Genome Project. What is it? 1:21:45
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2021 17:59:18
We choose our breeding partners with at least a subconscious idea of how we would like our offspring to be, and in civilised societies we choose when and how often to breed. We have numbers of tests already for predicting, avoiding and detecting significant chromosomal anomaly and other genetic traits that might be considered undesirable, and again in civilised countries we have an option of early abortion and a growing capacity for carrying out in utero surgery.
Probably more than most species, the success of any human depends as much on nurture (acquisition of knowledge, social skills and physical/financial capital) as nature (physique). We have no moral qualms about giving our children what we consider to be the best nurture available to us, so what's wrong with giving them the best physique we can afford?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2021 22:30:36
IMO, those worries are common among new technologies, such as computer, internet, cell phone, medicines, blood transfusion, organ transplant, cancer treatment, etc. As they get more mature, they get cheaper and more affordable to more people. So, if anything, the solution should be to make the technology mature as soon as possible, so the less fortunates can quickly catch up and close the gap before they get too far behind and driven into irrelevance.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/05/2021 23:54:28
But designer babies are a bit different: having a "perfect" child by choice confers physical advantages on the child but not on the parent. Most people want to do the best they can for their children, and ensuring they have a healthy athletic body and a fully functioning brain before they are born, is surely not immoral. The test is to consider the converse: would it be moral to inflict disease or deformity on a fetus? Or to ignore the possibility of correcting either if discovered in utero? In what way is it "wrong" that I can run a mile in 4 minutes or solve differential equations when most people can't?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/05/2021 06:57:29
Many technological advancements hurt someone by replacing their jobs. Telegram and telephone replaced horse riding mail carriers. Electronic controller replaced telephone switch operators. Machinaries replaced human workers. Robotaxis will replace taxi drivers. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs for the society, they are morally acceptable.
On the other hand, when the costs outweigh the benefits, we are morally obligated to stop them as soon as possible. For example, if they generate environmental pollution or destruction, or introduce health risk to the population.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/05/2021 14:23:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2021 12:41:15
Society does not suffer if I choose to buy a reliable car. Society (at least a civilised society) bears part of the burden if I have a sickly child. What could possibly be the unwanted side effect of my having a healthy child by intention rather than luck? Nobody is replacing displacing or rejecting anything or anyone, just making what I want rather than what chance delivers.It looks like we are on the same side in this issue. But I can remind you the objection often cited by the other side. Our improvement may cause our competitors to lose their opportunity, which is not a good thing for them. But that's not necessarily immoral, as long as it does not make our society as a whole worse off. That's why I said that morality should be seen from the perspective of bigger system instead of individual agents.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/05/2021 13:55:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/05/2021 06:39:31
So it should be obvious that we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.
Post by: Eternal Student on 14/05/2021 13:56:39
I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.OK. Actually, it does sound reasonable.
Morality is like an organism. It must survive and to do this it must preserve its hosts and/or future hosts.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/05/2021 23:49:05
we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..A good moral action is to comfort the dying, or to heal the sick, neither action having any consequence for future entities. Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.
Post by: Colin2B on 15/05/2021 08:27:07
and often places the healer in risk of death or illness.we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2021 09:36:33
We have a word for that already. It's called meme, while a group of memes in the same conscious entity is called memeplex.I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.OK. Actually, it does sound reasonable.
Morality is like an organism. It must survive and to do this it must preserve its hosts and/or future hosts.
Quote
Like the gene complexes found in biology, memeplexes are groups of memes that are often found present in the same individual. Applying the theory of Universal Darwinism, memeplexes exist because memes copy themselves more successfully when they are "teamed up".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2021 09:42:29
It depends on who is dying. Someone who has no fear of death like Buddha doesn't need it. Nor does kamikaze fighters, nor suicide bombers.we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..A good moral action is to comfort the dying, or to heal the sick, neither action having any consequence for future entities. Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.
The healed persons would be the future version of the currently sick.
Have you considered that the healed persons have the possibility to produce more food than what they consume?
Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2021 10:04:03
Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?There being no evidence of moral beings on any other planet, nor any likelihood that the actions of a moral being on this planet could affect anyone on another, I think it foolish to judge the obvious and important in terms of an irrelevant maybe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2021 11:14:40
Not yet. What makes you think that human can't live on other planet?Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?There being no evidence of moral beings on any other planet, nor any likelihood that the actions of a moral being on this planet could affect anyone on another, I think it foolish to judge the obvious and important in terms of an irrelevant maybe.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2021 15:23:18
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/05/2021 02:18:49
Moral rules are judged by how good they are to achieve their goals or purpose. It can be quantified by their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving their goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/05/2021 13:01:54
In this simplest possible case: one animal, one food, you can't define a universal goal.
*I apologise for using a word that I can't define, but I'm sure you know what you understand by it!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/05/2021 14:52:05
They could go extinct right away.
Or they could evolve into something better at survival. But their fate is sealed with the destruction of their home planet. Except if they can build a multiplanetary society. There is no restriction that they must do it by themselves. They can cooperate with other species, genera, or even phyla and domains. Bacterial ancestor of mitochondria may seem unlikely to do something significant in planetary biosphere. But their descendants who formed endosymbiosis with some species of archaea end up ruling the earth and open a chance to build a multiplanetary society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/05/2021 16:09:36
Post by: Eternal Student on 16/05/2021 19:52:26
to achieve the universal terminal goal.The universe has a goal? Who set that goal for the universe?
Hang on a moment, John says he can't remember what happened last Friday night. Maybe it was him.
But seriously, I've enjoyed looking through your thread. Best wishes to you.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/05/2021 23:14:20
What's the future of those plants?If we don't invade their planet, they can continue to enjoy life, praise their god and indulge in uninhibited random sex with strangers, all within their entirely alien moral code. There cannot be a single moral code that encompasses both plants and animals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/05/2021 04:30:27
How do we know that they enjoy their lives?What's the future of those plants?If we don't invade their planet, they can continue to enjoy life, praise their god and indulge in uninhibited random sex with strangers, all within their entirely alien moral code.
When they extinct with the destruction of their planet, then basically that's it. Their arbritrary moral codes would become meaningless.
Quote
There cannot be a single moral code that encompasses both plants and animals.Why not? They both came from common ancestors, at least for the earthlings.
You are not likely to find their commonality if you start with prying on their differences instead.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2021 04:36:12
He points out the confusion between determinism and fatalism.
Quote
Reasoning is possible not because you're free to think however you want, but because you're not free. To be convinced by an argument is to be subjugated by it. It's to be forced to believe it, regardless of your preferences.
...
Reasoning is all about constraints.
...
Whether you understand something or not isn't under your control. But the difference matters.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2021 07:11:27
The U.S.’s first open-air genetically modified mosquitoes have taken flight
After long debate, Oxitec pits a GM mosquito against a Florida invasive species spreading Zika and dengue
Quote
The first genetically modified mosquitoes that will be allowed to fly free outdoors in the United States have started reaching the age for mating in the Florida Keys.
In a test of the biotech company Oxitec’s GM male mosquitoes for pest control, these Aedes aegypti started growing from tiny eggs set out in toaster-sized, hexagonal boxes on suburban private properties in late April. On May 12, experiment monitors confirmed that males had matured enough to start flying off on their own to court American female mosquitoes.
This short-term Florida experiment marks the first outdoor test in the United States of a strain of GM male mosquitoes as a highly targeted pest control strategy. This strain is engineered to shrink local populations of Ae. aegypti, a mosquito species that spreads dengue and Zika (SN: 7/29/16). That could start happening now that the GM mosquitoes have reached mating age because their genetics makes them such terrible choices as dads.
The mosquitoes now waving distinctively masculine (extra fluffy) antennae in Florida carry genetic add-ons that block development in females. No female larvae should survive to adulthood in the wild, says molecular biologist Nathan Rose, Oxitec’s chief of regulatory affairs. Half the released males’ sons, however, will carry dad’s daughter-killing trait. The sons of the bad dads can go on to trick a new generation of females into unwise mating decisions and doomed daughters (SN: 1/8/09).
Quote
Despite some high-profile protests, finding people to host the boxes was not hard, Rose says. “We were oversubscribed.” At public hearings, the critics of the project typically outshout the fans. Yet there’s also support. In a 2016 nonbinding referendum on using GM mosquitoes, 31 of 33 precincts in Monroe County, which comprises the Keys, voted yes for the test release. Twenty of those victories were competitive though, not reaching 60 percent.Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not?
The males being released rely on a live-sons/dead-daughters strategy. That’s a change from the earlier strain of Oxitec mosquitoes. Those males sabotaged all offspring regardless of sex. The change came during the genetic redesign that permits an egg-shipping strategy. Surviving sons, however, mean the nonengineered genes in the new Oxitec strain can mix into the Florida population more than in the original version.
Traditional pesticides can mess with creatures besides their pest targets, and some critics of the GMO mosquitoes also worry about unexpected ecological effects. Yet success of the Oxitec mosquitoes in slamming the current pests should not cause some disastrous shortage of food or pollination for natives, Yee says. Ae. aegypti invaded North America within the past four centuries, probably too short a time to become absolutely necessary for some native North American predator or plant.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/05/2021 11:37:55
QuoteUnless you have evolved "the pig that wants to be eaten", it is pretty clear that animals eat other animals that try to run away, or plants that have evolved spikes and poisons to put off grazing animals.
There cannot be a single moral code that encompasses both plants and animals.
Why not? They both came from common ancestors, at least for the earthlings.
My hypothetical veg-only planet will not have evolved any defence because it hasn't experienced any animals. A bit like native Americans having no tolerance for influenza or bullets.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/05/2021 11:45:02
Ae. aegypti invaded North America within the past four centuries, probably too short a time to become absolutely necessary for some native North American predator or plant.
That can be considered absolute justification for eliminating the buggers. There is no doubt that eliminating the vectors for parasitic diseases is a Good Thing and potentially more effective than treating the human victims, which can lead to drug-resistant mutations. The only question remaining is whether the GM males can do any other harm before they destroy the next generation of females.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2021 13:28:25
Alternatively, you can evolve the ability to survive and thrive without having to kill pigs. The motivation for it can be based on efficiency, which is a universal instrumental goal.QuoteUnless you have evolved "the pig that wants to be eaten", it is pretty clear that animals eat other animals that try to run away, or plants that have evolved spikes and poisons to put off grazing animals.
There cannot be a single moral code that encompasses both plants and animals.
Why not? They both came from common ancestors, at least for the earthlings.
Quote
My hypothetical veg-only planet will not have evolved any defence because it hasn't experienced any animals. A bit like native Americans having no tolerance for influenza or bullets.Plants also compete for finite resources, such as sunlight, water, and minerals. Plants can also be parasites. I think you need to reconsider your hypothesis.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/05/2021 13:49:34
What's the reason for you to say that a thing is absolutely good? It baffles me that sometimes you say that morality is exclusively for humans, but the other times you say that they are meaningless, and even said that their extinction would be a good thing for the earth.Ae. aegypti invaded North America within the past four centuries, probably too short a time to become absolutely necessary for some native North American predator or plant.
That can be considered absolute justification for eliminating the buggers. There is no doubt that eliminating the vectors for parasitic diseases is a Good Thing and potentially more effective than treating the human victims, which can lead to drug-resistant mutations. The only question remaining is whether the GM males can do any other harm before they destroy the next generation of females.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/05/2021 00:07:23
Alternatively, you can evolve the ability to survive and thrive without having to kill pigs.If you don't eat animals, you have to eat plants. The only living things that can synthesise their structural materials from nonliving sources are called plants. Fortunately there are enough animals around to convert the plants (and smaller animals) back to carbon dioxide and water, so the cycle can continue.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/05/2021 08:58:37
I think we need to align our use of terminologies.Alternatively, you can evolve the ability to survive and thrive without having to kill pigs.If you don't eat animals, you have to eat plants. The only living things that can synthesise their structural materials from nonliving sources are called plants. Fortunately there are enough animals around to convert the plants (and smaller animals) back to carbon dioxide and water, so the cycle can continue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant
Quote
Plants are mainly multicellular organisms, predominantly photosynthetic eukaryotes of the kingdom Plantae. Historically, plants were treated as one of two kingdoms including all living things that were not animals, and all algae and fungi were treated as plants. However, all current definitions of Plantae exclude the fungi and some algae, as well as the prokaryotes (the archaea and bacteria). By one definition, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (Latin name for "green plants"), a group that includes the flowering plants, conifers and other gymnosperms, ferns and their allies, hornworts, liverworts, mosses, and the green algae, but excludes the red and brown algae.
Quote
Prokaryotes lack mitochondria and chloroplasts. Instead, processes such as oxidative phosphorylation and photosynthesis take place across the prokaryotic cell membrane.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote
Post by: alancalverd on 19/05/2021 17:24:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/05/2021 02:54:01
Post by: alancalverd on 21/05/2021 14:45:33
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/05/2021 17:35:53
Post by: alancalverd on 26/05/2021 23:22:57
My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/05/2021 10:19:56
How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.
Without universal moral standard, we can't say if any moral rule is better or worse than any other moral rules. You can't say that ancient Jewish moral rules are better or worst than Nazi's moral rules, nor with modern secular democratic moral rules.
Every action would be equally justified by their own moral standard. Jewish' genocide would be justified by their tribal moral standard. Nazi's holocaust would be justified by their racist/facist moral standard. ISIS' actions would be justified by their theological moral standard. Even Ted Bundy's serial rapes and murders would be justified by hedonistic moral standard. Charles Whitman's mass shooting would be justified by nihilistic moral standard. They are equally good by relativistic moral standard.
You can only say that your moral standard is better than the others by showing that yours is more aligned with the universal moral standard, at least in some specific aspects.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/05/2021 23:55:08
How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?Because plants and animals are inherently on opposite sides, and life requires both.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/05/2021 00:11:06
Do you think that all animals are in the same side?How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?Because plants and animals are inherently on opposite sides, and life requires both.
Do you think that bees and flowering plants are on opposite sides?
What should plants do if they want to survive the event when the earth merge with the sun?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/05/2021 00:25:19
Do you think that all animals are in the same side?The first two questions are easier to answer. They only need one word. My answers are no and no. I hope this can help you answer them as well. Let us know if you have different opinions, and why so.
Do you think that bees and flowering plants are on opposite sides?
What should plants do if they want to survive the event when the earth merge with the sun?
For the third question, I can think of two options. First, the plants can evolve into higher level conscious beings, who are capable of building space ships, and terraforming other planets, or building artificial environments in space. The second option is to cooperate with other conscious beings who are more likely to achieve that first option.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/05/2021 15:52:04
No amount of hypothetical evolution can escape the fact that most plants absorb CO2 and exhale oxygen, and all animals do the opposite. Without some dynamic balance between the two, all living things would die. Therefore the fundamental enmity between plants and animals is essential for the survival of both..
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/05/2021 23:39:12
Some animals eat plants, some animals eat animals. A few plants eat animals.Some plants eat other plants, although the process are typically longer than animals. They are called parasites.
Quote
No amount of hypothetical evolution can escape the fact that most plants absorb CO2 and exhale oxygen, and all animals do the opposite. Without some dynamic balance between the two, all living things would die. Therefore the fundamental enmity between plants and animals is essential for the survival of both..Nothing is fundamental about enmity. They are all instrumental and temporary. They can be stopped with some changes to their behaviors.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 00:32:14
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 00:35:50
Now that makes morality irrelevant to any other species if you define it as "what constrains cruelty".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/05/2021 02:47:23
I rather feel that if you stopped a cow eating grass, it wouldn't be a cow. It wouldn't inhale oxygen, so the grass would gradually poison itself, and it wouldn't exhale CO2, so trees couldn't grow. You require a wholly different ecology in which no living thing eliminates waste. Not sure this is thermodynamically achievable.Why being a cow suppose to be so important? Our ancestors stopped being a fish at one point in the past. It turned out to be good for us since it increased their and our level of consciousness. We should be aware that our descendants/successors may have completely different shapes or forms than us, they may not even look similar to one another.
Efficiency is a universal instrumental goal. But it requires the preservation of conscious entities. Otherwise it would be meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/05/2021 12:09:43
We should be aware that our descendants/successors may have completely different shapes or forms than us, they may not even be similar to one another.But if they are going to live, they must do chemical things, turning food into waste as they do so. Which means you need a complementary species to turn that waste back into food if life is to be sustained. You are looking for a degree of symbiosis that has only been observed in lichens. No problem from my point of view, but you may be disappointed to realise that by your definition the stuff growing on your roof has a higher level of consciousness than yourself!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/06/2021 01:32:20
You are looking for a degree of symbiosis that has only been observed in lichens. No problem from my point of view, but you may be disappointed to realise that by your definition the stuff growing on your roof has a higher level of consciousness than yourself!We already make symbiotic relationship with gut bacteria.
Can they make and execute plans better than I can? Can they make predictions about relevant events in the future and then act proactively to get the most desired result.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/06/2021 14:06:18
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/06/2021 23:42:57
Apparently. They colonised you, regulated their population to a sustainable level, and determined almost everything about your mood and behavior: when they are hungry or thirsty, they tell you to eat and drink, and if they don't like your choice of food, they encourage you to get rid of it. You can vote Labour as often as you like, but you can't get rid of a bad government.Until recently, it was not clear who controls whom. But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die, and we can even genetically modify them to do what we want them to.
Regarding the bad government, if it's still tolerable, you can just chill and play along. Otherwise, you can start a revolution to change the system, or move to another place with better government.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/06/2021 07:28:09
But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2021 04:46:01
There are conflict of interest between people from different countries. Also from the same country. Or the same organization. Even among siblings. Even twins. Even among cells in the same human individual. But that doesn't mean that they can't have common goals.But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal!
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.
In general, parents want to give better lives to their children. It means that their children would have better chance to survive, but also means that the children are not exactly the same as the parents. Extrapolated to many generations, the accumulated difference between earliest ancestors and latest descendants could be huge, they are unrecognizable anymore to be in the same lineage.
Our ancestors played their roles as the scaffolding to our existence. We also have our role to be the scaffolding to the existence of our descendants or successors. A good moral standard would tell us if we behave like a good or bad scaffolding. It would inevitably prioritize things according to their impacts to the future of consciousness. There would be sacrifices in one form or another.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2021 05:21:58
With the same line of thinking, finding a universal moral standard requires universal perspective. The only constraint is the existence of conscious entities, for there is no perspective without consciousness. No other arbitrary constraints are required, except that they are proven to be necessary instrumental goals to achieve the terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2021 07:04:31
In complex organisms, the cells can take many different shapes and functions, while in simpler ones, the options are limited. Complex organisms like humans have developed better communication systems among their cells, so they can perform more coordinated tasks.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2021 07:35:50
What Is the Speed of Thought?
Quote
Here’s a thought: What IS a thought? I know it involves my brain, and my brain is made of neurons. And my brain’s neurons are listening to other neurons all over my body. But how do those neurons actually work? Maybe you’ve heard that it involves electricity, but does that mean you’ve got little zaps and lightning bolts running through your veins like Pikachu? Don’t worry, I’m here to set you straight on what a neuron is, what an action potential is, and how fast your nervous system really communicates.The point of 1:43 reminds us that human society is similar to multicellular organisms. Our telecommunication system acts like our nervous system, while individual person represents a single cell. Our phone calls, video calls, financial transactions, radio and television broadcast are merging with internet, and no longer operate as separated independent systems. The internet becomes nervous system of human society. A human individual will see AGI in similar way as a human cell see a human brain.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2021 13:22:44
Quote
Oxygen is pretty great stuff, but this recently discovered organism couldn’t care less about oxygen. It breathes nitrogen and may offer a window into how the types of cells in OUR bodies may have evolved billions of years ago.Real life organisms don't care how we classify them conveniently. As long as it helps them survive, they'll just do it. Starting at 3:25, it's explained that the endosymbiont isn't an organelle like mitochondria, but it's still a bacterium.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/06/2021 06:22:59
A good moral standard would tell us if we behave like a good or bad scaffolding. It would inevitably prioritize things according to their impacts to the future of consciousness. There would be sacrifices in one form or another.Sometimes, our unwillingness to make some sacrifices simply means our willingness to make even bigger sacrifices. Unfortunately, it often becomes obvious only in hindsight, which we feel as regrets. Our responses in the face of a pandemic or climate change can be cited as some examples.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/06/2021 06:56:49
Sometimes, our unwillingness to make some sacrifices simply means our willingness to make even bigger sacrifices.It's well documented in animal world that parents abandon or even actively kill some of their youngs when they think that they can't afford to provide enough resources for their offsprings, especially when their offsprings have severe birth defects. It's a strategy to make sure that the surviving offsprings would get adequate resource to grow and survive to the next generation. It becomes necessary when the alternative would be dividing limited resources to more offsprings which makes noone get enough to survive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/06/2021 15:58:23
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.Any conscious entities can be classified into 3 types based on their behavior related to the extension of consciousness further into the future. The first type directs their efforts to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. The second type directs their efforts to prevent the existence of consciousness further into the future. The third type doesn't direct their efforts to either ways.
In practice, there's always some uncertainties involved, which makes the distinction between those types fuzzy. It becomes like greyscale, where there's no undisputed threshold between black and grey, or grey and white.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/06/2021 22:00:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/06/2021 22:28:18
You have hit upon the ultimate philosophical statement. All things can be classed as A, not A, or unclassifiable in terms of parameter A..Classification is a common and necessary step in decision making process. It's an extreme case of data compression, where many bits of input are turned into a few bits of output. The output produced by classification is related to the number of options available to be acted on the classified objects.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/06/2021 14:02:32
Any conscious entities can be classified into 3 types based on their behavior related to the extension of consciousness further into the future. The first type directs their efforts to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. The second type directs their efforts to prevent the existence of consciousness further into the future. The third type doesn't direct their efforts to either ways.Simple calculation using basic probability theory shows that the first type is the most likely to survive. While the second type is the least likely.
Once in awhile we may observe someone who actively seek to kill other conscious beings can survive longer than those who don't. It can happen especially if they still have the self preservation tendency.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2021 00:33:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2021 01:09:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2021 09:01:26
Once in awhile I also receive recommendations of online articles based on my browsing history. If I found an interesting one that I think worth discussing, I'll share it here.
There are many important points in this article below. I'll try to review them in separate posts, especially those about morality.
"Why doesn’t philosophy progress from debate to consensus? | Aeon Essays" https://aeon.co/essays/why-doesnt-philosophy-progress-from-debate-to-consensus
Quote
For centuries, all philosophers seem to have done is question and debate. Why do philosophical problems resist solution?
Quote
Philosophy seems to be on a hiding to nothing. It has a 2,500-year history in the West and an extensive back-catalogue – of problems. There are questions about what exists, and what we know about it, such as: Do we have free will? Is there an external world? Does God exist? and so on. There are also questions of analysis and definition such as: What makes a sentence true? What makes an act just? What is causation? What is a person? This is a tiny sample. For almost any abstract notion, some philosopher has wondered what it really is.
Yet, despite this wealth of questions and the centuries spent tackling them, philosophers haven’t successfully provided any answers. They’ve tried long and hard but nothing they’ve said towards answering those questions has quite made the grade. Other philosophers haven’t been slow to pick holes in their attempted answers and expose flaws or dubious assumptions in them. The punctures in the attempted answers then get patched up and put up for discussion again. But what happens is that new punctures appear, or the patches fail and the old punctures are revealed again. Philosophy emerges as a series of arguments without end, and its questions settle into seemingly intractable problems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2021 11:07:51
Quote
Our lives are regulated by, among other things, moral codes, codes prescribing what’s off-limits (what’s morally wrong) and what isn’t (what’s morally permissible). Just what is a moral code though? What is the source of morality? Is it our emotions or our reason or something else again? And there are further questions: why should anyone be moral? What’s in it for them? Plato gave these questions close attention. He took the view that a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough. Plato thought that, if only we had a clear idea of what moral goodness is, if only we could know it for what it is, we’d be bound to avoid wrongdoing. To know the good is to love it.Morality is an information processing algorithm. It takes a behavior or an action with its circumstances, and produce an output, which is the moral classification of said action, whether it's moral, immoral, or neither a.k.a amoral.
Other philosophers disagreed and found no route from reason to morality. David Hume thought that only emotion, not reason, could provide direction to our lives. There’s nothing contrary to reason, Hume provocatively said in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), to care more about scratching your finger than the fate of humanity. Something we should take from this debate between Plato and Hume is that it’s not at all like a parlour game on which nothing of consequence hangs. In fact, it’s hard to think of a problem that could have more consequence than one about how we’re to live our lives. Dismissing this debate as empty wordplay would be a cop-out, an evasion of an especially difficult intellectual problem. It is, moreover, far from being an isolated example. Debates about the reality of moral responsibility, the rationale for punishment or the moral status of animals raise other intellectually and morally pressing issues.
Follow up actions need other tools, such as law and convention.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2021 12:29:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2021 14:38:37
What is the source of morality?Let's try to answer the question using the framework I've laid down here. Morality is a form of data compression algorithm to differentiate between behavior that's likely to give preferred results from those that's likely to give unwanted results. Hence it must come from simulating the course of events with branching paths. A moral agent would select the option which produce the best expected result from the simulation that it has run.
It's unrealistic to expect a system with no capability to simulate the consequences of its actions to behave morally.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2021 12:54:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2021 13:06:29
It's unrealistic to expect a system with no capability to simulate the consequences of its actions to behave morally.Traffic lights and massage chairs do good things such as preventing accident and relieving tension or pain. We don't say that those things are doing moral actions.
When they are malfunctioning and produce harmful effects, we don't call them immoral either.
Here is how morality usually works. An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid. The agents are called moral if they obey the instructions, and called immoral if they defy when they are expected to be able to follow the instructions. Failure to follow the instructions due to inability is not usually called immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/06/2021 11:39:02
An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid."Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/06/2021 14:41:39
I guess we can agree that killing is not always immoral. Some are considered good by some societies, such as killing terrorists, enemies of states, traitors, deserters of war, horse thieves, serial killers, mass murderers, pests, parasites, etc.An authoritative figure or entity tells conscious agents what's morally good, hence to follow, and what's morally bad, hence to avoid."Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).
We acknowledge that there exist many non-universal moral standards, with similarities and differences among them. But that doesn't nullify the existence of a universal moral standard.
While universal moral standard is based on achieving the universal terminal goal, non-universal moral standards are based on local and temporary instrumental goals. There are terms of applicability for them. If those terms are not met, they are not applicable.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/06/2021 22:27:38
Full marks for eloquence and research, but none for relevance or progress, as far as I can see. But it's great fun, so I'm happy to continue fencing with you!
Post by: Eternal Student on 15/06/2021 23:38:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 02:25:10
I may regret this but I have ask you to remind me what the acronym UTG is.UTG stands for Universal Terminal Goal. You can find the discussion about it in my main thread titled Universal Utopia.
So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describes the noun.The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.
The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.
The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 02:39:43
So far, you seem to have convinced yourself that UMS ↔ UTG without definition or proof of the necessary existence of either. I'm pretty sure this is where your argument began.If you have a problem with my definitions above, feel free to speak out. Just don't say that I haven't defined it.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2021 07:59:26
The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity.And there's the nub of the problem. One conscious entity could indeed have a unique goal, but there is no evidence that two such entities can share the same goal because life (which I think must precede consciousness, however you define that) is essentially competitive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 08:07:28
"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:
- Everyone is pursuing self preservation
- Everyone loves someone
- Everyone is rational
It turns out that those assumptions are not always true.
Sometimes someone stops pursuing self preservation. But commonly used moral standards don't grant them right to harm others for that. So you add the second test, based on second assumption. In your opinion, moral actions must pass both tests. This additional test reduces the case where an action can pass your tests while failing commonly used moral standards.
But the second assumption is not always true either. Although extremely rare, it's still possible that someone loves noone. If it happens that they don't love themselves either, they can do immoral things without failing your tests.
Perhaps the most cases of immoral actions are done when third assumption turns out to be false. In this case, they can do immoral actions without failing your tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 08:17:46
There is no evidence that two such entities can't share the same goal either. Especially if they are duplicate copies or replica of the other, while the other objects in the universe are non-conscious that are mostly hostile to them. I think I can safely say that more than 99% of space in the universe are hostile environments to living organisms.The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity.And there's the nub of the problem. One conscious entity could indeed have a unique goal, but there is no evidence that two such entities can share the same goal because life (which I think must precede consciousness, however you define that) is essentially competitive.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/06/2021 21:27:30
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 03:47:01
The notion of wholly collaborative identical twins alone in a hostile universe is more like science fiction or philosophy than practical ethics. I have no time for either genre of fiction.It is necessary to make sure that your rule works in simplest cases. Otherwise, expecting it to work in more complex situations must rely on happy coincidence.
Imagine that once upon a time, there's only one conscious being in the universe. To prevent from extinction, the best bet is to have a duplicate copy as a backup against unexpected incidents. More copies would give better chance to survive, as long as there's enough accessible resources to sustain them. In case the resources are no longer adequate, some of the copies must be sacrificed. That's where the competition starts making sense.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2021 07:31:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 08:34:10
So is your simplified universe infinitely and benignly resourced, or hostile?Based on observation, most of the part of the universe are hostile. The existing conscious beings must live in the place where it's not hostile.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2021 11:17:43
Post by: Origin on 17/06/2021 13:09:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 16:55:38
Most of the universe is frankly indifferent to anything you might describe as a conscious being.Most part of universe would kill them in a few seconds. Imagine that there is a machine that can teleport someone to an arbitrary random point in the universe. That person would be extremely unlikely to survive for more than a minute.
That's why I said that most part of universe is hostile to conscious beings. I don't think that causing almost instant death can be classified as indifferent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 16:57:48
Is there a way to put this blog on ignore so it does not show up when I look at unread posts? When I click the box under the "ignore topic" it doesn't seem to do anything.Can someone help him get what he wants?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 17:03:55
As far as we know, the only things that could fit that description are a transient phenomenon on the surface film of a rock in a very minor galaxy. The serious physics and chemistry are going on elsewhere.It seems to me that you haven't read the books about the singularity. Try Ray Kurzweil's Singularity is Near.
Post by: Just thinking on 18/06/2021 22:46:53
Post by: alancalverd on 18/06/2021 23:56:07
That's why I said that most part of universe is hostile to conscious beings. I don't think that causing almost instant death can be classified as indifferent.There is a significant distinction. Hostility implies intent, or at least the existence of an agent. Most of the universe is a vacuum which clearly cannot sustain life and will quickly kill most if not all living things because life depends on transpiration, but you can't consider an infinite nothingness to have agency or intention. Even among the very stupid you can distinguish between an indifference to illegal immigrants (no benefits, let them starve) and Teresa May's hostile environment (hunt then down and deport them, even if they are not actually immigrants).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2021 04:26:09
There is a significant distinction. Hostility implies intent, or at least the existence of an agent. Most of the universe is a vacuum which clearly cannot sustain life and will quickly kill most if not all living things because life depends on transpiration, but you can't consider an infinite nothingness to have agency or intention. Even among the very stupid you can distinguish between an indifference to illegal immigrants (no benefits, let them starve) and Teresa May's hostile environment (hunt then down and deport them, even if they are not actually immigrants).I'm fine if I have to replace the word hostile with another word which is more representative to what I meant. But I don't think that indifferent is the correct one. Can you suggest something?
I just used it because I saw and heard many native speakers used it that way, such as in documentary movies that speaks about hostile environment in other planets. I know it was used figuratively. But in scientific discussion, we should use words more literally, as far as possible.
Here is a list of words synonymous with hostile. Which one suits best for my case?
antagonistic
aggressive
confrontational
belligerent
bellicose
pugnacious
militant
truculent
combative
warlike
unfriendly
unkind
bitter
unsympathetic
malevolent
malicious
vicious
spiteful
rancorous
venomous
biting
wrathful
angry
malefic
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2021 14:10:58
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2021 14:35:10
No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.I'm sorry to have missed this one. Could you please elaborate what your reasoning?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by respect?
Why a moral standard must be derived from love?
Why a moral standard must be derived from respect?
What would you do in case they are conflicting to each other?
Why a moral standard must not be derived from something else?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2021 14:39:57
No,So you think that even the moral standard that you respect is not universal. Have you identified what conditions can invalidate it?
Post by: Just thinking on 20/06/2021 09:26:23
Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standard as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.No, the only moral standard that I respect is the one that is derived from love and respect.I'm sorry to have missed this one. Could you please elaborate what your reasoning?
What do you mean by love?
What do you mean by respect?
Why a moral standard must be derived from love?
Why a moral standard must be derived from respect?
What would you do in case they are conflicting to each other?
Why a moral standard must not be derived from something else?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/06/2021 13:31:43
as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.You should know that the existence of many bad things doesn't prove that good things don't exist.
You can prove the nonexistent of something by demonstrating that its existence creates logical contradiction, such as married bachelor.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/06/2021 13:55:26
Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standardOne of the most powerful tool in philosophy is Rand's razor
Quote
first blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion."Slashing Your Way to Certainty" https://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Slash.htm
Quote
The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."Lexicon - “Rand’s Razor” - ARI Campus" https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/rands-razor/
So, you have acknowledged that some moral standards are good, while some others are bad. A universal moral standard is that which are good in every circumstance, without exception.
Post by: Just thinking on 20/06/2021 14:12:46
That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.as for the original post is there a universal moral standard obviously not as there are many lower standards out there that we can see.You should know that the existence of many bad things doesn't prove that good things don't exist.
You can prove the nonexistent of something by demonstrating that its existence creates logical contradiction, such as married bachelor.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/06/2021 18:42:24
Here is a list of words synonymous with hostile. Which one suits best for my case?None, I'm afraid, because they all imply intent to do harm. The arctic is often called a hostile environment but it was there long before people and will be there long after we have all killed each other: it simply has no interest in our survival. The art of survival in an indifferent environment often begins with that knowledge - nature isn't trying to kill you, but you will die if you don't act sensibly in your own interest, so don't get angry.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 03:06:53
None, I'm afraid, because they all imply intent to do harm. The arctic is often called a hostile environment but it was there long before people and will be there long after we have all killed each other: it simply has no interest in our survival. The art of survival in an indifferent environment often begins with that knowledge - nature isn't trying to kill you, but you will die if you don't act sensibly in your own interest, so don't get angry.It looks like you've missed my consequent post.
I guess the word deadly or destructive are better expression for our purpose here, so I'll start to use them in my future posts. Do you have any other concerns?Meanwhile, I also found another word: harsh.
Do you think they still imply intention?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 03:27:03
That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.This reminds me of a beautiful song titled Make It with You by B.R.E.A.D.
Quote
...They seem to realize that love can't be the basis for a universal moral standard. We may find a lot of examples where love goes right, but we may need someone to remind us that it could go wrong too.
Life can be short or long
Love can be right or wrong
...
Here is a famous example. Some sisters love their father so much that when their mother died, they decided to make their father drunk so they can make love with him. Some ancient societies, and some modern counterpart still think that it's a moral behavior, But I think many others would say that it's immoral. In some other cases, the father would do it willfully, so they don't even need to make him drunk first.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 03:32:58
will be there long after we have all killed each otherWe don't know for sure about that. That's why humans created moral rules.
Many of us modern humans already acknoledged that there is a significant chance that humans or their successors may outlive planet earth (hence arctic too) by becoming a multiplanetary society. Being a multistellar society would also be a possibility.
Post by: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 09:22:12
Well I still stick with my standard but in a difficult situation yes love and respect may have to be dropped so a love respect and fight moral standard. A good standard is one that deals with every situation in a necessary way.Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standardOne of the most powerful tool in philosophy is Rand's razorQuotefirst blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion."Slashing Your Way to Certainty" https://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Slash.htmQuoteThe requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."Lexicon - “Rand’s Razor” - ARI Campus" https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/rands-razor/
So, you have acknowledged that some moral standards are good, while some others are bad. A universal moral standard is that which are good in every circumstance, without exception.
Post by: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 09:29:39
Well I still stick with my standard but in a difficult situation yes love and respect may have to be dropped so a love respect and fight moral standard. A good standard is one that deals with every situation in a necessary way.Well I think a good place to start with a healthy moral standard is with respect and love as the opposite to respect and love is conflict, not a very good moral standardOne of the most powerful tool in philosophy is Rand's razorQuotefirst blade is "Rand's Razor", named after the famous novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand's Razor simply states, "Name your primaries," which means "name your irreducible axioms." It holds the basic axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity as the standards by which to ponder or to reject any assertion."Slashing Your Way to Certainty" https://attitudeadjustment.tripod.com/Essays/Slash.htmQuoteThe requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity — the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."Lexicon - “Rand’s Razor” - ARI Campus" https://courses.aynrand.org/lexicon/rands-razor/
So, you have acknowledged that some moral standards are good, while some others are bad. A universal moral standard is that which are good in every circumstance, without exception.
There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.That was my point there are good things out there as many people do have real love and respect meaning that there is good and bad there for it goes both ways no standard. People are free to choose their standard and I know which I chose.This reminds me of a beautiful song titled Make It with You by B.R.E.A.D.Quote...They seem to realize that love can't be the basis for a universal moral standard. We may find a lot of examples where love goes right, but we may need someone to remind us that it could go wrong too.
Life can be short or long
Love can be right or wrong
...
Here is a famous example. Some sisters love their father so much that when their mother died, they decided to make their father drunk so they can make love with him. Some ancient societies, and some modern counterpart still think that it's a moral behavior, But I think many others would say that it's immoral. In some other cases, the father would do it willfully, so they don't even need to make him drunk first.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/06/2021 09:55:26
Meanwhile, I also found another word: harsh.That's fair. Also corrosive, lethal, sterile, dangerous, and suchlike. My objective is to distinguish between what "happens to be" and what "tries to do", and practically all of the known universe happens either not to support life, or to be positively dangerous, apart from the surface of this rock. And possibly Mars, with a bit of clever engineering.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 11:20:12
There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.By definition, there is no exception for the universal moral standard. Let me know if you find one.
Post by: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 18:01:20
If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.There will always be extreme cases that challenge our standards and if one comes along then it may have to be dealt with acordanly even if our standards have to be put to one side.By definition, there is no exception for the universal moral standard. Let me know if you find one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/06/2021 23:17:44
If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.
Post by: Just thinking on 21/06/2021 23:25:40
I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/06/2021 00:13:25
You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.
I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.
This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 00:46:33
My answer was NO in my first post.You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.
I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.
This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 03:19:29
By claiming that there is no universal moral standard, you just recused yourself from judging others' moral standards. You can't say that Ted Bundy's actions were universally immoral, since they are in compliance with hedonistic morality, albeit the extreme one. You can only say that his morality is different than yours, and the dispute can only be settled by force, or if one of you stops existing. The same applies to other actions deemed immoral by most of modern societies, like genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, misogyny, religious violence, etc.I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.
Relativist morality is self defeating, thus useless. Most people don't hold this position. They are likely thinking that there must be a universal moral standard in some form, but they just haven't find it yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 03:54:40
Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation. You ignored the existence of altruistic behaviors, which we can convincingly observe in nature. Parents sacrifice themselves to give better future for their children. Extrapolate further, they sacrifice themselves for their great grand children, which are modified copy of themselves. Given enough time, the modifications are so much that they are no longer recognized to have come from the other.You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist.
I think we have proved that there cannot be a single universal moral standard. If there is more than one distinct living thing (other than perfect symbionts, which must count as one organism since one cannot survive without the other) there must be competition for finite resources, so what is good for A is bad for B.
This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 03:56:13
My answer was NO in my first post.Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make you more convincing.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 05:54:08
I don't understand if I don't believe in a universal moral standard then how is it that I can sit on a jury and make judgments on other people's actions.ps. I don't do that but just an example.By claiming that there is no universal moral standard, you just recused yourself from judging others' moral standards. You can't say that Ted Bundy's actions were universally immoral, since they are in compliance with hedonistic morality, albeit the extreme one. You can only say that his morality is different than yours, and the dispute can only be settled by force, or if one of you stops existing. The same applies to other actions deemed immoral by most of modern societies, like genocide, slavery, racial discrimination, misogyny, religious violence, etc.I think that one adopts the standards that they live by therefore we only have our personal standards that mean,s there is more than one standard meening the is no universal moral standard.If that be the case then I would have to say there is no universal moral standard.Do you understand the implications of your assertion? You just claimed that every moral standard is non-universal. Which makes you either a nihilist or moral relativist. You won't be able to say if a moral rule is better than the others. You'll just say that they are all good in their own right.
Relativist morality is self defeating, thus useless. Most people don't hold this position. They are likely thinking that there must be a universal moral standard in some form, but they just haven't find it yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 06:20:13
This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.You can build as beautiful and/or complex mathematical model as you like. But if it's not based on objective reality, it won't have much use, except perhaps for amusement purposes.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 06:38:22
Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.This is a deduction from pure mathematics, nothing to do with with philosophical tribalism.You can build as beautiful and/or complex mathematical model as you like. But if it's not based on objective reality, it won't have much use, except perhaps for amusement purposes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 08:20:51
Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.I've explained it here several times already, but since you are new in the discussion, I guess I'll try to explain it again in more refined and concise expressions. If you have some spare time, maybe you can check out my older posts. I guess it would be too long to be comfortably written in a single post, so let's start from the basics.
First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.
Then we need to know why we need a moral standard. It's essentially asking what would happen if we don't have any moral standard, and why it would be bad or unpreferred.
The answer would give us the common goal we want to achieve from establishing the moral standards.
Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 08:35:21
OK then based on your description I would suggest a standard that prescribes to not breaking the law and the standard would include the right to punish those that do. If that doesn't do it then you've got me stumped.Maybe you can tell me if there is a universal moral standard and if so what that might be.I've explained it here several times already, but since you are new in the discussion, I guess I'll try to explain it again in more refined and concise expressions. If you have some spare time, maybe you can check out my older posts. I guess it would be too long to be comfortably written in a single post, so let's start from the basics.
First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.
Then we need to know why we need a moral standard. It's essentially asking what would happen if we don't have any moral standard, and why it would be bad or unpreferred.
The answer would give us the common goal we want to achieve from establishing the moral standards.
Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 09:09:49
OK then based on your description I would suggest a standard that prescribes to not breaking the law and the standard would include the right to punish those that do. If that doesn't do it then you've got me stumped.Which law? North Koreans have laws too. So does Moses, Hammurabi, The Talibans. Even Nazis and ISIS have laws. At this point it seems like you've got stumped already. But don't worry, I'll explain the idea slowly, one point at a time.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 09:22:58
Then we have a Delmore as I first stated there is no universal moral standard as you your self have just admitted standards are different all over the world there for I shall just stick with mine and everybody to there own but we must remember we are all anserable to the law of the land.OK then based on your description I would suggest a standard that prescribes to not breaking the law and the standard would include the right to punish those that do. If that doesn't do it then you've got me stumped.Which law? North Koreans have laws too. So does Moses, Hammurabi, The Talibans. Even Nazis and ISIS have laws. At this point it seems like you've got stumped already. But don't worry, I'll explain the idea slowly, one point at a time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 11:07:31
Then we have a Delmore as I first stated there is no universal moral standard as you your self have just admitted standards are different all over the world there for I shall just stick with mine and everybody to there own but we must remember we are all anserable to the law of the land.If you are looking for difference among currently existing moral standards, then you'll get the difference. If you are looking for the universal moral standard, you should look for their similarities instead.
Is there something in common that at least most of currently existing moral standards have? Of course I have to exclude nihilism and moral relativism since by definition they are not compatible with the concept of universal moral standard. Including them would only creates contradiction.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 11:50:17
And that is my last point as there is no universal moral standard then contradiction rules.Then we have a Delmore as I first stated there is no universal moral standard as you your self have just admitted standards are different all over the world there for I shall just stick with mine and everybody to there own but we must remember we are all anserable to the law of the land.If you are looking for difference among currently existing moral standards, then you'll get the difference. If you are looking for the universal moral standard, you should look for their similarities instead.
Is there something in common that at least most of currently existing moral standards have? Of course I have to exclude nihilism and moral relativism since by definition they are not compatible with the concept of universal moral standard. Including them would only creates contradiction.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 11:54:36
And that is my last point as there is no universal moral standard then contradiction rules.Let's not jump into conclusion, and analyze the problem carefully, by answering the basic questions I've posted earlier one by one.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 12:03:51
OK this has been interesting but I am getting a little bit dizzy we have gone round and round you win and I am a fool I thank you for your time and effort in taking me this far.And that is my last point as there is no universal moral standard then contradiction rules.Let's not jump into conclusion, and analyze the problem carefully, by answering the basic questions I've posted earlier one by one.
Post by: Colin2B on 22/06/2021 13:52:49
you win and I am a foolI don’t think you are, but you have dropped into a very long and complex discussion with people who have been thinking about and discussing it for a while.
You would need to go to the beginning and work through - it’s complicated ;)
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 14:09:41
Very good try. Thank you but no thanks. I have my morals and I am very aware of others I can not validate the misgivings of others.you win and I am a foolI don’t think you are, but you have dropped into a very long and complex discussion with people who have been thinking about and discussing it for a while.
You would need to go to the beginning and work through - it’s complicated ;)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 14:26:48
OK this has been interesting but I am getting a little bit dizzy we have gone round and round you win and I am a fool I thank you for your time and effort in taking me this far.I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I guess it would be better if I can dedicate a full time explaining this from start to the end, summarizing all we've discussed here. Unfortunately I can't do that. I can only spare a few minutes between my other things to read and write in this forum.
Let's start with the first step.
First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.By definition found in dictionaries, morality concerns about good and bad behavior. Good things are what we like, while bad things are disliked. Traditionally, like and dislike are determined by emotion. But as we get wiser, longer term consequences are taken more into considerations.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 14:32:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 14:49:40
It gets so long because I pursued the answers with as much rigor as I can get. I tried as far as possible to avoid making assumptions without necessities, as Rand's razor suggests. If an assumption is necessary, then rejecting it would inevitably lead to contradiction.you win and I am a foolI don’t think you are, but you have dropped into a very long and complex discussion with people who have been thinking about and discussing it for a while.
You would need to go to the beginning and work through - it’s complicated ;)
Also remember that unexpected results come from false assumptions. If all your assumptions are true, you'll only get results that you have expected. Even when they are not what you really want.
Much of the posts discuss about extreme cases, exceptions and counterexamples, also clearing up disputes and misconceptions. The basic itself is pretty simple and straight forward, as I've compiled before into a few steps.
By Pareto rule, around 80% of problems come from 20% of causes. I think it's possible to summarize this thread into a few paragraphs without losing much of important points.
Post by: Just thinking on 22/06/2021 15:21:30
Yes now I am a follower of yours you have convinced me we will be together to the end and at that point I will say goodby to my good friend. I thank you so so much for your teaching of this very important life lesson I have learned so much in such a short time I can never thank you enuff. peace be yours.It gets so long because I pursued the answers with as much rigor as I can get. I tried as far as possible to avoid making assumptions without necessities, as Rand's razor suggests. If an assumption is necessary, then rejecting it would inevitably lead to contradiction.you win and I am a foolI don’t think you are, but you have dropped into a very long and complex discussion with people who have been thinking about and discussing it for a while.
You would need to go to the beginning and work through - it’s complicated ;)
Also remember that unexpected results come from false assumptions. If all your assumptions are true, you'll only get results that you have expected. Even when they are not what you really want.
Much of the posts discuss about extreme cases, exceptions and counterexamples, also clearing up disputes and misconceptions. The basic itself is pretty simple and straight forward, as I've compiled before into a few steps.
By Pareto rule, around 80% of problems come from 20% of causes. I think it's possible to summarize this thread into a few paragraphs without losing much of important points.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 23:46:02
Much of the posts discuss about extreme cases, exceptions and counterexamples, also clearing up disputes and misconceptions.I'd like to add that at the beginning, we started with brainstorming, by collecting many ideas from various sources, including Wikipedia, Youtube, and other members. Then we scrutinize each one of them, looking for their strengths and weaknesses, as well as their limitations and extentions. Only after considering alternative possibilities, we can be more confident with our own ideas.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/06/2021 23:56:59
By Pareto rule, around 80% of problems come from 20% of causes. I think it's possible to summarize this thread into a few paragraphs without losing much of important points.Elon Musk rightly pointed out that understanding is an information compression process. We collect a lot of information, and then filter out false and insignificant bits to get the core ideas, and rearrange them into a compact and consistent structure. It can then be used to recreate the original data by adding assumptions as necessary based on applicable circumstances.
Ideas in Newton's Principia can be compressed into 3 laws of motion and axiom of universal gravitation following inverse square law. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is summed up into four short equations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 02:53:26
Yes now I am a follower of yours you have convinced me we will be together to the end and at that point I will say goodby to my good friend. I thank you so so much for your teaching of this very important life lesson I have learned so much in such a short time I can never thank you enuff. peace be yours.Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate your willingness to learn from others. We obviously need to learn from others' mistakes, since we won't have enough time to make them all by ourselves.
The tallest barrier between us and the truth is our own convictions that we've already found it. We also need to be aware of being hyper sceptic, where we refuse to accept the truth when we find one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 05:00:48
Let's start with the first step.Continuing to finish the first step. Moral standards can be classified as memes, which are information located in the minds of conscious entities, and have influence on their behavior. Not all memes are moral standard. There must be some defining characteristics that distinguish them from other memes.
Before continuing, I want to make distinction between moral standards and moral rules. Previously I often used them interchangeably. IMO, their similarity is that they are both algorithms used to distinguish good behaviors from the bad ones. Moral rules adress particular issues, while moral standards aim to more general and fundamental concepts that underlie those rules.
An example can be put forward to help understanding this distinction better. In ten Commandments, each one of them is a moral rule. The moral standard behind those rules is obeying commands from Moses' God. Based on this standard, obeying Moses' God is good, while defying Him is bad. From one of the commandments, we are told that not stealing is good, thus stealing is bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Post by: Just thinking on 23/06/2021 06:07:06
You really do appear to be genuine to this very interesting and what seems to be a complicated question. The problem I have with this is that I feel that I have already described the concept and understanding of this. Please forgive me as I am now on a ship and have a very limited connection not to mention I am under the standard of the ship's captain and he has his rules regarding the moral standards aboard his ship. I will make contact with you again in due time all the best.Let's start with the first step.Continuing to finish the first step. Moral standards can be classified as memes, which are information located in the minds of conscious entities, and have influence on their behavior. Not all memes are moral standard. There must be some defining characteristics that distinguish them from other memes.
Before continuing, I want to make distinction between moral standards and moral rules. Previously I often used them interchangeably. IMO, their similarity is that they are both algorithms used to distinguish good behaviors from the bad ones. Moral rules adress particular issues, while moral standards aim to more general and fundamental concepts that underlie those rules.
An example can be put forward to help understanding this distinction better. In ten Commandments, each one of them is a moral rule. The moral standard behind those rules is obeying commands from Moses' God. Based on this standard, obeying Moses' God is good, while defying Him is bad. From one of the commandments, we are told that not stealing is good, thus stealing is bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 10:34:48
Before continuing, I want to make distinction between moral standards and moral rules. Previously I often used them interchangeably. IMO, their similarity is that they are both algorithms used to distinguish good behaviors from the bad ones. Moral rules adress particular issues, while moral standards aim to more general and fundamental concepts that underlie those rules.By the way, I haven't found a clear cut threshold to distinguish between moral rules and moral standards. How much generality is required to call it a moral standard instead of a moral rule? It may also depend on circumstances. It's like the threshold between black and white. Although the threshold can be fuzzy, but we can say that the darker it is, it's more likely to be called black, and vice versa. Similarly, the more specific it is, it's more likely to be called a moral rule.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Checker_shadow_illusion.svg/788px-Checker_shadow_illusion.svg.png)
In machine learning, the activation function often takes form of sigmoid curve. We can use similar approach here.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Gjl-t%28x%29.svg/1920px-Gjl-t%28x%29.svg.png)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 10:58:06
Quote
Morality can be a body of standards or principles ...
the more specific it is, it's more likely to be called a moral rule.
But moral rules can't be too specific either. Otherwise, it would only be applicable in very limited situations, thus useless in most other situations, and lose its function as a guidance. Here is an example.
Quote
Stone the rape victim for not screaming for helphttp://literalbible.blogspot.com/2007/03/stone-rape-victim-for-not-screaming-for.html
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife.
You must purge the evil from among you.
The first sentence is too specific to become a moral rule. The last sentence may be qualify as a moral rule, or even a moral standard, but then we need to be more specific on how to interpret the word evil.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 11:08:46
First we need to understand what a moral standard is, and what it is not.Now back to the first question. This time to distinguish between moral standard and non-moral standard. Google search replied with this.
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=32070;image)
For non-moral standards, we also got scientific, engineering, and management standards, for example. They mostly concern about uniformity and compatibility. They usually brings efficiency, which is a good thing. Ignoring them often leads to inefficiencies, which is a bad thing. A Mars lander crashed, costing millions of dollars, due to inconsistent usage of engineering unit. It shows that having good or bad consequences alone is not adequate to distinguish between moral and non-moral standard. There must be something else at play.
Post by: Colin2B on 23/06/2021 12:45:38
Please forgive me as I am now on a ship and have a very limited connectionBig ship I assume; I’m a by the wind sailor so I have a great deal of respect for the big ships and their crews.
I have a few friends who managed to further their studies on board, so I will give you some thoughts in the other thread and hope you have time to work on them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/06/2021 14:30:03
Now back to the first question. This time to distinguish between moral standard and non-moral standard. Google search replied with this.The answer offered there directs us to refer to the definition of moral itself. This makes it a circular reasoning. Other words added there merely put some details and examples based on the author's observations of their common usage at present.
https://philonotes.com/index.php/2018/06/08/moral-standards/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 01:34:55
We only say that an action is immoral when it violates our moral standard, and it is done intentionally. If at least one of those things are not fulfilled, we don't call it immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 08:22:43
A joke compares doctors with engineers.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.
Jokes aside, the criterion of intentions are often confusing when it's already implied into the name of the action itself, such as lying. Moreover, intentions are things that's hard to proof, at least until recently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 10:08:01
We can't say that a volcanic eruption, tsunami, or asteroid impact as immoral actions even though they cause a lot of deaths, and environmental damages which make it harder to live. That's because they lack of intention. They don't feel better by killing humans, or any other life forms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 13:48:00
The criterion of intention means that the persons who do immoral actions prefer the consequences of their actions that we don't like. It means that we have incompatible interests with them. Which means that their long term goals are different than ours.At this point, we can conclude that moral standards are closely related to long term goals. But as mentioned earlier, there's no clear cut distinction on how long they must be. I discuss about long term goals in another thread, which you might want to check.
Difference in long term goals doesn't necessarily causes immoral actions. They can be avoided by having adequately high tolerance. But when the incompatible difference is at the level of terminal goal, it's impossible to have the tolerance without causing some cognitive dissonance.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2021 16:05:30
Some other people think that heaven is something that they must build themself. They don't think that Moses' God even existed.
Those two groups of people have incompatible terminal goals. Some moral actions according to one group will be seen as immoral by the other. Tolerance can only be given so far until they inevitably have to violate their own moral standards.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 00:10:41
Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation.Apologies for slow response - been working too hard!
Not true. In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject. So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral standard. If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance. Neither of which seems to have much value in directing your everyday interactions in a multi-subject world.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 00:14:20
A joke compares doctors with engineers.True, but far more lives are saved by civil engineering than by medicine.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:29:08
moral rules can't be too specific either. Otherwise, it would only be applicable in very limited situations, thus useless in most other situations, and lose its function as a guidance.A rule applicable to only very specific people can't be a moral standard, or even moral rule. For example, rules which are specifically made for a king, or third wife of a king, and nobody else.
But if they apply to enough number of people, we can still arguably call it moral rules. Again, the exact threshold may not be clear. For example, rules which are made specifically for one caste, or slaves, or slave owners, or men, or women, or transgenders, or government officials, etc.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:39:22
The altruistic behaviors are not the terminal goal. They are merely instrumental. In some situations, being altruistic gives better results than being selfish, while in some other situations, it's reversed. So, both characteristics need to be maintained and balanced.Your proof relies on the assumption that everyone is pursuing self preservation.Apologies for slow response - been working too hard!
Not true. In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject. So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral standard. If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance. Neither of which seems to have much value in directing your everyday interactions in a multi-subject world.
Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.
The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:43:21
So we need a minimum of two subjects that could share a moral standard.A truly universal moral standard still applies even when there is only one conscious being left. Otherwise, it's just not universal enough.
The only condition where the universal moral standard doesn't apply is when there is no conscious being in the universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:45:39
It's not clear for me how you count them.A joke compares doctors with engineers.True, but far more lives are saved by civil engineering than by medicine.
What's the difference between a doctor and an engineer?
A doctor kills people one at a time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 05:52:08
In order for "universal" to have a nontrivial meaning, it must apply to more than one subject.Why can't it be trivial? Everything becomes trivial once it's well understood. You are imposing an unnecessary assumption, which will only make it harder to solve the problem.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 06:17:57
Then we need to know why we need a moral standard. It's essentially asking what would happen if we don't have any moral standard, and why it would be bad or unpreferred.Let's continue to the second step. Things that are still left unclear in the first step will be cleared here, or in the next steps.
In a society without moral standard, their members' behavior will be unrestricted. They will compete fiercely with one another for finite resources, and the selfish members have more chance to survive. They may sacrifice the other members in the process.
The society above will end up with only a few members left. It won't be able to compete with other societies which have a good moral standard. It will be crushed, or conquered. Their selfish members who were triumphant in internal competition will be forced to obey the moral standard of their conquerors, or just being killed.
Shortly, the moral standard is needed to improve our chance to survive, especially when we live in a society. I've explained in another thread in case you still wonder why being dead is bad.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 06:40:00
Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.This problem is better answered in the discussion about universal terminal goal. It would be like jumping in to the final step here. But I'll do it anyway, lest I'll forget about it later.
Here is another expression for Universal terminal goal:
The universe should be kept containing some form of consciousness, but it doesn't have to contain me in particular. I'll just call this universal altruism principle, because, why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 07:41:24
If they are both ultimately altruistic neither will eat the last apple and both will perish. So the only possible embodiment of a universal moral standard is either a mutual suicide pact or a passive acceptance of whatever happens by chance.I've mentioned before that the most immoral action is killing the very last conscious being in the universe. Because it leads to the worst case scenario, which is a universe without consciousness.
The moral standards that your offered exactly do that. Hence they must be rejected because they will lead to contradiction.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 11:42:14
The answer would give us the common goal we want to achieve from establishing the moral standards.
Shortly, the moral standard is needed to improve our chance to survive, especially when we live in a society. I've explained in another thread in case you still wonder why being dead is bad.A good moral standard would make living in a society has better chance to survive than living in solitary. Bad moral standards do the opposite. Here is an example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
Quote
The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, better known by its informal name "Jonestown", was a remote settlement in Guyana, established by the Peoples Temple, a San Francisco-based cult under the leadership of Jim Jones.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 12:54:33
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 13:03:23
Then generalize that common goal to cover as much subjects as possible, which will bring us to the universal moral standard.In the end, our study leads us to the universal terminal goal, which I discussed separately in another thread.
So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.
The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.
The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 14:29:59
The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.So your definition of moral means tending to survival. But
(A) if there's only one live being in the universe, what is the point of morality or survival and
(B) the best way to guarantee the survival of one being is to kill all the others so the available resources last for the longest time.
That's a fascist version of morality. Entirely logical and selfconsistent but not very popular nowadays.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 14:51:21
Here is an example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baduy_people
Quote
The Baduy also observe many mystical taboos. They are forbidden to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, get drunk, eat food at night, take any form of conveyance, wear flowers or perfumes, accept gold or silver, touch money, or cut their hair. In agriculture, the form of pukukuh is by not changing the contour of the land for the fields,[15] so much so that the way of farming is very simple, not cultivate the land with plowing or make any terracing, but only with hoe-farming method, that is with a sharpened bamboo. In construction of houses, the contouring of the soil surface are also left as is, therefore the poles of the Kanekes house are often not the same length.[15] Words and actions of the Baduy people are deemed as honest, innocent, without beating around the bush, and even in trade they do not bargain. Other taboos relate to defending Baduy lands against invasion: they may not grow sawah (wet rice), use fertilizers, raise cash crops, use modern tools for working ladang soil, or keep large domestic animals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 14:55:18
Any SIS engineer knows that one of the best way to improve reliability is by having system redundancy. Some diversity would be useful to prevent common mode failures.The apple should be given to the one with better chance to survive from the situation. If there's no reliable way to determine it, then random selection will be enough. It's similar to Buridan's ass I discuss in another thread. They should not be stupid enough to choose the worst possible option.So your definition of moral means tending to survival. But
(A) if there's only one live being in the universe, what is the point of morality or survival and
(B) the best way to guarantee the survival of one being is to kill all the others so the available resources last for the longest time.
That's a fascist version of morality. Entirely logical and selfconsistent but not very popular nowadays.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 15:16:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 21:20:14
Diversity is the antithesis of universality!How so?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2021 22:03:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 22:37:19
I like tea, she likes coffee. Diversity means that even if we run out of one product, one of us can enjoy a drink, so good. But there is no universally acceptable beverage in my tiny universe.I googled antonym of universal. I got three answers : particular, restricted, and local.
The synonyms are : general, ubiquitous, comprehensive, common.
It looks like you are confusing the word universal with uniform.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2021 23:03:33
The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.This assertion suggests us to be as diverse as possible, as long as it does not obstruct the efforts to achieve the terminal goal. It liberates us from being stuck at a particular spot in space, or a particular physical/chemical composition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 05:34:25
Our lives are regulated by, among other things, moral codes, codes prescribing what’s off-limits (what’s morally wrong) and what isn’t (what’s morally permissible). Just what is a moral code though? What is the source of morality? Is it our emotions or our reason or something else again? And there are further questions: why should anyone be moral? What’s in it for them? Plato gave these questions close attention. He took the view that a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough. Plato thought that, if only we had a clear idea of what moral goodness is, if only we could know it for what it is, we’d be bound to avoid wrongdoing. To know the good is to love it.Plato seems to understand what a moral standard is. But he couldn't find a universal one. Something must have prevented him, and many other philosophers, from finding the universal moral standard.
IMO, they failed because they've made hidden assumptions underlying their reasonings, which turned out to be false. They took for granted that moral standards must concern around human conditions. It was understandable when there is a significant gap of consciousness level between humans and other known forms of consciousness.
They failed to discover the universal terminal goal because they didn't think that humans can get the ability to break their physical limitations put forth by nature. They could not think that future human successors may be very different from what their contemporary people look like. They didn't think that Artificial General Intelligence is even possible.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 12:24:56
a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough.Most of us agree that some actions done by our ancestors are immoral by modern moral standards, such as genocide, slavery, misogyny, and racial discrimination. But at their time, those actions were not considered immoral. They couldn't think through the bad consequences clearly enough.
Their level of consciousness determines how far they think through the consequences of their actions. A baby may be able to think through the consequences of their actions up to a few seconds ahead. It might be a few days ahead for kids, or a few years for adults.
Philosophers may think through the consequences of their actions up to decades or even centuries ahead. But their imaginations are limited by their observations. They couldn't think about something vastly different than what they can see around them.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2021 14:27:32
Try "common".I like tea, she likes coffee. Diversity means that even if we run out of one product, one of us can enjoy a drink, so good. But there is no universally acceptable beverage in my tiny universe.I googled antonym of universal. I got three answers : particular, restricted, and local.
The synonyms are : general, ubiquitous, comprehensive, common.
It looks like you are confusing the word universal with uniform.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2021 14:31:56
Most of us agree that some actions done by our ancestors are immoral by modern moral standards, such as genocide, slavery, misogyny, and racial discrimination.Politics and religion depend on differentiating us from them. Until we get rid of both, the next generation will always see its ancestors as immoral because they made that distinction and the boundaries have been changed so that new priests and politicians can make a living.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 16:24:37
Try "common".The only common thing required to be addressed by universal moral standard is consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2021 22:45:13
Politics and religion depend on differentiating us from them. Until we get rid of both, the next generation will always see its ancestors as immoral because they made that distinction and the boundaries have been changed so that new priests and politicians can make a living.Do you think that the world would be better if we get rid of them?
Why haven't we?
Is it possible to make a better politics and religion instead?
If we remove all the myths from a religion, will it still be a religion?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2021 23:51:05
Upon their backs, to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
Et sic ad infinitum
But homo sapiens is an unusual species in being self-parasitic, even to the point that the parasites persuade the hosts to kill each other. This may not be a Bad Thing as far as the planet is concerned: we are merely a temporary disruption to the steady evolution and dominance of intelligent species like crocodiles and octopuses.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/06/2021 00:00:54
If we remove all the myths from a religion, will it still be a religion?The central and common myths are a divine purpose and an after-life. Dismissing them makes this life a lot simpler and more harmonious because we have to judge our actions solely on their visible consequences. Thus butchering unbelievers becomes a Bad Thing (it fails both my moral tests) and most current wars will cease.
Getting rid of political parasites is a bit more difficult but potentially just as rewarding.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2021 05:02:05
Big fleas have little fleasA planet is not conscious. It has no preference. So, nothing bad can happen to it. Including being engulfed by a dying star.
Upon their backs, to bite 'em
And little fleas have lesser fleas
Et sic ad infinitum
But homo sapiens is an unusual species in being self-parasitic, even to the point that the parasites persuade the hosts to kill each other. This may not be a Bad Thing as far as the planet is concerned: we are merely a temporary disruption to the steady evolution and dominance of intelligent species like crocodiles and octopuses.
IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/06/2021 15:48:32
IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.If I was building utopia, or a garden shed, I wouldn't start with a scaffold bent on self destruction, prone to irrational behavior and infested with parasites.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 04:39:26
If the scaffolding is already perfect, identical to ideal final product, it won't be called scaffolding in the first place.IMO, humans are scaffolding to build entities with higher level of consciousness. The universal moral standard is what it takes to prevent them from self destruction.If I was building utopia, or a garden shed, I wouldn't start with a scaffold bent on self destruction, prone to irrational behavior and infested with parasites.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2021 08:44:01
The simple definition of quality is fitness for purpose. I cannot see what purpose most humans might be considered fit for, apart from disseminating ignorance and waste products.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 11:30:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 12:22:01
Getting rid of political parasites is a bit more difficult but potentially just as rewarding.Are there political protagonists? How do you distinguish them from political parasites?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 12:28:21
The simple definition of quality is fitness for purpose. I cannot see what purpose most humans might be considered fit for, apart from disseminating ignorance and waste products.Perhaps you just need to see harder. AFAIK, humans have the best chance to build the first known multiplanetary society. If you think you know some better candidates, let us know.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2021 15:55:52
Other philosophers disagreed and found no route from reason to morality. David Hume thought that only emotion, not reason, could provide direction to our lives. There’s nothing contrary to reason, Hume provocatively said in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), to care more about scratching your finger than the fate of humanity. Something we should take from this debate between Plato and Hume is that it’s not at all like a parlour game on which nothing of consequence hangs. In fact, it’s hard to think of a problem that could have more consequence than one about how we’re to live our lives. Dismissing this debate as empty wordplay would be a cop-out, an evasion of an especially difficult intellectual problem. It is, moreover, far from being an isolated example. Debates about the reality of moral responsibility, the rationale for punishment or the moral status of animals raise other intellectually and morally pressing issues.Hume came into his conclusion using incomplete information. He didn't know the mechanism behind emotions. Neuroscience wasn't adequately developed yet.
I'm not sure if he was aware of the anthropic principle. But I guess he knew about Descartes' cogito ergo sum. He surely didn't know about universal terminal goal, nor the universal moral standard, based on his assertion in bold. Although they are simply logical consequences of those two principles.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2021 18:46:56
If you think that there are still a lot of flaws, perhaps we haven't gone very far, and there's still a long way to go.So far we have progressed from collaborative apes to concentration camps and nuclear weaponry in a few thousand years, with religious wars still fashionable in some areas. Extrapolating the moral "progress" vector doesn't impress me.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2021 18:48:29
Are there political protagonists? How do you distinguish them from political parasites?I don't.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2021 18:51:28
humans have the best chance to build the first known multiplanetary society.
As if screwing up one planet isn't enough, you want to spread hatred and superstition (the only uniquely human characteristics) to the rest of the universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/06/2021 12:09:46
So, all politicians are parasites then. May be you can support your assertion with some evidence?Are there political protagonists? How do you distinguish them from political parasites?I don't.
Or perhaps some simple logic, such as:
- all humans are parasites
- all politicians are humans
: all politicians are parasites
You'll just have to prove those premises to support the conclusion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/06/2021 12:11:12
Why do you think it's a bad idea? Do you have any better idea?humans have the best chance to build the first known multiplanetary society.
As if screwing up one planet isn't enough, you want to spread hatred and superstition (the only uniquely human characteristics) to the rest of the universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/06/2021 12:58:24
Why not? What would it take to impress you?If you think that there are still a lot of flaws, perhaps we haven't gone very far, and there's still a long way to go.So far we have progressed from collaborative apes to concentration camps and nuclear weaponry in a few thousand years, with religious wars still fashionable in some areas. Extrapolating the moral "progress" vector doesn't impress me.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/06/2021 00:26:18
What would impress me? An absence, or at least a reduction, of hatred and superstition. A "Health Secretary" who didn't pursue a policy of making COVID endemic: his predecessor was a corrupt incompetent and dishonest parasite, but not intentionally evil.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2021 03:12:46
We survive and prosper by collaboration and reason, so I think most people would agree that hatred and superstition are bad.So, hatred and superstition are bad because they reduce our chance to survive. In other words, survival is good, while extinction is bad.
The only case where extinction is acceptable is when it subsequently produce newer conscious beings which are better at survival.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2021 03:16:15
What would impress me? An absence, or at least a reduction, of hatred and superstition.Don't you think that they have been reduced significantly, compared to previous centuries?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2021 12:00:53
Apart from the universal altruism, there are non-universal altruism, e. g.Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.This problem is better answered in the discussion about universal terminal goal. It would be like jumping in to the final step here. But I'll do it anyway, lest I'll forget about it later.
Here is another expression for Universal terminal goal:
The universe should be kept containing some form of consciousness, but it doesn't have to contain me in particular. I'll just call this universal altruism principle, because, why not?
Individual altruism. A gecko drops its tail to distract a predator, and save its own consciousness.
Parental altruism. Parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children.
Kin altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save their siblings or close relatives.
Tribal altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save their tribe members.
National altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same nation.
Racial altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same race.
Species altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same species.
Genus altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same genus.
Universal altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other conscious entities.
The altruistic behaviors only make an evolutionary stable strategy if the one being saved is more likely to carry consciousness to the future than the one making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much better than suicide.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/06/2021 18:37:39
Alas, no. Superstition is on the rise everywhere, with rational governments being opposed and even replaced by theocracies, and the sale of small arms has nothing to do with brotherly love.What would impress me? An absence, or at least a reduction, of hatred and superstition.Don't you think that they have been reduced significantly, compared to previous centuries?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 00:29:04
Alas, no. Superstition is on the rise everywhere, with rational governments being opposed and even replaced by theocracies, and the sale of small arms has nothing to do with brotherly love.With advancements in technology which are becoming more accessible to everyone, especially space exploration, AGI, genetic engineering, robotics, nanotechnology, and direct brain interface, superstitions will have smaller space to retreat. Those who still embrace them will soon lose the competition and eventually driven into irrelevance.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 01:55:56
Quote
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a 2010 book by Sam Harris, in which he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (moral relativists) and religionists who say that morality is dictated by God and scripture.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape
In his book The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris argued about the existence of objective morality. It produces many critique from all sides, including scientists, philosophers, and theologians alike. They motivated him to issue a challenge.
Quote
https://samharris.org/the-moral-landscape-challenge/
May 31, 2014
The Moral Landscape Challenge: The Winning Essay
Last August, I issued the following challenge:
It has been nearly three years since The Moral Landscape was first published in English, and in that time it has been attacked by readers and nonreaders alike. Many seem to have judged from the resulting cacophony that the book’s central thesis was easily refuted. However, I have yet to encounter a substantial criticism that I feel was not adequately answered in the book itself (and in subsequent talks).
So I would like to issue a public challenge. Anyone who believes that my case for a scientific understanding of morality is mistaken is invited to prove it in under 1,000 words. (You must address the central argument of the book—not peripheral issues.) The best response will be published on this website, and its author will receive $2,000. If any essay actually persuades me, however, its author will receive $20,000, and I will publicly recant my view.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 06:16:17
Quote
Ryan Born: In issuing the Moral Landscape Challenge, you suggested some ways to refute your claim that questions of morality and value have scientific answers. One was to show that “other branches of science are self-justifying in a way that a science of morality could never be.” Here you seem to invite the “Value Problem” objection to your thesis, which you attempted to meet in your book’s afterword. I’ll be renewing that objection. Despite your efforts to invalidate it, the Value Problem remains a serious challenge to your thesis.
The “Value Problem” is your term for a common criticism of your proposed science of morality—namely, that it presupposes answers to fundamental questions of morality and value. You claim that what is good (the basic value question) is that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures, and that what one ought to do (the basic moral question) is maximize the well-being of conscious creatures. But science cannot empirically support either claim. Even granting that both claims are objectively true, science can do little more than fill in the descriptive empirical particulars. Such particulars may help illuminate specific moral values and principles, but only in light of the general ones you presuppose. Thus, your proposed science of morality cannot offer scientific answers to questions of morality and value, because it cannot derive moral judgments solely from scientific descriptions of the world.
Quote
You respond to the Value Problem in the following way: Every science must presuppose evaluative judgments. Science requires epistemic values—e.g., truth, logical consistency, empirical evidence. Science cannot defend these values, at least not without presupposing them in that very defense. After all, a compelling empirical case for the three values just named must show that they are truly values by using a logically consistent argument that employs empirical evidence. So when you speak of science as “self-justifying,” you appear to refer to the reflexive justification of certain epistemic values that all sciences share. But then you also note that the science of medicine requires a non-epistemic value—health. Science cannot show empirically that health is good. But nor, I would add, can science appeal to health to defend health’s value, as it would appeal to logic to defend logic’s value. Still, by definition, the science of medicine seeks to promote health (or else combat disease, which in turn promotes health). Insofar as you take the science of medicine to be “self-justifying,” you appear to hold that the very meaning of the science of medicine entails its non-epistemic evaluative foundation. From these two analogies (one to epistemic values, the other to medicine), you conclude that your proposed science of morality, in pulling itself up by the evaluative bootstraps, does no different from the science of medicine or science as a whole. In your view, to make any scientific claim, we must presuppose certain evaluative axioms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 06:17:34
Quote
Neither of your analogies invalidates the Value Problem. First, your analogy between epistemic axioms and moral axioms fails. The former merely motivate scientific inquiry and frame its development, whereas the latter predetermine your science of morality’s most basic findings. Epistemic axioms direct science to favor theories that are logically consistent, empirically supported, and so on, but they do not dictate which theories those will be. Meanwhile, your two moral axioms have already declared that (i) the only thing of intrinsic value is well-being, and (ii) the correct moral theory is consequentialist and, seemingly, some version of utilitarianism—rather than, say, virtue ethics, a non-consequentialist candidate for a naturalized moral framework. Further, both (i) and (ii) resist the sort of self-justification attributed above to science’s epistemic axioms; that is, neither is any more self-affirming than the value of health and the goal of promoting it. You might reply that the non-epistemic axioms of the science of medicine enjoy the sort of self-justification you have in mind for the moral (and likewise non-epistemic) axioms of your science of morality. But then your second analogy, between the science of medicine and your science of morality, fails. The former must presuppose that health is good and ought to be promoted; otherwise, the science of medicine would seem to defy conception. In contrast, a science of morality, insofar as it admits of conception, does not have to presuppose that well-being is the highest good and ought to be maximized. Serious competing theories of value and morality exist. If a science of morality elucidates moral reality, as you suggest, then presumably it must work out, not simply presuppose, the correct theory of moral reality, just as the science of physics must work out the correct theory of physical reality.
Quote
Nevertheless, you seem to believe you have worked out, scientifically, that your form of consequentialism, grounded in the supreme intrinsic value of well-being, is correct. Your defense of this moral theory is conceptual, not empirical, and requires engagement with work in moral philosophy, the intellectual home of consequentialism (in its myriad guises) and its competitors. Yet you identify science, not philosophy, as the arbiter of moral reality. In your view, no significant boundary exists between science and philosophy. In your book, you say that “science is often a matter of philosophy in practice,” subsequently reminding readers that the natural sciences were once known as natural philosophy. Bear in mind, however, the reason natural philosophy became the natural sciences: The problems it addressed became ever more empirically tractable. Indeed, some contemporary analytic philosophers hold that metaphysics will eventually yield (more or less) to the natural sciences. But even if that most rarefied of philosophical disciplines does fall to earth, metaphysics is a descriptive enterprise, just as science is conventionally taken to be. Ethics, i.e. moral philosophy, is a prescriptive enterprise, and thus will not yield so easily.
Quote
For now, I say you have not brought questions of ethics into science’s domain. No empirical inquiry into such questions can determine anything of clear moral significance without having normative conceptual answers already in place. And finding and justifying those answers requires a distinctly philosophical, not scientific, approach.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 08:23:48
So, my suggestion is to replace the word objective with universal to resolve the issue. This word doesn't deny the requirement of consciousness set forth by the word morality. Universal Moral Standard is just a logical consequence from two fundamental principles, i. e. anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 14:52:48
https://samharris.org/the-moral-landscape-challenge/The philosopher Russell Blackford judged the essays and picked a winner. Here's his report.
Quote
Other essays questioned whether well-being is a concept that can be used to measure or rank moral systems, customary practices, etc., objectively. Although the authors pursued this question in a variety of ways, most did not deny that whatever might be encompassed by the concept of well-being is of some relevance when we try to evaluate or influence moral systems. They did, however, see various limits to how far we can employ the concept. Unfortunately, this brief report is not the place for me to try to settle the issues.
Quote
Others challenged the “worst possible misery for everyone” argument in Chapter 1 of The Moral Landscape. This argument relies on a claim that we must all accept that a situation of universal, unremitting, and extreme agony is bad. But if we do so, does that mean we’re committed to maximizing the aggregate (or perhaps average) well-being of all conscious creatures? What if that conflicts with other values that some of us hold dear? Even if all people who are likely to read such a book evaluated the worst possible misery for everyone as very bad indeed, could we really, even in principle, produce an objective, uncontroversial rank order of all the other possible situations that might have diverse redeeming features?
Harris seems to have looking for the best case and worst case scenarios for conscious beings. In this regard, he has stepped in the right direction. Many of his critics say that he has gone too far, especially in applying science to answer philosophical questions. But my own results for best case and worst case scenarios show that instead of having gone too far, he hasn't gone far enough.
In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 17:17:06
While avoiding pain is a reaction to incoming rough information that something destructive is happening to our body. It is also an effort to reduce the risk of existential threat. It can't be the terminal goal. Otherwise, everyone should continuously use pain killers.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2021 20:17:56
Improving well being is an effort to reduce the risk of existential threat.A minor point, but can you think of a sentence where removing the word "existential" alters the meaning?
Come to think of it, risk and threat mean pretty much the same thing.
So wellbeing is absence of risk? I think not.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2021 22:49:04
In management, we often talk about SWOT: strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat. Not all threat is considered existential. Sometimes it's only about reduction of profits.Improving well being is an effort to reduce the risk of existential threat.A minor point, but can you think of a sentence where removing the word "existential" alters the meaning?
Come to think of it, risk and threat mean pretty much the same thing.
So wellbeing is absence of risk? I think not.
In process safety, risk is quantified as severity times probability of occurrence. Some examples : risk of explosion, risk of leakage, risk of overflow, risk of dry running.
Only perfect well being is. Reduction of risk means improvement of well being.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2021 23:31:42
I heard someone enthusiastically and repeatedly using the term "near enough for jazz" today as a positive statement implying fitness for purpose. Problem is that in musicians' jargon it's an ironic term meaning "way out of tune" - even to jazz musicians.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2021 04:05:28
So you are using "existential" to mean a threat to existence. That makes sense, but it isn't how most people use the word.I think you know what I meant. What do you think I should have written instead to avoid misunderstandings?
I know some words can mean different things in different places, and some means completely different than their roots, such as doctoring and machination.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2021 04:56:37
So, my suggestion is to replace the word objective with universal to resolve the issue. This word doesn't deny the requirement of consciousness set forth by the word morality. Universal Moral Standard is just a logical consequence from two fundamental principles, i. e. anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum.Interestingly the term universal morality has already been used by one of Harris' critics. Though it seems that he failed to realize its implications.
Quote
John Horgan, journalist for the Scientific American blog and author of The End of Science, wrote, "Harris further shows his arrogance when he claims that neuroscience, his own field, is best positioned to help us achieve a universal morality. ... Neuroscience can't even tell me how I can know the big, black, hairy thing on my couch is my dog Merlin. And we're going to trust neuroscience to tell us how we should resolve debates over the morality of abortion, euthanasia and armed intervention in other nations' affairs?"Horgan seems to think that neuroscience is a narrow field of science. He seems to have underrated the field and its capability to solve practical problems.
Quote
Neuroscience (or neurobiology) is the scientific study of the nervous system.[1] It is a multidisciplinary science that combines physiology, anatomy, molecular biology, developmental biology, cytology, computer science and mathematical modeling to understand the fundamental and emergent properties of neurons and neural circuits.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience
The understanding of the biological basis of learning, memory, behavior, perception, and consciousness has been described by Eric Kandel as the "ultimate challenge" of the biological sciences.[7]
The scope of neuroscience has broadened over time to include different approaches used to study the nervous system at different scales and the techniques used by neuroscientists have expanded enormously, from molecular and cellular studies of individual neurons to imaging of sensory, motor and cognitive tasks in the brain.
Although it should be noted that at least at this point, the main subject of neuroscience is still restricted to biological systems. This restriction puts humans at the higher end of consciousness level spectrum.
To achieve universal morality as Horgan's demanded, we need to push our limitations from biological systems as we know it. It must include all systems that have possibility to exist in objective reality, including any superhuman conscious entities.
The limitations in best case and worst case scenarios proposed by Sam Harris seem to come from his own field of expertise, which focused on biological systems. Furthermore, they specifically took the perspective of individual biological organisms, while omitting the perspective of superorganisms. It's only when we remove those unnecessary limitations, we can arrive at a logically consistent theory of universal morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2021 11:12:04
Here is another way to describe consciousness in the context of universal terminal goal. Consciousness level of a system describes how much control it has to determine its own future.
In any system, we can break down this capability into 3 main parts: input, process, and output. Input parts determine how good a system can collect information about physical reality in and around it. Process parts determine how good a system can process information collected by inputs, filter it, store it, and calculate the most optimal actions aligned with its terminal goal. The output parts modify or make changes to physical reality in and around it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2021 12:14:59
Harris seems to have looking for the best case and worst case scenarios for conscious beings. In this regard, he has stepped in the right direction. Many of his critics say that he has gone too far, especially in applying science to answer philosophical questions. But my own results for best case and worst case scenarios show that instead of having gone too far, he hasn't gone far enough.Perhaps his own field of expertise in studying human brains has held him down from expanding the scope of his moral theory. I think the situation is similar to improvement of Alpha Zero from AlphaGo by removing unnecessary restrictions put in place by human intuitions and experiences.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/07/2021 17:31:23
All very true, but as far as I can tell the word "existential" has no meaning. What is the difference between a threat and an existential threat?So you are using "existential" to mean a threat to existence. That makes sense, but it isn't how most people use the word.I think you know what I meant. What do you think I should have written instead to avoid misunderstandings?
I know some words can mean different things in different places, and some means completely different than their roots, such as doctoring and machination.
The old civil service "style manuals" said always use the fewest words and the shortest words, and if you have a choice, the Saxon (cow) rather than the French (bovine female).
Post by: alancalverd on 02/07/2021 17:38:58
Although it should be noted that at least at this point, the main subject of neuroscience is still restricted to biological systems. This restriction puts humans at the higher end of consciousness level spectrum.Which is either an expression of human vanity or an entirely unscientific definition of consciousness. The rank smell of philosophy is in the air.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2021 09:34:56
David Hume is famous with his guillotine, aka is-ought problem.Other philosophers disagreed and found no route from reason to morality. David Hume thought that only emotion, not reason, could provide direction to our lives. There’s nothing contrary to reason, Hume provocatively said in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), to care more about scratching your finger than the fate of humanity. Something we should take from this debate between Plato and Hume is that it’s not at all like a parlour game on which nothing of consequence hangs. In fact, it’s hard to think of a problem that could have more consequence than one about how we’re to live our lives. Dismissing this debate as empty wordplay would be a cop-out, an evasion of an especially difficult intellectual problem. It is, moreover, far from being an isolated example. Debates about the reality of moral responsibility, the rationale for punishment or the moral status of animals raise other intellectually and morally pressing issues.Hume came into his conclusion using incomplete information. He didn't know the mechanism behind emotions. Neuroscience wasn't adequately developed yet.
I'm not sure if he was aware of the anthropic principle. But I guess he knew about Descartes' cogito ergo sum. He surely didn't know about universal terminal goal, nor the universal moral standard, based on his assertion in bold. Although they are simply logical consequences of those two principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
A similar concept arises in the field of artificial intelligence, known as Orthogonality thesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence#Orthogonality_thesis
Just like Sam Harris, someone on the internet has tried to remove the blades from Hume's Guillotine, although he hasn't seem to be successful yet.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/05/hume-guillotine.html
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2021 16:02:49
All very true, but as far as I can tell the word "existential" has no meaning.I guess the Wikipedia author disagrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence#Orthogonality_thesis
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/07/2021 16:07:31
Just like Sam Harris, someone on the internet has tried to remove the blades from Hume's Guillotine, although he hasn't seem to be successful yet.Here's some quotes from the link above.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/05/hume-guillotine.html
Quote
Hume’s Guillotine: “One cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”. This thesis, which comes from a famous passage in Hume's Treatise [says]: there is a class of statements of fact which is logically distinct from a class of statements of value. No set of statements of fact by themselves entails any statement of value. Put in more contemporary terminology, no set of descriptive statements can entail an evaluative statement without the addition of at least one evaluative premise. To believe otherwise is to commit what has been called the naturalistic fallacy.”
– John Searle, ‘How to Derive an “Ought” from an “Is”’, The Philosophical Review, 1964
Quote
Major ethicists like Immanuel Kant and indeed – to an extent – Thomas Aquinas sought to establish a rational basis for deriving moral considerations. Why rationality above other justifications? Consider: one and one is two. This is a statement that appears to hold true regardless of the state of the world, whether we’re dreaming or awake (as Descartes famously pointed out in his Meditations), whether we’re in pain, and so on. However there is an implicit assumption being made here, too: that if we do agree that one and one is two, we who agree to this statement are rational agents; that is, beings who accept the constraints and rules of logic and rationality.
This appears to only beg the question: Why should anyone accept that one and one is two? (This problem so vexed the young Bertrand Russell, that he nearly mentally destroyed himself as an adult trying to establish conclusively that one and one is two.) As Sam Harris has said, how do you convince a person not interested in rationality to use rationality? As soon as you start making rational arguments, you’ve already lost.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/07/2021 16:35:08
All very true, but as far as I can tell the word "existential" has no meaning.I guess the Wikipedia author disagrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence#Orthogonality_thesis
Quote
Existential risk from artificial general intelligence is the hypothesis that substantial progress in artificial general intelligence (AGI) could someday result in human extinction or some other unrecoverable global catastrophe
In other words, existential means "not currently existing"!
Post by: alancalverd on 04/07/2021 16:39:59
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 06:15:57
In other words, existential means "not currently existing"!Here's what I found from a Google search.
Quote
An existential risk is any risk that has the potential to eliminate all of humanity or, at the very least, kill large swaths of the global population, leaving the survivors without sufficient means to rebuild society to current standards of living.https://futureoflife.org/background/existential-risk/?cn-reloaded=1
Until relatively recently, most existential risks (and the less extreme version, known as global catastrophic risks) were natural, such as the supervolcanoes and asteroid impacts that led to mass extinctions millions of years ago. The technological advances of the last century, while responsible for great progress and achievements, have also opened us up to new existential risks.
Nuclear war was the first man-made global catastrophic risk, as a global war could kill a large percentage of the human population. As more research into nuclear threats was conducted, scientists realized that the resulting nuclear winter could be even deadlier than the war itself, potentially killing most people on earth.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 07:06:39
On the subject of AI, why would anyone build a new machine that dislikes people, can deploy lethal force in its own defence, and can commandeer all the resources it needs to keep functioning? We already have religion and politics.Interestingly, I found this video in my YouTube recommendations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 14:10:53
Politics and religion depend on differentiating us from them. Until we get rid of both, the next generation will always see its ancestors as immoral because they made that distinction and the boundaries have been changed so that new priests and politicians can make a living.
Quote
„Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all.“ — Chuck Palahniuk, book DoomedSo, perhaps the best way to remove it is to find the right answer.
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1489111-chuck-palahniuk-religions-exist-because-people-would-rather-have-a/
Post by: alancalverd on 05/07/2021 22:24:44
An existential risk is any risk that has the potentialAha!
Merriam Webster
Quote
existential
[ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE
relating to existence.
philosophy
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
logic
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.
Silly me, using the logical meaning of the word, which is exactly opposite to the use you quoted!
Post by: alancalverd on 05/07/2021 22:29:46
QuoteBut there's the problem. Every religion claims to be the right answer, and they are all different.
„Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all.“ — Chuck Palahniuk, book Doomed
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1489111-chuck-palahniuk-religions-exist-because-people-would-rather-have-a/
So, perhaps the best way to remove it is to find the right answer.
The honest, scientific answer is usually "we don't know, but this equation summarises what we have seen and usually predicts what happens next" and nobody is despised for edging closer to the truth.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/07/2021 23:13:01
The meaning is reversed by the word risk. Health risk means there is significant severity and probability of losing one's health.An existential risk is any risk that has the potentialAha!
Merriam WebsterQuoteexistential
[ˌeɡzəˈsten(t)SH(ə)l]
ADJECTIVE
relating to existence.
philosophy
concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
logic
(of a proposition) affirming or implying the existence of a thing.
Silly me, using the logical meaning of the word, which is exactly opposite to the use you quoted!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2021 00:00:27
If we just say that we don't know and then stop, they will stick to their previous answers, like Palahniuk said. It would be better if we can give our latest best answer, and then update it as new information becomes available, and our answer becomes less and less wrong.QuoteBut there's the problem. Every religion claims to be the right answer, and they are all different.
„Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all.“ — Chuck Palahniuk, book Doomed
Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1489111-chuck-palahniuk-religions-exist-because-people-would-rather-have-a/
So, perhaps the best way to remove it is to find the right answer.
The honest, scientific answer is usually "we don't know, but this equation summarises what we have seen and usually predicts what happens next" and nobody is despised for edging closer to the truth.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/07/2021 11:53:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/07/2021 13:06:19
Never as clearly demonstrated as when Jonathan Van Tam appeared on TV and talked honestly about COVID, including all the unknowns and unknowables. Massively favorable public response after a year of being told lies presented as absolute truth by politicians.Or this journalist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/07/2021 19:23:02
On the subject of AI, why would anyone build a new machine that dislikes people, can deploy lethal force in its own defence, and can commandeer all the resources it needs to keep functioning? We already have religion and politics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2021 00:46:02
Quote
It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.
Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2021 12:36:41
An introduction to AI Safety, remastered from a talk at "AI and Politics" in LondonOn the subject of AI, why would anyone build a new machine that dislikes people, can deploy lethal force in its own defence, and can commandeer all the resources it needs to keep functioning? We already have religion and politics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/07/2021 12:14:00
It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.Pain and pleasure can be felt almost instantaneously. They don't require complex neural network to predict future event accurately. Nonetheless, moving away from painful situations can have significant reduction in risk of death.
More advanced version of reward functions are found in the form of happiness and sorrow. They can be viewed as expectation of pleasure and pain in the future, respectively. Kids can be happy when you give them money. They don't feel the pleasure yet, but they expect to get pleasure in the near future, made available by the money you give them.
This kind of reward functions require complex neural networks to predict future events accurately up to some point.
Some people can only simulate the events to near future, so they act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in near future. They feel happiness or sorrow when they are expecting to get pleasure and pain in near future. They may become addicted to drugs, alcohol, or junk foods. They avoid exercise and healthy foods. Some may be involved in crime, such as stealing.
Some other people can simulate the events to further future, so they act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain in further future. They feel happiness or sorrow when they are expecting to get pleasure and pain in further future. They avoid drugs, alcohol, or junk foods. They enjoy exercise and healthy foods, and feel happy for doing those activities.
Some other people can simulate the events to even further future, beyond their own lifetime. So they act to maximize pleasure and minimize pain of their next generations. They feel happiness or sorrow when they are expecting to give pleasure and pain to their successors in further future. They try to build a better environment for their successors to live and thrive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 00:37:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 01:39:22
This means that the action is based on false assumptions which are strongly held, or it's among the highest priorities in someone's beliefs. So if one day a new information contradicting it becomes available, he/she tends to ignore that and keeps the old belief instead.
An example may make it clear. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven after they die. They strongly believe that heaven really exist, and they believe that some actions will make them live again there forever after they die. Some of those actions are seen to be immoral by those who don't share the same beliefs or assumptions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 13:01:55
Plato realised that immoral actions are usually caused by lack of thoughtfulness. But we know that not all mistakes are classified as immoral. They are usually caused by shortsightedness. They sacrifice long term goals just to try to achieve shorter term goals.Mistakes caused by false beliefs in shallow/peripheral level can be dismissed from immoral actions. For example, a doctor misdiagnoses a patient due to a new/rare/unknown disease, and gives a wrong prescription which harms the patient. But intentional negligence or ignorance can be classified as immoral, although the boundary might be fuzzy.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/07/2021 14:09:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2021 15:00:59
All the more reason to adopt a simple test of morality with no invocation of belief. Would you behead yourself or the person you love most? If yes to the first test, then why haven't you done it?I've already addressed your tests.
"Kill infidels" thus becomes a moral imperative. But it fails my tests: you wouldn't want to kill yourself (if you think the order is legitimate, you aren't an infidel) and your nearest and dearest (by definition of near and dear).Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:
- Everyone is pursuing self preservation
- Everyone loves someone
- Everyone is rational
It turns out that those assumptions are not always true.
Sometimes someone stops pursuing self preservation. But commonly used moral standards don't grant them right to harm others for that. So you add the second test, based on second assumption. In your opinion, moral actions must pass both tests. This additional test reduces the case where an action can pass your tests while failing commonly used moral standards.
But the second assumption is not always true either. Although extremely rare, it's still possible that someone loves noone. If it happens that they don't love themselves either, they can do immoral things without failing your tests.
Perhaps the most cases of immoral actions are done when third assumption turns out to be false. In this case, they can do immoral actions without failing your tests.
Let me know if you have something new to say.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/07/2021 18:19:46
The problem with any argument around "false beliefs" is the impossibility of falsifying some beliefs, such as an eternity in paradise for the killer of infidels.
Intentional ignorance is a strange concept, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the morality of an action has anything to do with the knowledge or intention of the person doing it. That leads dangerously close to the evangelical concept of damnation by education. The principle there is that our merciful god doesn't condemn or punish the ignorant, but as soon as I have preached the gospel to you, you are damned if you disobey the rules I have just set out.
On the other hand the legal principle is that ignorance of the law does not excuse you from obeying it. And yet we have the concept of "reading the riot act" that requires those in authority to proclaim that authority before taking punitive action.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 04:16:35
If he has no loved ones he can't answer "yes" to Q2.Does it make everything he does immoral?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 04:27:54
The problem with any argument around "false beliefs" is the impossibility of falsifying some beliefs, such as an eternity in paradise for the killer of infidels.Although perfect knowledge is impossible, we can still use practical knowledge based on probability and statistics.
The key point here is determining how much likely they will repeat their actions which produce bad consequences to the society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 04:40:07
Intentional ignorance is a strange concept, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the morality of an action has anything to do with the knowledge or intention of the person doing it. That leads dangerously close to the evangelical concept of damnation by education. The principle there is that our merciful god doesn't condemn or punish the ignorant, but as soon as I have preached the gospel to you, you are damned if you disobey the rules I have just set out.1. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies not knowing that she is allergic to peanut.
2. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies after knowing that she is allergic to peanut.
What matters in determining morality of an action is its intended consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 04:44:30
On the other hand the legal principle is that ignorance of the law does not excuse you from obeying it. And yet we have the concept of "reading the riot act" that requires those in authority to proclaim that authority before taking punitive action.There are differences between legal and moral principles, although there are some similarities too.
In some countries, making a joke on their supreme leaders are illegal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 07:02:19
0:00 - Republicans Squash The Death Penalty
5:08 - Serial Killer Tourism In Nebraska
6:30 - The Tri-Faith Initiative: Peace In America’s Middle East
Post by: alancalverd on 13/07/2021 23:01:26
1. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies not knowing that she is allergic to peanut.In case 1 he would honestly answer yes to both tests. In case 2 he could not. So I will grant you that actions taken with entirely good intentions (you used the word "treat") can have bad consequences, and an action that fails my tests is immoral.
2. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies after knowing that she is allergic to peanut.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2021 04:40:30
In both cases, you can use your tests within its limits of applicability, as I mentioned previously.1. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies not knowing that she is allergic to peanut.In case 1 he would honestly answer yes to both tests. In case 2 he could not. So I will grant you that actions taken with entirely good intentions (you used the word "treat") can have bad consequences, and an action that fails my tests is immoral.
2. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies after knowing that she is allergic to peanut.
Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:if x pass test#1 then
Everyone is pursuing self preservation
Everyone loves someone
Everyone is rational
It turns out that those assumptions are not always true.
if x pass test#2 then
x=moral
else
x=immoral
endif
else
x=immoral
endif
Although your tests can be used as a rule of thumb, which is fine for most of cases, we still need to acknowledge its limitations. I've mentioned Charles Whitman and Jim Jones as some examples. I think most of us agree that their actions are immoral, although they didn't violate your tests.
Post by: Just thinking on 14/07/2021 04:55:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2021 08:01:39
What matters in determining morality of an action is its intended consequences.
Thousands thought they were getting the Covid vaccine. They were injected with salt water instead
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/05/india/india-fake-covid-vaccine-scam-intl-hnk/index.html
Quote
Thousands of people have fallen prey to an elaborate wide-ranging scam selling fake coronavirus vaccines in India, with doctors and medical workers among those arrested for their involvement, authorities say.
At least 12 fake vaccination drives were held in or near the financial hub Mumbai, in the country's western Maharashtra state, said Vishal Thakur, a senior official of the Mumbai police department.
"They were using saline water and injecting it," Thakur said. "Every fake vaccination camp that they held, they were doing this."
An estimated 2,500 people were given fake shots, he said. The organizers charged their victims fees for the shots, earning up to $28,000 in total.
"We have arrested doctors," he added. "They were using a hospital which was producing the fake certificates, vials, syringes."
So far, 14 people have been arrested on suspicion of cheating, attempts at culpable homicide, criminal conspiracy, and other charges. More arrests may come as police continue investigating other people involved in the scam, Thakur said.
India was ravaged by a second wave of coronavirus between April and early June, which infected millions and killed tens of thousands nationwide. After peaking in May, daily cases have slowly declined, easing the pressure on the strained medical system -- and allowing authorities to step up their vaccination program during the country's recovery.
People left unvaccinated in the face of a pandemic is a part of consequences intended by the scammers, although it may not be the main motivation. It's more plausible that they are motivated by making easy money, regardless of the side effects to other people's life and health.
It's possible that some of the scammers did it without violating Alan's moral tests. For example, if they and their loved ones have already got natural immunity from contracting the virus previously. But it should not mean that their action was morally acceptable.
Post by: Just thinking on 14/07/2021 11:54:50
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.I really thought I had it that time an old friend told me that quote some time ago.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2021 11:58:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2021 12:02:34
It's known as golden rule.Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.I really thought I had it that time an old friend told me that quote some time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Quote
The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in most religions and cultures.[1] It can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions, although different religions treat it differently.
The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)[1]
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)[1]
The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BCE), according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies the concept appearing prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions".[2] 143 leaders of the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic".[3][4] According to Greg M. Epstein, it is "a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely", but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.[5] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[6]
Post by: Just thinking on 14/07/2021 13:51:41
The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:This makes good sense according to man.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 00:34:56
For someone who is both rational and wants to survive as well.The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:This makes good sense according to man.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 03:37:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 04:06:05
Quote
Via America’s Lawyer: Back in February, the House of Representatives released an alarming report about toxic heavy metals found in popular baby foods, which can cause long-term developmental harm. Attorney Madeline Pendley joins Mike Papantonio to discuss how manufacturers now face a bundle of class-action lawsuits.
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
Back in February, the House of Representatives released an alarming report about toxic heavy metals found in popular baby foods. Now manufacturers are in the hot seat facing a bundle of class actions, attorney Madeline Pendley joins me now to talk about this. You know, I, I, my takeaway on this, one of the first, one of the first things I read was the FDA has an action plan. That's almost an, that's an oxymoron.
Yeah, it's discouraging. It doesn't mean anything at all.
It means nothing's going to happen. Tell us why these class action lawsuits are about.
Essentially the biggest baby food manufacturers in the country have been poisoning your children. So these manufacturers have sold baby food that's contaminated with significantly high levels of very dangerous heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, mercury and children have been exposed to it for years.
It's a long-term exposure that's the issue. I mean, a doctor can say, yeah, if baby eats mashed up pears, that taste awful by the way, eats them, then they're probably going to be okay for that.
Right.
But when they do it day after day after day for years, it is that long-term exposure that causes the problem, right?
Right. So part of the problem with heavy metals is the exposure kind of builds up or accumulates in the body each time somebody is exposed. So really any exposure can add to a harmful amount of heavy metals in the body.
Yeah. In other words, you don't just rid your body of heavy metals, every 24 hours. It's bioaccumulative is what they would call it.
Exactly.
Some of them are what we call biopersistent.
Right.
But we do know this, it's bioactive. It affects, it affects your systems, your, your brain, other, other systems in the body. And they've known about, they, they've known about the dangers of heavy metals for decades and decades. Who are the companies that are involved in this?
It's a lot of really big household names, actually, you know, like Campbell's, Beech-Nut, Gerber, Happy Baby by Nurture and Parent's Choice by Walmart.
Doesn't it, doesn't that sound sick? Happy Baby has now, my memory is Happy Baby had, where it came to, it came to arsenic, it had like 600 times what it should have, 600 parts per billion. Is that right?
Exactly, yes.
And that is, that's off the scale.
Right.
And nevertheless, Happy Baby's selling the product and they're saying, gee whiz, everything's going to be okay. Your, your baby's going to be well taken care of. Some of them even advertise that it's organic and you don't have to worry about it, right?
Right. And the problem with organic is, I mean, whether this is true or not, when people are purchasing organic products, they're doing it because they want it to be safer to some extent, you know, they want it to be free from harmful chemicals and things like that. So it's especially frustrating that these companies were allowed to market their product as organic and therefore safer although it had significantly high levels of dangerous heavy metals.
What are the potential health impacts that we're talking about here? What would, what do we expect when you take a child that's in those developmental years and you expose them to heavy metals for years?
So what we know is, is one, this is not some hypothetical harm that we're talking about. There are many studies that correlate heavy metal exposure to children with developmental delays.
It's an example of immoral action where short term goal sacrifices longer term goals.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/07/2021 10:47:44
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 11:31:36
I must ask when you say is there a universal moral standard do you mean is there one in action now ore do you mean is there a standard available that we are not using?When starting the thread I wasn't sure if there is in fact a universal moral standard, although my intuition said yes, there is.
After long discussion, reading literatures, watching Youtube videos related to this topic, and think it through, I found that the answer is yes. I even figured out what it is. But apparently we are not using it yet. It even seems that most of us haven't aware about it yet.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/07/2021 12:01:30
When starting the thread I wasn't sure if there is in fact a universal moral standard, although my intuition said yes, there is.Are you hoping that someone will confirm your discovery and are you at some point in time going to tell the world of your insight?
After long discussion, reading literatures, watching Youtube videos related to this topic, and think it through, I found that the answer is yes. I even figured out what it is. But apparently we are not using it yet. It even seems that most of us haven't aware about it yet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 12:45:12
Are you hoping that someone will confirm your discovery and are you at some point in time going to tell the world of your insight?I think so. Although it doesn't have to be me who will convince the world about it. Since it's universal, sooner or later someone will discover it, as long as we don't go extinct before that. But if we can get there sooner, why must we wait and waste precious time? I've mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to argue against that.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/07/2021 13:11:13
I've mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to argue against that.If efficiency is the ultimate main component then a standard that is designed to accommodate this function would be very difficult even destructive for many as efficiency is for the efficient. This type of action would be very beneficial to many and leave many in its wake. eg. An efficient car is only effective within its limits too much load will defeat the purpose.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 13:27:34
Efficiency is instrumental, which is usually described as ratio between results and used resources. So it has lower priority after effectiveness. If the terminal goal is not achieved, then the efficiency is 0, because even if you use no other resources by doing nothing, you still waste time, which is the most valuable resource.I've mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to argue against that.If efficiency is the ultimate main component then a standard that is designed to accommodate this function would be very difficult even destructive for many as efficiency is for the efficient. This type of action would be very beneficial to many and leave many in its wake. eg. An efficient car is only effective within its limits too much load will defeat the purpose.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/07/2021 14:09:30
Efficiency is instrumental, which is usually described as ratio between results and used resources. So it has lower priority after effectiveness. If the terminal goal is not achieved, then the efficiency is 0, because even if you use no other resources by doing nothing, you still waste time, which is the most valuable resource.So by adopting efficiency as the standard we would shed the load and achieve the ultimate efficient world machine.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 15:53:24
So by adopting efficiency as the standard we would shed the load and achieve the ultimate efficient world machine.Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/07/2021 16:04:51
Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2021 00:00:31
How do you come to that conclusion?Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
Post by: Just thinking on 16/07/2021 09:41:51
Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.I would like to answer that question but first can I ask is the end result of the standard to have a utopia world.
There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
How do you come to that conclusion?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2021 10:05:34
What do you mean by newtopias world?Yes, as long as we don't sacrifice the effectiveness.I would like to answer that question but first can I ask is the end result of the standard to have a newtopias world.
There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
How do you come to that conclusion?
A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.
So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.
The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.
The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
And here's why some philosophers failed to answer the question.
However, we cannot simply dismiss ideas that are non-rational as a whole. The great David Hume famously realised this in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. This quotation is worth showing in full (if only to have an excuse to relish in the man’s writing).QuoteIt appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.
Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)
Post by: Just thinking on 16/07/2021 10:18:33
What do you mean by newtopias world?I believe that the meaning of utopia is a world that is self sufficient and rid of unnecessary complications.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2021 10:54:34
Well, I guess that's what a universal terminal goal lead us to.What do you mean by newtopias world?I believe that the meaning of newtopias is a world that is self sufficient and rid of unnecessary complications.
And what do you mean by this?
There would be no more rich people because all the poor people would be gone that did all the low paid work.
Post by: Just thinking on 16/07/2021 12:35:43
Well, I guess that's what a universal terminal goal lead us to.Ok, big story to come. Well first to explain why there are wealthy people. eg: A poor man goes to the baker and buys a loaf of bread he pays $3 a rich man goes to the baker and he pays $3 for a loaf of bread. A poor man buys a new car he pays $30,000 a rich man buys a new car and pays $30,000 Now the poor man is in great debt the rich man continues on with a big smile and no more than a scratch in his wealth. They both got what they wanted With very different consequences to their future. The products came from the hard work of people that are closer to the poor man's situation than that of the wealthy. So to balance out this difference we must pay the manufacturer the same wage as the poorer man and the rich that have gained their wealth due to being overpaid must give back the money that they were overpaid and their inheritance that came from the same circumstances must be paid back. Now we can all enjoy a loaf of bread with the same scratch. The rich people of this earth have risen up on the backs of the lower paid and the poor if we all had $10,000,000 who would bake the bread and how much would a loaf of bread cost. Would a baker sell a loaf of bread for $3 if he had $10,000,000? The poor people support the rich.
And what do you mean by this?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2021 02:58:07
Ok, big story to come. Well first to explain why there are wealthy people.To be balanced, you also need to explain why there are poor people. Is it possible for a society to consist of poor people only, with no single wealthy one?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2021 05:48:16
So to balance out this difference we must pay the manufacturer the same wage as the poorer man and the rich that have gained their wealth due to being overpaid must give back the money that they were overpaid and their inheritance that came from the same circumstances must be paid back.How to determine if someone is being overpaid?
A baker can produce 100 bread a day. Another baker can produce 1000 a day. Their bread has same specifications. Should they have the same income?
A billionaire makes money by polluting the environment. Another billionaire makes money by reducing environmental pollution. Should they be treated the same?
Post by: Just thinking on 17/07/2021 20:40:28
Is it possible for a society to consist of poor people only, with no single wealthy one?No one would need to be considered poor as all should be equal.
Post by: Just thinking on 17/07/2021 20:56:15
How to determine if someone is being overpaid?The baker needs to sell a set number of his product and there needs to be a limit set to prevent unfair trade. As for pollution there must be non in order to achieve the effectiveness of the moral standard. So it will be required to have a world with clean energy.
A baker can produce 100 bread a day. Another baker can produce 1000 a day. Their bread has same specifications. Should they have the same income?
A billionaire makes money by polluting the environment. Another billionaire makes money by reducing environmental pollution. Should they be treated the same?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2021 22:53:43
The baker needs to sell a set number of his product and there needs to be a limit set to prevent unfair trade.How to set the limit?
As for pollution there must be non in order to achieve the effectiveness of the moral standard.What does it mean?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2021 00:57:39
If you have children, you presumably want to give them the best you can. And you expect other people to do likewise. So you feed and clothe them - no problem. If you can afford it, do you give them private education? What moral principle is being broken? Now you die and leave your money to your children rather than the cats' home or the taxman. Nobody questioned what you did with your own money when you were alive, so why does it matter who gets it when you are dead?
Is anyone (apart from bankers and politicians) really overpaid? If you are selfemployed, you are in competition with other traders and your customers will either buy the cheapest or the best. Footballers and other entertainers are paid only as much as people are prepared to pay to watch them. Very few people provide a unique and essential service for which they can charge extortionately. Making a lot of money is almost always the result of running a very efficient organisation to provide what people need (surely a Good Thing) , or doing a very good job of selling something that people would like to have (whose business is it how folk spend their discretionary funds?).
Let's look at the baker. I used to work in a craft bakery, making about 200 loaves a day. With a bigger oven and another sweaty lad, we could have made 400 - stock and quality control are easily scalable at this level without increasing the management overhead. So the owner could have taken a chance, borrowed some money, bought another oven, and doubled his income (it was back in the day that banks used to lend money to small businesses). What's morally wrong with that? Now the market for hand-baked fresh bread is necessarily local, so limited. We'd either have to make it better or cheaper than the guy in the next street if we were to double our sales. Better or cheaper, the customer benefits, so that's a Good Thing, but our competitor will suffer. To whom do we owe a moral duty: ourselves (and our children), our customers, or our competitors?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/07/2021 01:40:57
Quote
Bret Weinstein and Zuby discuss whether or not income inequality and wealth inequality are a problem in the modern Western world, and if so, to what extent.It's pointed out in the video, the difference between wealth inequality and opportunity inequality.
Also active efforts from big business to kill the competitors by selling at loss and hoping to gain more profit when they achieve market monopoly.
Selling at lost is a common practice done by startups to get initial customers, which will hopefully act as their advertisers when they are satisfied by the product/service. It's known as cash burn. Is there known limit to this?
Post by: Just thinking on 18/07/2021 11:46:37
the difference between wealth inequality and opportunity inequality.Yes, this is unfair play and deceptive the big man squashing the little men. That is why we must have a standard that allows for an even court.
Also active efforts from big business to kill the competitors by selling at loss and hoping to gain more profit when they achieve market monopoly.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2021 17:33:34
My favorite moral conundrum concerns patents and food - two of my favorite hobbies! Obviously a patent is a Good Thing as it prevents an inventor being ripped off by copyists. So I develop a strain of rice that yields 20% more than any natural variety. The ecofascists demand that it be sterile so it doesn't crossbreed with anything "organic" or take over the world (like organic Japanese Knotweed). It took me years and millions to get it right, so I protect it with a patent.
Now farmer Bloggs buys my seed, saves money on fertiliser (ecofascists please note), and sells at a lower price than Jones (it's a competitive market and surely cheap food is a Good Thing). Jones either goes out of business or buys my seeds. Pretty soon, nobody in whichever state my product was optimised for, can make a living growing any other rice, and I make loads of money because (by legislated design) each seed will grow one stalk and no more. At what point did all these Good Things turn into a moral disgrace, and how can we prevent it?
Post by: Just thinking on 18/07/2021 17:49:43
At what point did all these Good Things turn into a moral disgrace, and how can we prevent it?This is the aim of a moral standard that would prevent a monopoly on goods as science would be expected to shear their finding and no patency would be granted based on a fair moral standard. A world that shares and lives equally. Something that the world will never accept.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2021 20:53:30
"Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."
Given what we know about people, how do you expect to replace patents with fair sharing? Who determines a "fair" return for a lifetime's work on a project? One of the strengths of a patent is that you can sell or licence it to a manufacturer, and if it has
generic value, to several manufacturers, thus offering a fair share of the market to those best able to satisfy demand, and a fair reward to the inventor based on the prospective (sale) or actual (licence) value of his invention. If a manufacturer is going to tool up for production, set up an advertising campaign, and deploy people to make and sell the product in the hope of making a living for himself and his employees, he is going to want clear priority or an agreed prospective market share before committing men money materials and machinery to making it: a patent gives some degree of certainty.
At a personal level, if you had created a work of art, say a book or a painting, would you be happy if I copied it and sold mine as an original? Or if I flagrantly impersonated you for gain? Copyright, registered designs and trademarks protect the originator from fraud.
Post by: Just thinking on 18/07/2021 21:05:43
At a personal level, if you had created a work of art, say a book or a painting, would you be happy if I copied it and sold mine as an original? Or if I flagrantly impersonated you for gain? Copyright, registered designs and trademarks protect the originator from fraud.And that is why the last part of my previous thread indicates that it would never be accepted so a better moral standard that allows for all these things that you mention is needed and we already have that so back to the original question is there a universal moral standard. Mine doesn't work.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/07/2021 22:53:30
It's very difficult to legislate against a presumed intent. A startup sells at a loss to establish a name in the market. A major retailer sells surplus at a loss to clear a warehouse or correct overordering of time-limited stock. At what point is this unfair? Was EU "intervention buying" and denaturing of Italian wine to maintain market prices morally justified?It's indeed difficult, but not impossible. You can do that if you have access to all of their internal data and communication. You also need enough computing power to infer relationship among those data to get the correct conclusion.
Yuval Noah Harari asserted that it has been tried in the past, called centralized economic system, but failed. And the failure was mainly because of technical difficulties, namely limitations of communication and data processing power. But now those limitations are starting to disappear.
Someone with that much power can do a lot of good things, but on the other hand, they can also cause a lot of damages when they are misguided or somehow deceived. That's why understanding of universal terminal goal is important. It's required to establish the universal moral standard. And achieving that goal will require the building of accurate and precise virtual universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 05:55:23
so back to the original question is there a universal moral standard. Mine doesn't work.What's your answer? Why it doesn't work?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 06:03:47
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Quote
All Our Patent Are Belong To You
Elon Musk, CEO June 12, 2014
Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.
At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.
Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.
We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.
Here is another from Linux
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/
Quote
Unlocking the value of shared technology
Innovation comes from everywhere. We help companies and developers identify and contribute to the projects that matter. Working together, the Open Source Community is addressing the challenges of industry and technology for the benefit of society. Code is power. Community is strength. We are one.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 06:13:07
What's your answer? Why it doesn't work?We cant have a world that is fair so the top must stay on the top and the little on the bottom the way it's always been after all the rich must stay rich and the poor must stay poor who in their right mind would want a world that is fair obviously not the rich.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 06:15:23
https://soulsalt.com/abundance-mindset/
Quote
An abundance mindset means to see the limitless potential in life.
It means you can see the potential in yourself, and everyone around you. As a result, you intentionally drive yourself toward creating the life you want.
When I think of an abundance mindset, I think of these key traits:
Thinking big: People with an abundance mindset tend to think big, rather than limit themselves to a bird’s-eye view of their circumstances.
Growth mindset: Living in abundance means having a growth mindset — the belief that you can improve your intelligence and skills with effort, and you aren’t stuck with what you have.
Optimism: The “glass half full” type of person, focusing on what they have, rather than what they lack.
Knowing there’s enough to go around: Abundance thinking means seeing a limitless amount of resources such as love, money, and success. In other words, someone else’s success or advantage does not take away from your own.
Generosity of spirit: They feel genuinely happy for other people’s success, rather than resentful.
Embracing change: They accept and embrace change, rather than resist.
Taking action: They take a proactive approach to life, by seizing opportunities and working toward their goals.
Planning ahead: They plan for the future, rather than waiting around for things to happen.
An open mind: A person with an abundance mentality keeps an open mind and continues to learn, rather than believing they already know it all.
Know their strengths (and weaknesses): They have identified their strengths, then used these qualities to go after what they want. They accept their shortcomings rather than being limited by them.
Quote
People with a scarcity mindset have a zero-sum view of the world: whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.
When you think in terms of scarcity, you put yourself in a box. You live within four walls of resentment, entitlement, stagnance, and victimhood. You see another person’s success as your loss.
People with a scarcity mentality often fall into a cycle of negativity that not only pushes people away, but also holds them back from achieving goals. They say things like:
They always get what they want.
I never get what I want.
I don’t have enough money.
I can’t do it.
A scarcity mentality causes people to compete rather than work together. They look out for their own interests, rather than seek opportunities to help others. They hoard resources, like money or power, rather than sharing for the sake of the greater good.
You can see how many of these qualities would push people (and opportunities) away. Who wants to work with a self-involved cheapskate that only looks out for themselves?
When you step outside of a scarcity mindset, you step into a world of endless possibilities. You realize your own strengths and develop them with confidence. You value yourself and, as a result, celebrate the value in others. When you want to see everyone succeed, you help others more readily.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 06:25:45
What's your answer? Why it doesn't work?Some think that the doctor should be paid a higher rate of pay over a nurse and a nurse higher pay over an ambulance paramedic and the paramedic higher pay over the mechanic that keeps the ambulance running but at the end of the day the patient will die if we remove any of the players in this game.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 06:35:32
Many of the top richest persons on earth came from families that weren't rich. Some of them were first or second generation immigrants. So the system must have been somewhat working.What's your answer? Why it doesn't work?We cant have a world that is fair so the top must stay on the top and the little on the bottom the way it's always been after all the rich must stay rich and the poor must stay poor who in their right mind would want a world that is fair obviously not the rich.
Almost noone says that current system is perfect. When we see some imperfections in the current system, we should identify them, and think of possible solutions.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 06:55:31
When we see some imperfections in the current system, we should identify them, and think of possible solutions.
[/quote A poor manWhen we see some imperfections in the current system, we should identify them, and think of possible solutions.It is better to have riches in the heart than in gold as gold will only harden the heart and steel your true value. We must give with the right hand and not let the left hand know what it is doing. The smallest man can be the biggest after all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 07:18:57
What's your answer? Why it doesn't work?Some think that the doctor should be paid a higher rate of pay over a nurse and a nurse higher pay over an ambulance paramedic and the paramedic higher pay over the mechanic that keeps the ambulance running but at the end of the day the patient will die if we remove any of the players in this game.
It's just The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility in action. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/013015/what-does-law-diminishing-marginal-utility-explain.asp
Quote
In economics, the law of diminishing marginal utility states that the marginal utility of a good or service declines as more of it is consumed by an individual. Economic actors receive less and less satisfaction from consuming incremental amounts of a good.Services with higher pays mean that they are at low supply and high demand.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 07:39:13
Services with higher pays mean that they are at low supply and high demand.What makes me laugh is they call the garbage man a garbology trade They come up with big names for little people to lift them up I was given a title once when I was an emergence department wards man and they changed that to ESO emergence support officer what a joke lift me up with a big name. Revers phycology only works with fools.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 08:05:14
Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:Here is an example where people are not always rational.
Everyone is pursuing self preservation
Everyone loves someone
Everyone is rational
It turns out that those assumptions are not always true.
Quote
During his CPAC speech, Donald Trump admitted that he likes to say that polls are fake if they don't have the results that he would like to see. This isn't surprising as we've watched him do this for years, but what is surprising is that he had this "mask off" moment where he feels comfortable enough with his base to admit to them that he just enjoys lying to make himself feel better. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.
Quote
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
At last weekends CPAC convention, we finally got an answer to the question of what Donald Trump's supporters would do if he ever just admitted to them that he lied about everything. And the answer is they would do absolutely nothing except applaud him. During his speech at CPAC Donald Trump went on a tear about a CPAC straw poll that at the time had not yet been released, but he assured the audience, don't worry. If it's a result I don't like, I'm going to do what I always do with polls I don't like, and just claim that it's fake. He admitted to these people that he lies about polls being fake news if he doesn't like the results. Here is the really very difficult to follow quote from Donald Trump. So bear with me. By the way, you have a poll coming up. Unfortunately, I want to know what it is. You know, they do that straw poll right. Now if it's bad ideas, I say, it's fake. If it's good, I say that's the most accurate poll perhaps ever. And I know they have it.
And then blah, blah, blah, he's talking about the poll. So if I don't like it, I'm just going to say it's fake. If I do like it, I'm going to say it's the greatest poll ever. And the audience didn't bat an eye when he admitted to them, like, this is what I do when I don't like the polls, which I did all throughout my administration. I just said, oh, it's fake. Don't worry about it. And you idiots ate it up and you went out there and you repeated it too. And now I'm telling you, I'm giving up the game, real mask off moment here, and you're still just sitting there like trained monkeys, just, yay. I mean, to me, what is so shocking about this is that Donald Trump has finally reached the point where he just doesn't give a. Like the dude doesn't care anymore. He's not trying to put on a facade. He's not trying to convince Republicans that no, no, it really is fake news. He's just like, you know what? Screw it. If I don't like it, I just say, it's fake. What are y'all going to do? We're going to clap. He's, he's totally just admitting it now.
That's how comfortable he is with these people. Because he knows at this point, they're totally brainwashed. There is nothing he could say, nothing he could do, that is going to make their love of him falter in any way. He has them in his pocket. So he can be honest about these things now. He can come out and say, yeah, I lie to you all the time and they're just going to keep applauding him like, well, he tells it like it is. These people are beyond saving. You cannot rationalize with people who are this irrational. I don't even think you could pull them back from the brink at this point. It would take probably the best, you know, mental health professionals in the history of the world to deprogram these individuals from the cult. And yes, it is a cult at this point, that they have fallen into. And the question is, is it even worth it? Yeah, there were big crowds at CPAC and I'm willing to bet we're also going to see big COVID spikes from CPAC too. But that's not a majority of the party by any stretch of the imagination. Right. These are the fringiest of the fringe, the craziest of the crazed.
And they love everything Donald Trump says. But we have to believe this is not the majority of Republicans at this point. Unfortunately, the polls are kind of telling us otherwise where you have most Republicans who believe that Biden didn't actually win the election.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 08:16:33
Here is an example where people are not always rational.people will lie to stay on top but there is no need to lie to stay on the bottom. honesty comes from the riches of the heart.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 08:17:08
What makes me laugh is they call the garbage man a garbology trade They come up with big names for little people to lift them up I was given a title once when I was an emergence department wards man and they changed that to ESO emergence support officer what a joke lift me up with a big name. Revers phycology only works with fools.If you are looking fo more money, you can look for something with higher demand among people (who has money).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 08:19:04
People need to stay alive to stay on the bottom. Otherwise, they would be put out of the list.Here is an example where people are not always rational.people will lie to stay on top but there is no need to lie to stay on the bottom. honesty comes from the riches of the heart.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 08:24:36
If you are looking fo more money, you can look for something with higher demand among people (who has money).That will work only for what we are trying to change. A good new standard must change this principle.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 08:30:11
People need to stay alive to stay on the bottom. Otherwise, they would be put out of the list.And this will make the top drop to the bottom to fill the void of their system. Now the baker must work in the field and grow the wheat as well as bake it. Will he be paid moor will he work harder?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2021 11:31:10
How come?People need to stay alive to stay on the bottom. Otherwise, they would be put out of the list.And this will make the top drop to the bottom to fill the void of their system. Now the baker must work in the field and grow the wheat as well as bake it. Will he be paid moor will he work harder?
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 11:51:36
How come?If we pull out the bottom man someone must fill the void. The top will collapse without the bottom. The poor feed the rich. Rich men eat and drink the same product as the poor.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 14:14:55
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 14:31:22
No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.Yes you are right Europa that is the point can you think of a way by means of a standard that the world could adopt to prevent this and all the problems that this world has.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 14:42:45
No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.Yes you are right Europa that is the point can you think of a way by means of a standard that the world could adopt to prevent this and all the problems that this world has.
Would anything that I could think stop the Chinese from cooking dogs alive or persuade Muslims that little girls should not be butchered?
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 15:02:48
Would anything that I could think stop the Chinese from cooking dogs alive or persuade Muslims that little girls should not be butchered?I to am against cruelty to animals and human beings but what you say is very rare and far between the world has dished out the worst and that is not your fault I have seen cows hung by their back legs and beaten to death animals that are caged as there is no refrigeration children that have /////////// so welcome to the human race who really is the animals of the worst kind a human being. But not all.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 15:13:00
Would anything that I could think stop the Chinese from cooking dogs alive or persuade Muslims that little girls should not be butchered?I to am against cruelty to animals and human beings but what you say is very rare and far between the world has dished out the worst and that is not your fault I have seen cows hung by their back legs and beaten to death animals that are caged as there is no refrigeration children that have /////////// so welcome to the human race who really is the animals of the worst kind a human being. But not all.
Actually the Chinese are cooking dogs alive right now and there is a Muslim girl being mutilated as you read this so these things are not few and far between they are common.
Now where did you see a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death?
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 15:28:36
Now where did you see a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death?You must be brave and be your self do not hide and speak your mind we both orbit a big world. Yes I have seen the worst and I have heard the cries there is slaughter in this world till we all die. We all have blood on our hands but most only now it within and not in the flesh.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 15:50:28
So in other words you have never seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death. You claim to have seen the worst, so have you ever seen a person's head sawed off slowly because of what they believe?Now where did you see a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death?You must be brave and be your self do not hide and speak your mind we both orbit a big world. Yes I have seen the worst and I have heard the cries there is slaughter in this world till we all die. We all have blood on our hands but most only now it within and not in the flesh.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 16:17:21
So in other words you have never seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death. You claim to have seen the worst, so have you ever seen a person's head sawed off slowly because of what they believe?No, I haven't seen that act but I have seen just as much trauma with people and animals and I do not think this is the right place to share such things as that. I will say that it sounds like you have had some very bad experiences and I understand the pain that it brings I to am brave and continue to live with memories that stay with me I know I live in Australia and times here are not as bad as some other places in the world but for some reason I to have been there.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 16:56:40
Actually you said that you have seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death, so was this a lie or a fantasy that you created to make a point, perhaps that vegetarians are superior to meat eaters?So in other words you have never seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death. You claim to have seen the worst, so have you ever seen a person's head sawed off slowly because of what they believe?No, I haven't seen that act but I have seen just as much trauma with people and animals and I do not think this is the right place to share such things as that. I will say that it sounds like you have had some very bad experiences and I understand the pain that it brings I to am brave and continue to live with memories that stay with me I know I live in Australia and times here are not as bad as some other places in the world but for some reason I to have been there.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 17:14:05
Actually you said that you have seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death, so was this a lie or a fantasy that you created to make a point, perhaps that vegetarians are superior to meat eaters?No it was not a lie I did see a cow beaten to death in that way as it was shown on Australian TV. I have had blood on my hands and clothes and shoes from people that have passed and survived I know the blue bag only too well. There is no need for details is there as you must already know. I was not in the Korean war but have experienced the same trauma by other means.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 17:22:58
Actually you said that you have seen a cow hung by it's back legs and beaten to death, so was this a lie or a fantasy that you created to make a point, perhaps that vegetarians are superior to meat eaters?No it was not a lie I did see a cow beaten to death in that way as it was shown on Australian TV. I have had blood on my hands and clothes and shoes from people that have passed and survived I know the blue bag only too well. There is no need for details is there as you must already know. I was not in the Korean war but have experienced the same trauma by other means.
So Australian TV allows cows to be shown being beaten to death on Australian TV, I find this dubious. In America this would not be shown as it constitutes animal torture and there would be an investigation and prosecution, it might be reported but not shown. You forgot to mention if you were a vegetarian or not?
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 17:45:39
So Australian TV allows cows to be shown being beaten to death on Australian TV, I find this dubious. In America this would not be shown as it constitutes animal torture and there would be an investigation and prosecution, it might be reported but not shown. You forgot to mention if you were a vegetarian or not?I can't say I'm sorry that you did not get to see such a horrible thing I'm glad you did not see this it was a news presentation showing what is happening to Australian cattle that are exported to third world countries that can not apparently afford a head hammer to despatch animals humanely. Rather than hitting a cow on the head many times to kill it a very cheap apparatus can do the job with one very powerful blow. And yes I do eat meat and I have ringed the necks of many chickens in the past why are you so interested in this part of life have you got experience with this distasteful occupation.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 17:53:03
So Australian TV allows cows to be shown being beaten to death on Australian TV, I find this dubious. In America this would not be shown as it constitutes animal torture and there would be an investigation and prosecution, it might be reported but not shown. You forgot to mention if you were a vegetarian or not?I can't say I'm sorry that you did not get to see such a horrible thing I'm glad you did not see this it was a news presentation showing what is happening to Australian cattle that are exported to third world countries that can not apparently afford a head hammer to despatch animals humanely. Rather than hitting a cow on the head many times to kill it a very cheap apparatus can do the job with one very powerful blow. And yes I do eat meat and I have ringed the necks of many chickens in the past why are you so interested in this part of life have you got experience with this distasteful occupation.
However even that does not equal tying a dog up and throwing it alive in the fire while it screams, and Chinese mothers do this in view of the children. Nor does what you stated equal holding down a small girl and cutting off a part of her vagina because the Quran says to do this.
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 18:14:02
However even that does not equal tying a dog up and throwing it alive in the fire while it screams, and Chinese mothers do this in view of the children. Nor does what you stated equal holding down a small girl and cutting off a part of her vagina because the Quran says to do this.You are correct I have never seen such an act of an intention. I have seen gunshot injuries bashings and slashings some that survive and some that do not. And I have seen car and industrial injuries fire and many other things. And all too often I go and have my break I open my lunch box and eat my food while trying to forget what I just was a part of and if it was a burn victim just eat with the smell in my nose. I will never tell anyone of the very details not even my loved ones.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 18:35:53
However even that does not equal tying a dog up and throwing it alive in the fire while it screams, and Chinese mothers do this in view of the children. Nor does what you stated equal holding down a small girl and cutting off a part of her vagina because the Quran says to do this.You are correct I have never seen such an act of an intention. I have seen gunshot injuries bashings and slashings some that survive and some that do not. And I have seen car and industrial injuries fire and many other things. And all too often I go and have my break I open my lunch box and eat my food while trying to forget what I just was a part of and if it was a burn victim just eat with the smell in my nose. I will never tell anyone of the very details not even my loved ones.
If you say so, but I still have seen Chinese mothers tying dogs up and cooking them alive while their children listen to the screams and Muslim mothers cutting off their daughters clitoris. So it's not all about you in the big picture
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 18:40:44
If you say so, but I still have seen Chinese mothers tying dogs up and cooking them alive and Muslim mothers cutting off their daughters clitoris. So it's not all about you in the big pictureYou say that you have seen these things on TV in BOOKS or in PERSON. or are you just making this up.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 19:07:38
If you say so, but I still have seen Chinese mothers tying dogs up and cooking them alive and Muslim mothers cutting off their daughters clitoris. So it's not all about you in the big pictureYou say that you have seen these things on TV in BOOKS or in PERSON. or are you just making this up.
You might have heard of an invention called
THE INTERNET
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 19:25:41
You might have heard of an invention calledYou need help you are look up things like that and then pushing this on a site like this I thought you may have had some bad experiences but it looks like you just enjoy it most people know that bad things happen but you seem to revel in it. Why don't you post these things under your original title the talk about dogs is a big giveaway.
THE INTERNET
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 19:37:12
Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.You might have heard of an invention calledYou need help you are look up things like that and then pushing this on a site like this I thought you may have had some bad experiences but it looks like you just enjoy it most people know that bad things happen but you seem to revel in it. Why don't you post these things under your original title the talk about dogs is a big giveaway.
THE INTERNET
I will choose PETA over you any day
https://www.peta.org.au/action/help-animals-like-those-suffering-in-the-yulin-dog-eating-festival/
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 19:44:37
Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.I am a dog lover dog lover dog lover why do you attack me when I have never said a bad thing about dogs.
I will choose PETA over you any day
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 19:56:39
You claimed that I need help for caring about the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive and that Muslims butcher young girls. Frankly more people need to look at the things I choose to see.Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.I am a dog lover dog lover dog lover why do you attack me when I have never said a bad thing about dogs.
I will choose PETA over you any day
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 20:09:54
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 20:15:01
Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?Actually the Chinese cook dogs alive because they claim that the suffering releases chemicals into the meat that make it taste better.
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3905114/dog-cooked-alive-in-wok-china/
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 20:15:22
You claimed that I need help for caring about the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive and that Muslims butcher young girls. Frankly more people need to look at the things I choose to see.Man I can feel your pain it brings tears to my eyes but you must understand that the world that we live in is very unfair. We must be strong and be glad that we are not responsible for these things. All animals should be treated well and the ones that we chose to despatch should be done so fast and have a fair life up until then. And children are precious and the things that you have mentioned are wrong if I had my way I would treat the people that do these things with a rope I pain with you and please do not look at these things on the internet.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 20:19:51
You claimed that I need help for caring about the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive and that Muslims butcher young girls. Frankly more people need to look at the things I choose to see.Man I can feel your pain it brings tears to my eyes but you must understand that the world that we live in is very unfair. We must be strong and be glad that we are not responsible for these things. All animals should be treated well and the ones that we chose to despatch should be done so fast and have a fair life up until then. And children are precious and the things that you have mentioned are wrong if I had my way I would treat the people that do these things with a rope I pain with you and please do not look at these things on the internet.
So in your mind if I do not know and accept that the Chinese are cooking dogs alive everything in the World becomes better.
If you say so
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 20:34:19
So in your mind if I do not know and accept that the Chinese are cooking dogs alive everything in the World becomes better.No that is not what I believe you have every right to feel pain for the suffering in this world and so do we all that love and cherish life if you are to pain as the life that you pain for we must now pain for you to so be strong and live as your end is yet to come.
If you say so
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 20:49:43
Elsewhere on this site you say you don't read wiki.Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?Actually the Chinese cook dogs alive because they claim that the suffering releases chemicals into the meat that make it taste better.
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3905114/dog-cooked-alive-in-wok-china/
But you just quoted the sun as if it was a reliable source.
You just broke my irony meter.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 21:00:30
Actually the Chinese have an entire festival devoted to cooking dogs aliveElsewhere on this site you say you don't read wiki.Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?Actually the Chinese cook dogs alive because they claim that the suffering releases chemicals into the meat that make it taste better.
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3905114/dog-cooked-alive-in-wok-china/
But you just quoted the sun as if it was a reliable source.
You just broke my irony meter.
https://www.davidwolfe.com/footage-chinese-man-cooking-dog-alive/
https://www.change.org/p/china-korea-south-east-asia-stop-cooking-dogs-alive
You are living a life of complete denial as the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive is common knowledge
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 21:08:48
Quote from: Europa on Today at 05:15:01That's right Europa if that is something you have seen it is probably a one of don't let it get you down as there are people around the world that commit their lives to the fair treatment of animals. As board chemist said cocking an animal alive would contaminate the food. the Chinese people know how to cook a good meal.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 05:09:54
Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
Actually the Chinese cook dogs alive because they claim that the suffering releases chemicals into the meat that make it taste better.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3905114/dog-cooked-alive-in-wok-china/
Elsewhere on this site you say you don't read wiki.
But you just quoted the sun as if it was a reliable source.
You just broke my irony meter.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 21:22:53
So you are going to live your life in denial instead of choosing reality, so watch and learn if you dareQuote from: Europa on Today at 05:15:01That's right Europa if that is something you have seen it is probably a one of don't let it get you down as there are people around the world that commit their lives to the fair treatment of animals. As board chemist said cocking an animal alive would contaminate the food. the Chinese people know how to cook a good meal.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 05:09:54
Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
Actually the Chinese cook dogs alive because they claim that the suffering releases chemicals into the meat that make it taste better.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3905114/dog-cooked-alive-in-wok-china/
Elsewhere on this site you say you don't read wiki.
But you just quoted the sun as if it was a reliable source.
You just broke my irony meter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/yulin-dog-meat-festival-video-china-blow-torch-animal-cruelty-a8969361.html
https://www.change.org/p/china-korea-south-east-asia-stop-cooking-dogs-alive
So if you really care you will not hide what is happening, besides this place does not determine reality, nor does your denial of the truth
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 21:30:50
So you are going to live your life in denial instead of choosing reality, so watch and learn if you dareI told you do not watch this stuff and I refuse to. If you need help just ask and I will get you the help you need.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 21:39:55
And exactly what gives you the right or reason to tell me what I should choose to watch?So you are going to live your life in denial instead of choosing reality, so watch and learn if you dareI told you do not watch this stuff and I refuse to. If you need help just ask and I will get you the help you need.
You are the person in denial, not me.
But at least you have fun there right
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 21:53:47
So you are going to live your life in denial instead of choosing reality, so watch and learn if you dareNo I have no fun with matters of this nature we all have the internet and chose to view the things that are of use but you can look at whatever you chose and I'm sure it's the things that parents keep their children from watching. I hope mum and dad dont catch you.
I told you do not watch this stuff and I refuse to. If you need help just ask and I will get you the help you need.
And exactly what gives you the right or reason to tell me what I should choose to watch?
You are the person in denial, not me.
But at least you have fun there right
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 21:59:09
You are living a life of complete denial as the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive is common knowledge
Please point out where you think I denied that they cook dogs- which is common knowledge.
The "alive" bit is a different issue, especially if you imply it's habitual.
One lunatic on video doesn't prove a lot..
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 22:02:11
Who would be so stupid as to cook a dog, or any comparable animal with- not to put too fine a point on it, the sh1t still in it?You said that the chinese would not be so stupid as to cook dogs alive in the above post. Not sure why you are denying saying what you obviously did. At any rate I have no need to make stuff up like others so often do
There's a very good reason for butchery.
The Chinese may be many things but stupid isn't one of them, so the "cooked alive" story seems unlikely.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 22:03:15
At any rate I have no need to make stuff upAnd yet you do so- all that tosh about Hubble.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 22:04:31
You denied that the chinese would not be so stupid as to cook dogs alive in the above post.No.
Try reading the words. I said it seemed unlikely- and it is.
A few instances on fil, while very distressing, just indicates that there are nutters in China too.
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 22:08:32
Actually the chinese have an entire festival devoted to cooking dogs alive.You denied that the chinese would not be so stupid as to cook dogs alive in the above post.No.
Try reading the words. I said it seemed unlikely- and it is.
A few instances on fil, while very distressing, just indicates that there are nutters in China too.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/yulin-dog-meat-festival-video-china-blow-torch-animal-cruelty-a8969361.html
Why any person would do this is strange. Why any American would argue that this is not wrong is clear as America is currently full of communist as Americans voted for Bernie Sanders who claims that Castro was a hero to Cuba
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 22:16:34
uote from: Europa on Today at 07:02:11What is this person trying to prove and did he just get spat out of a black hole. where are the trauma police?
You denied that the chinese would not be so stupid as to cook dogs alive in the above post.
No.
Try reading the words. I said it seemed unlikely- and it is.
A few instances on fil, while very distressing, just indicates that there are nutters in China too.
R
Post by: Europa on 19/07/2021 22:29:43
uote from: Europa on Today at 07:02:11What is this person trying to prove and did he just get spat out of a black hole. where are the trauma police?
You denied that the chinese would not be so stupid as to cook dogs alive in the above post.
No.
Try reading the words. I said it seemed unlikely- and it is.
A few instances on fil, while very distressing, just indicates that there are nutters in China too.
R
Actually your reactions to the truth are pretty common.
Defenceless dogs scream in agony as they are boiled ALIVE for sick trade in meat
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/defenceless-dogs-scream-agony-boiled-8788111
Post by: Just thinking on 19/07/2021 22:36:06
Actually your reactions to the truth are pretty common.I copy you zzzzzzzz can you hear me zzzzzzzzz I lost you on the zzzzzzzzather frequency zzzzzzz good luck with zzzzzzz your recovery zzzzzzzz out.
Defenceless dogs scream in agony as they are boiled ALIVE for sick trade in meat
Post by: Europa on 20/07/2021 01:10:13
Actually your reactions to the truth are pretty common.I copy you zzzzzzzz can you hear me zzzzzzzzz I lost you on the zzzzzzzzather frequency zzzzzzz good luck with zzzzzzz your recovery zzzzzzzz out.
Defenceless dogs scream in agony as they are boiled ALIVE for sick trade in meat
LOL I get a kick out of people who respond and say that they are responding because they are not interested. In actuality 99.999999999999999999 percent of the people on Earth are not interested, you are.
So I am humbled
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 01:51:57
LOL I get a kick out of people who respond and say that they are responding because they are not interested. In actuality 99.999999999999999999 percent of the people on Earth are not interested, you are.I'm getting a little bit of reception back is your antenna straight. zzzzzzzzzzzzz I can only receive common sense on this frequency.
So I am humbled
Post by: Europa on 20/07/2021 01:56:47
LOL does Australia still have antennas?LOL I get a kick out of people who respond and say that they are responding because they are not interested. In actuality 99.999999999999999999 percent of the people on Earth are not interested, you are.I'm getting a little bit of reception back is your antenna straight. zzzzzzzzzzzzz I can only receive common sense on this frequency.
So I am humbled
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 02:18:25
LOL does Australia still have antennas?we did an archeology dig recently in Australia and found phone wire 20 feet down the boss said keep digging we dug all day and found nothing moor so the boss concluded that they must of had wireless technology in the past.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/07/2021 08:39:51
America is currently full of communist as Americans voted for Bernie SandersSo, we get to see what the real problem is.
Europa is delusional.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 10:15:16
No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.The fact that someone is doing immoral actions is not a proof that moral standards don't exist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 10:50:54
You claimed that I need help for caring about the fact that the Chinese cook dogs alive and that Muslims butcher young girls. Frankly more people need to look at the things I choose to see.Man I can feel your pain it brings tears to my eyes but you must understand that the world that we live in is very unfair. We must be strong and be glad that we are not responsible for these things. All animals should be treated well and the ones that we chose to despatch should be done so fast and have a fair life up until then. And children are precious and the things that you have mentioned are wrong if I had my way I would treat the people that do these things with a rope I pain with you and please do not look at these things on the internet.
Why It Hurts to See Others Suffer: Pain and Empathy Linked in the Brain
https://neurosciencenews.com/pain-empathy-18945/
Quote
Summary: Reducing sensitivity to physical pain resulted in a reduction of pain empathy toward others, a study found. The results suggest a possible neurobiological link between pain and empathy.
Quote
The human brain processes the experience of empathy – the ability to understand another person’s pain – in a similar way to the experience of physical pain. This was the finding of a paper that specifically investigated the kind of empathy people feel when they see others in pain – but it could apply to other forms of empathy too. The results raise a number of intriguing questions, such as whether painkillers or brain damage could actually reduce our ability to feel empathy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 11:07:32
Bernie Sanders who claims that Castro was a hero to CubaHe is not the only one.
Quote
Historian and journalist Richard Gott considered Castro to be "one of the most extraordinary political figures of the twentieth century", commenting that he had become a "world hero in the mould" of Giuseppe Garibaldi to people throughout the developing world for his anti-imperialist efforts.
Quote
The European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Castro "was a hero for many."
Quote
He was awarded a wide variety of awards and honors from foreign governments and was cited as an inspiration for foreign leaders like Ahmed Ben Bella[522] and Nelson Mandela,[530] who subsequently awarded him South Africa's highest civilian award for foreigners, the Order of Good Hope.[531] The biographer Volka Skierka stated that "he will go down in history as one of the few revolutionaries who remained true to his principles".[532]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
Post by: alancalverd on 20/07/2021 11:34:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 12:34:01
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 14:31:52
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Yesterday at 20:31:10
How come?
If we pull out the bottom man someone must fill the void. The top will collapse without the bottom. The poor feed the rich. Rich men eat and drink the same product as the poor.
Modify message
Post by: Colin2B on 20/07/2021 15:34:30
I would agree with him. He did a lot to reduce foreign ownership of land and industry and to give land to the poor. Whether someone is seen as a terrorist or a freedom fighter depend on the moral standards and vested interests of those making the judgement.Bernie Sanders who claims that Castro was a hero to CubaHe is not the only one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 16:44:35
How do you define rich?Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Yesterday at 20:31:10
How come?
If we pull out the bottom man someone must fill the void. The top will collapse without the bottom. The poor feed the rich. Rich men eat and drink the same product as the poor.
Modify message
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 16:53:11
Perhaps my statement above is prone to misinterpretation. The word otherwise there refers to people who don't stay alive.People need to stay alive to stay on the bottom. Otherwise, they would be put out of the list.Here is an example where people are not always rational.people will lie to stay on top but there is no need to lie to stay on the bottom. honesty comes from the riches of the heart.
Being poor should not be taken for granted.
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 16:54:59
How do you define rich?I would say a person that has far more money than they will ever need to live a comfortable existence and provide for their family eg If I wone let's say 20 million dollars I think that 3 million would be by far enuff to go on my way If I did not give 17 million to charities I think I would live my life feeling rather guilty. But a good standard would not allow gambling to exist so this example is for now.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 16:59:18
If we pull out the bottom man someone must fill the void.Why do you assume that the void must be filled by someone? In the past, some jobs done by poorest people were done by animals. Then some of them were replaced by machines. In the near future, almost no job is safe from being replaced by smart machines.
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 17:06:31
Why do you assume that the void must be filled by someone? In the past, some jobs done by poorest people were done by animals. Then some of them were replaced by machines. In the near future, almost no job is safe from being replaced by smart machines.This is a good reason to adopt a new moral standard I think the direction that the world is heading is a sign with warning bells. So what is the answer then we need good ideas to improve the future?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 18:03:09
How do you get those numbers?How do you define rich?I would say a person that has far more money than they will ever need to live a comfortable existence and provide for their family eg If I wone let's say 20 million dollars I think that 3 million would be by far enuff to go on my way If I did not give 17 million to charities I think I would live my life feeling rather guilty. But a good standard would not allow gambling to exist so this example is for now.
How do you define comfortable?
Do you take inflation into account? What about devaluation?
How long would that money last? What if you run out of money while you're still alive?
Which charities would you give your money to? why?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2021 18:05:52
This is a good reason to adopt a new moral standard I think the direction that the world is heading is a sign with warning bells. So what is the answer then we need good ideas to improve the future?What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 18:16:20
What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?Even and fair wealth for all no weapons governments or public stricter law to remove perpetrators for the good of the good.
Post by: Europa on 20/07/2021 19:46:45
What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?Even and fair wealth for all no weapons governments or public stricter law to remove perpetrators for the good of the good.
In other words you want a communist utopia?
Post by: Just thinking on 20/07/2021 19:56:21
In other words you want a communist utopia?If that is what communists do.
Post by: Europa on 20/07/2021 20:01:18
The truth is there, right in front of you, not that you will ever seeIn other words you want a communist utopia?If that is what communists do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 03:51:33
So, what's wrong with them?The truth is there, right in front of you, not that you will ever seeIn other words you want a communist utopia?If that is what communists do.
Do they have the wrong goals?
Or is it about how they try to achieve that goals?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 07:15:42
Are those things terminal goals? I.e. end in itself?What is the criteria to say that the future has been improved?Even and fair wealth for all no weapons governments or public stricter law to remove perpetrators for the good of the good.
Are they merely instrumental goals, which are useful to achieve the real terminal goal?
If all of those things are achieved, is it still possible to make further improvement?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 09:38:07
Actually in my opinion the people who need help are the people ignoring that the Chinese cook dogs alive.If the dogs were killed first, would it become morally acceptable?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 13:56:55
Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat? Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?If they did that without laughing, would you think that they are less evil?
So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laugh
Is it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?
Which act do you think is more immoral? The killing or the torturing?
If they can be done independently, (kill without torture, or torture without kill) which one is more acceptable?
Post by: Europa on 21/07/2021 14:02:02
Would the child looking for the dog that it played with earlier consider it morally acceptable for her mother to kill her playmate by tossing it into a fire and listening to the screams, then offering the child the dog to eat? Would this child care about the method of death or just mourn the loss of it's friend?If they did that without laughing, would you think that they are less evil?
So the atrocities of Nazis were done in government camps, similar things happen in millions of chinese kitchens every day while the children watch and laugh
Is it more acceptable to saw off a Jews or Christians head?
Which act do you think is more immoral? The killing or the torturing?
If they can be done independently, (kill without torture, or torture without kill) which one is more acceptable?
While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious conviction
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 23:13:38
While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionBy saying that their actions are immoral, you are thinking that they are violating your moral standards, whether or not they are doing it rationally.
By saying that they are being irrational, you are thinking that they are not being logical, or their conclusion doesn't follow their premises.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2021 23:33:36
Quote
Where did these “elements of a finding” come from?
Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.
Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.
Quote
What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?(https://yellowbook-cpe.com/wp-content/mediafiles/2019/04/finding-elements.jpg)
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who? Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?
Quote
For example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible. The finding might look like this?https://yellowbook-cpe.com/questions-answered-by-the-elements-of-an-audit-finding.html
Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunch
Effect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costs
Cause: Admin not screening for eligibility
Criteria: Federal grant requirements say….
Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunch
Recommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibility
Post by: Europa on 22/07/2021 01:27:28
Anyone like yourself that in any way defends the behavior is also irrational. Do you believe that little girls need to have their clitoris removed? Is that immoral or is it moral because the illiterate man who heard voices and dictated the Koran to others who could write said to do so?While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionBy saying that their actions are immoral, you are thinking that they are violating your moral standards, whether or not they are doing it rationally.
By saying that they are being irrational, you are thinking that they are not being logical, or their conclusion doesn't follow their premises.
Post by: Europa on 22/07/2021 01:31:24
We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.No we can not do that, just trust meQuoteWhere did these “elements of a finding” come from?
Greek philosophers outlined the elements of a persuasive argument centuries ago.
Some smarty pants (and I say that in a complimentary way!) at the GAO (Government Accountability Office) was wise enough to include the elements of a persuasive argument in the Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) and rename them as the elements of a finding.QuoteWhat questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?(https://yellowbook-cpe.com/wp-content/mediafiles/2019/04/finding-elements.jpg)
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who? Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?QuoteFor example, let’s say that you are auditing a school lunch program and you find that approximately 5% of the kids who receive free lunch are not eligible. The finding might look like this?https://yellowbook-cpe.com/questions-answered-by-the-elements-of-an-audit-finding.html
Condition: Ineligible students are receiving free lunch
Effect: 6 out of 120 students tested were not eligible resulting in $X of questioned costs
Cause: Admin not screening for eligibility
Criteria: Federal grant requirements say….
Recommendation 1: Ensure only eligible students receive free lunch
Recommendation 2: Admin screens students for eligibility
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 05:16:44
Anyone like yourself that in any way defends the behavior is also irrational. Do you believe that little girls need to have their clitoris removed? Is that immoral or is it moral because the illiterate man who heard voices and dictated the Koran to others who could write said to do so?At which point I defended their behaviors? Is it only in your head?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 05:17:17
No we can not do that, just trust meAnd you call yourself rational.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 05:45:24
The existence of non-universal moral standards doesn't proof that a universal moral standard can't exist.No there is no Universal moral standard as if there were the Chinese would not be cooking dogs alive and Muslims would not be cutting off little girls body parts.The fact that someone is doing immoral actions is not a proof that moral standards don't exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2021 10:35:48
While your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionAll religious conviction is is irrational and misguided. But it is just as possible to carry out a moral action as an immoral one for religious reasons. The difference is that moral actions do not require justification: religion may be a reason, but it is never an excuse.
The two questions of rationality and morality need to be separated, because there are cases where logic (survival, mercy killing) depends on an act that in other circumstances would be seen as immoral.
Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?
Just to repeat an interesting insight from Max Moseley: as far as we know, humans are the only species with a concept of cruelty, and certainly the only species that deliberately inflicts pain for its own entertainment.
Post by: Europa on 22/07/2021 12:33:49
The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problemWhile your questions are valid I can not process them rationally because those torturing animals daily in front of the children in the family are not rational, and furthermore trying to rationalize this behavior is impossible. So my opinion is irrelevant as what I think will have no effect on those who torture animals for fun and also out of misguided religious convictionAll religious conviction is is irrational and misguided. But it is just as possible to carry out a moral action as an immoral one for religious reasons. The difference is that moral actions do not require justification: religion may be a reason, but it is never an excuse.
The two questions of rationality and morality need to be separated, because there are cases where logic (survival, mercy killing) depends on an act that in other circumstances would be seen as immoral.
Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?
Just to repeat an interesting insight from Max Moseley: as far as we know, humans are the only species with a concept of cruelty, and certainly the only species that deliberately inflicts pain for its own entertainment.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 16:19:18
The difference is that moral actions do not require justification:Taking moral actions for granted can create regrets. Saving deers from wolves was once thought as a moral action.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 16:29:43
The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problemTo be fair, not all Chinese do that. On the other hand, there are others who do that but not Chinese.
Is it equally unacceptable to do that to other species, such as oyster, lobster, crab? What's the difference?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2021 16:33:57
Torture is always immoral, but at what point does interrogation (of humans, not other species) become torture?Just google it.
Quote
the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something.
When direct brain interface is refined, torture in interrogation would be unnecessary.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2021 00:09:33
We can use elements in audit findings to evaluate moral behaviors.
Quote
What questions do the elements of an audit finding answer for the reader?What would happen if those elements are used to evaluate dog burning action? Here is an example. There could be more than one answers for each question.
Condition: What is the problem/issue? What is happening?
Effect: So what? Why should the reader care about this condition? What is the impact?
Cause: How or why did the condition happen?
Criteria: Says who? Who says this is a problem?
Recommendation 1: How do we resolve the condition?
Recommendation 2: How do we resolve the cause?
Condition: Some people burn dogs alive, and they seem to enjoy the dog's suffering and pain.
Effect: So what? They seem to lack empathy, which creates fear that they could inflict pain on other conscious beings different enough from themselves.
Cause: There are many possibilities which require further investigation. Perhaps they saw similar behavior from someone in their society. Or they were taking revenge on the dog, e.g. they were bitten or peed on.
Criteria: Says who? Says someone who has empathy. Universal moral standard is viewed from the perspective of conscious entities that exist in the future.
The first recommendation is to educate people. Expose them to the universal moral standard and universal terminal goal, also related knowledge in biology, physiology, psychology, and other science disciplines. Animal protection law with proper punishment could be useful.
The second recommendation depends on real cause.
Post by: Europa on 23/07/2021 00:24:42
The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problemTo be fair, not all Chinese do that. On the other hand, there are others who do that but not Chinese.
Is it equally unacceptable to do that to other species, such as oyster, lobster, crab? What's the difference?
You seem to not want to discuss Muslims mutilating young girls and women.
PS. I do presume that you know that Muslims are hold up in concentration camps in china. You do know that right, so is that cool with you too, you think that you want to visit.
Choose the dog, every time
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2021 07:04:52
You seem to not want to discuss Muslims mutilating young girls and women.Will you try to use the same method to your case?
PS. I do presume that you know that Muslims are hold up in concentration camps in china. You do know that right, so is that cool with you too, you think that you want to visit.
Post by: Europa on 23/07/2021 13:55:05
You seem to not want to discuss Muslims mutilating young girls and women.Will you try to use the same method to your case?
PS. I do presume that you know that Muslims are hold up in concentration camps in china. You do know that right, so is that cool with you too, you think that you want to visit.
Are you happy with the treatment of Muslims in china?
https://muslimmatters.org/2016/11/30/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-torture-of-uyghur-muslims/
3. Teenagers are arrested due to posts on social media
Young Uyghurs are arrested for posting comments on social media or watching Islamic videos online. Once a 15 yr old was arrested in the same case and sentenced for 10 years!.Other than this not many people are given internet connection and Police can arrest anyone for watching anything online! Uyghur homes are also raided for materials deemed “extreme” or “subversive.
Is this what you want?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2021 14:46:09
Is this what you want?No.
But the "authorities" responsible are knowingly breaking moral codes. It'snot that they don't know right from wrong. It's that they choose to do wrong to retain power. It's not rare; Boris and Trump did the same sort of things in less extreme form.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2021 22:47:49
The chinese do not see throwing live dogs into the fire as being torture, this is the problemApply my tests. Would you like it if I threw you into a fire? Would you do it to your children? If the answer to either is no, it is immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 04:00:36
Are you happy with the treatment of Muslims in china?No.
https://muslimmatters.org/2016/11/30/15-things-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-torture-of-uyghur-muslims/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 04:10:22
Teenagers are arrested due to posts on social mediaPeople often say that prevention is better than curing. There's optimal balance.
Young Uyghurs are arrested for posting comments on social media or watching Islamic videos online. Once a 15 yr old was arrested in the same case and sentenced for 10 years!.Other than this not many people are given internet connection and Police can arrest anyone for watching anything online! Uyghur homes are also raided for materials deemed “extreme” or “subversive.
But the methods and their magnitude make the difference.
Leaving extremism unchecked can cost millions of lives and failed countries .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 04:17:45
Apply my tests. Would you like it if I threw you into a fire? Would you do it to your children? If the answer to either is no, it is immoral.Are they also applicable to oysters, crabs, and lobsters? What makes the difference?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2021 11:08:52
Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing. Where possible, render your victim unconscious or kill quickly with the minimum of pain and suffering. Problem with crustaceans is the same as killing an enemy in a tank - there is no polite way to do it.
The Scottish Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals successfully prosecuted a woman who tortured a prawn in a factory by "making it dance on a hotplate" for entertainment, instead of dunking it in boiling water as prescribed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 22:18:19
Morality and necessity may appear on opposite sides of the decision equation. Killing people in wartime, or even killing a single assailant, is a necessity,
Quote
whereas killing someone who does not pose a threat and does not want to be killed is clearly immoral.This is also unnecessary. You need a better example to support your opening statement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 22:52:17
Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing.Do you classify plants as sentient beings? What about mushrooms? Or algae? jelly fish?
What's the boundaries?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2021 23:10:43
Where possible, render your victim unconscious or kill quickly with the minimum of pain and suffering. Problem with crustaceans is the same as killing an enemy in a tank - there is no polite way to do it.AFAIK, mammals will be unconscious and then die when they are put into a room lack of oxygen, such as vacuum chamber or nitrogen blanketed vessel. Some human survivors of incident said that they felt no pain, only some dizziness. I'm not sure about other kind of animals. How long can they survive without oxygen?
The Scottish Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals successfully prosecuted a woman who tortured a prawn in a factory by "making it dance on a hotplate" for entertainment, instead of dunking it in boiling water as prescribed.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2021 23:22:41
Your brain suffers irreversible damage after about 3 minutes without oxygen. The nice thing about nitrogen hypoxia is that breathing nitrogen at around normal atmospheric pressure allows you to clear the carbon dioxide from your lungs as normal. CO2 is what triggers the autonomic breathing reflex and ultimately, panic.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2021 23:24:33
There is no clear distinction, which is why your search for a universal morality is fruitless. Life is competitive.Killing sentient beings for food, by any means, could be considered immoral and it certainly isn't essential for human survival outside of the arctic regions, so we assign the concept of "humane" to some methods of killing.Do you classify plants as sentient beings? What about mushrooms? Or algae? jelly fish?
What's the boundaries?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 06:34:12
Your brain suffers irreversible damage after about 3 minutes without oxygen. The nice thing about nitrogen hypoxia is that breathing nitrogen at around normal atmospheric pressure allows you to clear the carbon dioxide from your lungs as normal. CO2 is what triggers the autonomic breathing reflex and ultimately, panic.Yes. We've discussed this in another thread.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 07:38:58
There is no clear distinction, which is why your search for a universal morality is fruitless. Life is competitive.That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.
I've already answered the question about universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal. I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning. It should be used as guidance in decision making process.
With one problem solved, we can be more focused on the other problem left, which is finding out what the consequences of each options we have in making decisions. In other words, building an accurate and precise virtual universe that can represent objective reality, and simulate what-if-scenarios by discovering causality chains. This is where scientific method and critical thinking become important, which is to reduce surprises.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 11:15:21
That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.but the idea of a universal color is!
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 11:23:38
I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning.Both of which depend on the validity of your initial assumption. Fine for a philosophy or theology forum, but we boring scientists start with an observation, not a proposition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 12:32:33
Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?That's non-sequitur. There's no clear boundary between red and orange. It doesn't mean that the concept of colors is useless.but the idea of a universal color is!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 12:38:41
In the deductive reasoning toward universal terminal goal, my initial assumptions are all necessary, based on the definition of each words in the phrase. They are necessary because rejecting them inevitably leads to contradiction.I came to the same conclusion using either deductive or inductive reasoning.Both of which depend on the validity of your initial assumption. Fine for a philosophy or theology forum, but we boring scientists start with an observation, not a proposition.
The observations are covered already in inductive reasoning.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 13:00:34
Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!
I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 13:01:36
In the deductive reasoning toward universal terminal goal, my initial assumptions are all necessary, based on the definition of each words in the phrase. They are necessary because rejecting them inevitably leads to contradiction.A circular argument gets you nowhere, by definition!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 14:10:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2021 14:52:18
It seems like you struggle to see morality from non-individualistic point of view and self interest. Maybe you started to learn about morality from individualistic/selfish perspective and got too used to it.Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!
I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests.
Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standard.
Imagine a Laplace demon level superintelligent conscious entity who knows in advance everything that will happen in the past as well as the future. Will it think that what I'm going to do is a good idea? If the answer is yes, then it's a moral action. If it's bad, then the action is immoral.
Else, it's amoral.
Universal terminal goal requires us to view the world from the perspective of conscious entities who exist in the future. One of Covey's 7 habits: Begin with end in mind has the same spirit.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2021 17:46:48
Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standardBut you have failed to demonstrate one, or even prove that the concept is meaningful. That's religion, not science!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2021 03:15:50
What's your criteria for something to be demonstrated or meaningful?Here is how I see moral decisions based on universal moral standardBut you have failed to demonstrate one, or even prove that the concept is meaningful. That's religion, not science!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2021 03:26:02
Your second test is a progress to get less individualistic moral view. But you put arbitrary constraint to that test, namely someone that you love.It seems like you struggle to see morality from non-individualistic point of view and self interest. Maybe you started to learn about morality from individualistic/selfish perspective and got too used to it.Have you searched for the universal color standard? What do you find?A reference to such things as Pantone and BSI standard colors, but not "one universal color"!
I'm happy to have a different moral code from that of a flea. I'm also happy to kill fleas because they spread bacteria whose moral code is distinctly and necessarily contrary to my best interests.
What makes you love that someone?
Can you love someone that you don't know?
Can you love someone that doesn't love you?
Can you love someone that has immoral behavior?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/07/2021 12:38:30
"Meaningful" = having unique, demonstrable, and consistent implications.
Not full dictionary definitions, but good enough for now.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/07/2021 04:54:22
"Demonstrated" = show me, or at least a decent photograph.By your definition, magicians can demonstrate something that's physically impossible. Using subtle tricks, someone can demonstrate perpetual machines.
On the other hand,
Quote
A demonstration (apodeixis) is “a deduction that produces knowledge”. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics contains his account of demonstrations and their role in knowledge. From a modern perspective, we might think that this subject moves outside of logic to epistemology. From Aristotle’s perspective, however, the connection of the theory of sullogismoi with the theory of knowledge is especially close.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#DemDemSci
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/07/2021 05:26:00
"Meaningful" = having unique, demonstrable, and consistent implications.I think my universal moral standard is meaningful, according to your definition.
It's unique. Compared to other non-universal moral standards which come with exceptions, terms and conditions, it has no exception.
By Aristotelian logic I quoted above, it's demonstrable.
The implication of universal moral standard is consistent without exception.
You can deny my assertion above by simply showing one exception or counter example.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/07/2021 05:45:23
Quote
One key distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that the latter accepts that a conclusion is uncertain and may change in the future. A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong. We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs.
Quote
The issue with overusing inductive reasoning is that cognitive shortcuts and biases can warp the conclusions we draw. Our world is not always as predictable as inductive reasoning suggests, and we may selectively draw upon past experiences to confirm a belief. Someone who reasons inductively that they have bad luck may recall only unlucky experiences to support that hypothesis and ignore instances of good luck.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/07/2021 21:05:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/07/2021 00:01:21
The only problem with Aristotle is that he was wrong about almost everything.Can you identify what's his mistake this time?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2021 08:30:13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
I mentioned before that moral rules are like rules of thumb, or simplified guidances which work well in most of situations. They usually has short term goals as reference so the behaviors can be morally evaluated right away. But for some rare cases, following moral rules can have bad consequences in the long term, hence can be judged as immoral instead.
Moral standards have longer term goals, hence they take longer to evaluate some behavior, but they can cover more situations, including those where some moral rules fail to produce the right answer.
Understanding moral rules and moral standards is necessary to make the right decisions quickly. And the decision are not always easy. The rules are precisely useful when the decision is hard, especially when available options produces almost equally unwanted consequences. The situation is usually presented as dilemma, like the trolley problem.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2021 10:42:56
When simplified, it would be like asking someone to choose between killing 1 person or killing 5 persons. When this simple question is presented to a survey respondent, they are likely to choose kill none. Why should they kill anyone? they may ask back. When they are told that there is only 2 options, they are likely to choose to kill 1 person. Only in extremely rare case that someone deliberately choose to kill 5 persons, perhaps citing the overpopulation for justification.
People may find it hard to imagine a real life scenario which would make them have to choose between those two options, so they won't bother thinking about it. The trolley problem and its variants changed the situation. Somehow the scenario looks more probable. They better prepare for the answer before it really happens, so they can prevent regret for their decision.
But presenting it as a probable real life scenario inevitably includes additional assumptions into people's consideration, which may involve their knowledge, experience, and emotional state. Someone who are taught that killing anyone is bad for any reason, including saving more lives, are more likely to do nothing in the trolley problem.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2021 10:56:47
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2021 11:05:41
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/07/2021 04:45:38
Quote
Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.
--
Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.
Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/08/2021 05:05:28
Quote
The so-called Animal Sentience Bill currently being debated in the UK House of Lords seeks to establish, for the first time in history, a recognition that animals can feel pain in UK law.
Opposition has been raised to the bill, on the grounds that it may threaten certain institutions, such as angling, hunting, and food production, among other things. Critics of the bill seem not to realise how raising such objections only demonstrates how urgently we need it to be passed into law.
--------------------------------LINKS---------------------------------
Read the Bill: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2867
The Times Report: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-rebels-fear-activists-will-hijack-animal-sentience-bill-5qb97vx3l
The Times' Opinion Piece: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-the-animal-sentience-bill-happy-creatures-jxfkgdb9v
What's the argumentations for the bill?
What's the argumentations countering the bill?
Which one do you think is stronger?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/08/2021 20:50:38
The question is, so what? Given that no animal enjoys being poked with a stick, how (if at all) should the blindingly obvious be used as the foundation for criminal law?
Fortunately English law consists of very few statutes and lots of judicial precedents, so there is no need for the tiny minds of overpaid members to be stressed by having to think about it too much, nor for too many brown envelopes to change hands before the Bill becomes an Act. Now that we are free from European law, which sets out to prescribe all behavior, we can rely on the common law which proscribes those behaviors considered to be unacceptable at the time.
Fortunately our Indian cousins have created a neat statute that can surely be copied verbatim:
Quote
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 prohibits any person from inflicting, causing, or if it is the owner, permitting, unnecessary pain or suffering to be inflicted on any animal. The Act makes it a crime to beat, kick, torture, mutilate, administer an injurious substance, or cruelly kill an animal.and just 60 years later I can see no reason why this should not become UK statute law. We have an adequate and expert inspectorate (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) that can prosecute under the Animal Welfare Act, which can simply be extended from domestic animals to all and every species. Case law can - and already does - distinguish between cruelty and inevitable suffering (particularly of fish) in the pursuit of food.
The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2021 06:12:11
The only problem is that case law already requires you to quickly and humanely dispatch an injured animal if it is clearly beyond repair (or you intend to eat it). If you don't distinguish between species (and there's no scientific reason why you should) that makes human euthanasia mandatory, which will annoy a lot of religious parasites.In technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair. Although it might be the case that repairing something (or someone) is more costly than creating a new one from scratch.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2021 10:09:38
Quote
In technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair.
For the umpteenth time, I quote my old navigation instructor:
"Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2021 10:55:45
Quote
Self-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.Even with self driving cars, accidents can and will still happen. And their outcome may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2021 10:58:45
So, where are we now? Where are we going to?QuoteIn technological singularity, nothing is beyond repair.
For the umpteenth time, I quote my old navigation instructor:
"Always start from where you are. Then you won't get lost before you take off."
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2021 11:47:34
Post by: Just thinking on 09/08/2021 12:00:44
We are at a point where there is a practical limit to the amount of repair work we can do to a damaged animal. The ethical problem is a reluctance among lawmakers to accept that humans are animals. In consequence it is an offence to prolong the suffering of any other species, or to shorten the suffering of a human.A female victim said to her attacker you are an animal he said yes the worst kind a human being.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2021 14:25:49
Post by: Just thinking on 09/08/2021 14:39:53
Hmm. I wouldn't want to be attacked by a 200 lb flea.I would be more shocked by a 1/10 of a gram dog.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2021 03:32:51
We are at a point where there is a practical limit to the amount of repair work we can do to a damaged animal. The ethical problem is a reluctance among lawmakers to accept that humans are animals. In consequence it is an offence to prolong the suffering of any other species, or to shorten the suffering of a human.One of that practical limit is cost. Are we willing to pay for the cost of brain surgery to save the life of a stranger?
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 06:44:09
We are at a point where there is a practical limit to the amount of repair work we can do to a damaged animal. The ethical problem is a reluctance among lawmakers to accept that humans are animals. In consequence it is an offence to prolong the suffering of any other species, or to shorten the suffering of a human.Life for wild animals has never been kind at some point in time almost all wild animals will suffer a prolonged and painful death as they are consumed by their surroundings. On the other hand people and loved pets do receive the best treatment by those that care for them and the choice of ending untreatable suffering in people is becoming more and more excepted and is regularly offered to people as an option as we can ask a person but we can not ask an animal. If we ask a dog do you want your dinner he will very quickly let you know the answer but ask a dog does it want to die and well we no the answer.
One of that practical limit is cost. Are we willing to pay for the cost of brain surgery to safe the life of a stranger?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2021 07:34:55
If we ask a dog do you want your dinner he will very quickly let you know the answer but ask a dog does it want to die and well we no the answer.What makes it different than chicken or cow?
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 07:43:23
What makes it different than chicken or cow?No difference it's all about the necessity and humane treatment and kill.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2021 09:35:04
When I worked in remote area, I know some indigenous people that ate feral dogs because they were abundant there. They were caught using baits containing sedative substances.What makes it different than chicken or cow?No difference it's all about the necessity and humane treatment and kill.
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 09:52:04
When I worked in remote area, I know some indigenous people that ate feral dogs because they were abundant there. They were caught using baits containing sedative substances.Nothing wrong with that one of the greatest rights that all craters have is the right to eat. I wouldn't want to eat a cat or a fox I believe that they taste bad that is why some countries use strong flavors like curry to hide the pore meat quality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2021 09:58:18
Solving complex dynamic calculations in real time can be difficult, and sometimes even give wrong answers. That's why contemplating about them in advance may help improving the result. We can make a list of some probable and conceivable situations, set the rule and standard for making decisions to make priority list. Refusing to make it would effectively let the decisions to be made by random chance. The video above at 2:00 timestamp shows an example.QuoteSelf-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.Even with self driving cars, accidents can and will still happen. And their outcome may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.
Is it morally acceptable to leave someone's fate to random chance? especially when a better alternative is available?
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 10:26:46
Even with self driving cars, accidents can and will still happen. And their outcome may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.Thanks for the video it is very interesting. I have often thought about the randomness of life. Let's say I invited you to stay at my home for a while and you accepted my invite I look after you well and make you feel at home we take a trip down to my town and I buy you a meal you decide to enter a shop that sells lottery tickets and you by one that is drawn that night we see the results on my TV that night and you win two million dollars do you share half with me after all you would have won nothing if it was not for my kind friendship with you?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2021 12:12:22
How did you come up with that number? Obviously you are not the only one who contributed to the winning. There's the shop keeper without whom I couldn't by the ticket. Also my parents who didn't forbid me from buying lottery tickets.Even with self driving cars, accidents can and will still happen. And their outcome may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.Thanks for the video it is very interesting. I have often thought about the randomness of life. Let's say I invited you to stay at my home for a while and you accepted my invite I look after you well and make you feel at home we take a trip down to my town and I buy you a meal you decide to enter a shop that sells lottery tickets and you by one that is drawn that night we see the results on my TV that night and you win two million dollars do you share half with me after all you would have won nothing if it was not for my kind friendship with you?
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 12:24:10
How did you come up with that number? Obviously you are not the only one who contributed to the winning. There's the shop keeper without whom I couldn't by the ticket. Also my parents who didn't forbid me from buying lottery tickets.Because we can both share in the same way and for the same reasons if it was not for my parents you would not be with me and as for the shopkeeper he is in business to sell and can be considered not emotionally attached to our good fortune.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2021 14:12:51
It's interesting to consider the moral obligations of variants on a simple theme
A asks B for a dollar for a bus ride home. A gets home and gives B $1 when they next meet.
A asks B for a dollar to bet on a horse. Horse wins at 100:1 so A gives B $1.
A asks B for $1000 to start a business. Business succeeds so A gives B $1000
A asks B for $1000 to cover a temporary business debt. Debt repaid, profits come in, A gives B $1000
B gives A $1 to buy a lottery ticket. A wins $1M and refunds $1
B offers A $1000 to invest in a business. 10 years later A sells up for $1M and gives B $1000
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 14:24:30
If we went through life thanking everyone who contributed to our being here, now, the world would turn into an unending Oscar ceremony.I have no intentions of saying thanks I just want my one million dollars.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2021 18:26:08
Post by: Just thinking on 10/08/2021 19:04:21
But it's not yours. The essence of a lottery is that the prize belongs to whoever holds the winning ticket.But my universal moral standard requires sharing. If you won a stake sandwich and we were together and we both are starving you would cut it in half and share it. It's not like a donut that can be divided three ways like you have the outside I have the inside and give the third person the hole in the middle.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2021 22:10:04
Post by: Just thinking on 11/08/2021 05:31:38
Then we can't have a lottery because that's about concentrating lots of small purchases into one big prize - the opposite of sharing!I knew this was going to happen as soon as I win one million now I have to give it back.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2021 10:18:59
by CosmicSkeptic
Quote
Christopher Hitchens is one of the most beloved polemics to have been active in living memory. However, his remarkable wit sometimes conceived remarkably poor reasoning, something often unnoticed by those drunk on his elegance.He should be able to answer the questions about morality if only he knew about the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal.
In this video, I take three typical examples of sophistic reasoning from Hitchens' various debates and speeches, and break them down to expose their flaws.
It is unlikely that I will ever cease praising Hitchens as my favourite writer anytime soon; anybody unfamiliar with my work who lands on this video should know that I take deep inspiration from him.
TIMESTAMPS:
Introduction - 0:00
The Moral Argument -- 4:10
Free Will -- 16:30
The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2021 12:24:32
The Cosmological Argument -- 21:20This one doesn't seem to have anything to do with morality. But let's analyze it anyway. First, we need to identify underlying assumptions behind the question. How can something come from nothing?
First assumption is that it's true, which means that there is something that comes from nothing, and not from something else. If this assumption turns out to be false, then there's no point in trying to answer the question. Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.
The second assumption is that the event can't happen naturally, thus it must involve supernatural cause. It shouldn't be surprising if something that never happened can't happen naturally.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 13:43:16
Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.Fleas from dust are not from nothing it's from dust. The creation of matter may well be a result of supernatural intervention. The universe is a fantastic place however it came to be particularly life it's self so we live in a reality that is hard to comprehend may be a simple power created what we see and experience we are looking for a complicated explanation for what may be a simple beginning.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/08/2021 14:00:22
Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust?If you have pets, your house dust probably contains a fair number of flea eggs. Cat fleas, particularly, seem very partial to human blood and their eggs seem to hang around for at least a year after the cat has died.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 14:29:04
Tommy the boxer pup..PNG (1159.06 kB . 721x717 - viewed 1887 times)If you have pets, your house dust probably contains a fair number of flea eggs. Cat fleas, particularly, seem very partial to human blood and their eggs seem to hang around for at least a year after the cat has died.I like to spray methylated spirits on the carpet and on the bed mattress to kill fleas and bugs garden atomizer spray bottles work well. No ded or alive cats in my home only a boxer dog.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/08/2021 16:19:44
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 16:28:56
Ah, a bottle of meths and a dog. Takes me back to the glory days.You should give the glory days a second chance only exchange the meths for Johnnie Walker.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2021 03:53:31
It's an example I found from Wikipedia article. It was meant to show that something that's false should not be used as consideration for making decisions.Imagine someone asks how can fleas suddenly arise from dust? Simple answer is they don't. So far there's no evidence that something can come from absolutely nothing.Fleas from dust are not from nothing it's from dust. The creation of matter may well be a result of supernatural intervention. The universe is a fantastic place however it came to be particularly life it's self so we live in a reality that is hard to comprehend may be a simple power created what we see and experience we are looking for a complicated explanation for what may be a simple beginning.
Quote
It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2021 06:15:45
Quote
A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence, the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
Here's another example.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 09:31:26
Here's another example.It looks like I can't work it out so all I'm left with is the question is there a universal moral standard and if so what is it.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2021 11:24:17
it's an equivalent of the cosmological argument: how can something come from nothing?Here's another example.It looks like I can't work it out so all I'm left with is the question is there a universal moral standard and if so what is it.
How can the sun goes around the world if no one moves it?
The universal moral standard tells us that good behaviors are those which are more likely to help achieving the universal terminal goal.
On the other hand, bad behaviors are those which are more likely to obstruct the achievement of universal terminal goal.
Moral judgements are not solely determined by the actual consequences of actions. They also depend on the intentions. To align the actual consequences with the intention, we need to develop an accurate and precise virtual universe which is relevant to them.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/08/2021 12:35:59
universal terminal goal.Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 12:56:34
Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.Sound destructive but I like it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/08/2021 05:01:15
What makes you sure about that?universal terminal goal.Apart from the heat death of the universe, I can't think of any terminal goal. Since ΔS > 0, any behavior will tend towards the UTG.
Since we're here to discuss about it, the heat death is not an observed fact. It's an extrapolation from what we've observed so far, combined with our assumptions or models. Have you considered alternative models, such as cyclic universe?
We have tendency to underestimate infinity. What's the maximum possible entropy can the universe have before it's considered dead?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/08/2021 05:28:57
And here's my conclusion.In this thread I've come into conclusion that the best case scenario for life is that conscious beings keep existing indefinitely and don't depend on particular natural resources. The next best thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the right direction to achieve that best case scenario.
The worst case scenario is that all conscious beings go extinct, since it would make all the efforts we do now are worthless. In a universe without conscious being, the concept of goal itself become meaningless. The next worst thing is that current conscious beings are showing progress in the wrong direction which will eventually lead to that worst case scenario.I guess my further posts here are only used to see how these concepts can be applied in real life. Also to identify potential problems or obstacles in achieving the goal, and how to overcome them.So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.I realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.
The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.
The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2021 00:15:12
Is the heat death of the universe qualified as a goal?As far as we know, it's where we are all headed whether we like it or not. The notion of a cyclic universe is intellectually appealing but the bit we are in seems to be one where ΔS > 0 defines what happens next.
H G Wells (or was it Olaf Stapledon?) described a distant future where everything appeared to the time traveller as slowed down and torpid, though as the thought processes of the inhabitants were equally slow, they were enjoying life on their own terms. So whilst we can predict a state of total entropy on the horizon, I think the horizon will recede asymptotically.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2021 08:22:18
As far as we know, it's where we are all headed whether we like it or not. The notion of a cyclic universe is intellectually appealing but the bit we are in seems to be one where ΔS > 0 defines what happens next.We are not sure yet. And we will never know if we go extinct before then. Or at least if we successfully build an accurate and precise virtual universe which can predict without any doubt what would happen by then. That's why preventing extinction of consciousness universally becomes the highest priority for any conscious entities capable of thinking about it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2021 08:27:16
H G Wells (or was it Olaf Stapledon?) described a distant future where everything appeared to the time traveller as slowed down and torpid, though as the thought processes of the inhabitants were equally slow, they were enjoying life on their own terms. So whilst we can predict a state of total entropy on the horizon, I think the horizon will recede asymptotically.Time travel is just a fiction, which is logically impossible because it creates contradiction. It shouldn't be used to consider any decision.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2021 12:59:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2021 04:58:47
So you never plan for the future? Little point in planning for the past, and the present is happening anyway. What a delightfully relaxed attitude - and so uncharacteristic of a man who claims to be searching for an ultimate goal! I think the West Indian adjective "mellow" is appropriate....fish in the sea, beer in the can, fruit in the tree, so be cool man!Every plan is for the future. No need to be redundant.
If your plan requires time travel to make it work, you better start to look for a better plan.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2021 10:50:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2021 16:23:52
What do you plan for heat death of the universe?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2021 16:56:36
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2021 22:10:09
Making predictions can be done using appropriate models and assumptions. No time travel is needed.But what is the point if making plans if there will be nobody to see the outcome?
What do you plan for heat death of the universe?
If we assume that we or our descendants will be there, our preferred goal will be one that would appeal to us in the future. So we have to imagine ourselves in the position of a time traveller. You do it every day: you have a vision of yourself at work or on holiday, and if the vision is appealing, you get on the train and go there..
I have no plans for the heat death of the universe. Homo sapiens will be extinct by then.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 06:59:47
But what is the point if making plans if there will be nobody to see the outcome?That's where I got my conclusion about the universal terminal goal. I just extended the definition of somebody, no longer restricted to homo sapiens in current form. I removed all arbitrary restrictions, except that they must be conscious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 09:57:48
Many exercises on moral decision making emphasize on mitigating incidents. Of course, they are more thrilling and less boring. But in real life, preventing them from happening in the first place is an immensely more effective to get desired results.Solving complex dynamic calculations in real time can be difficult, and sometimes even give wrong answers. That's why contemplating about them in advance may help improving the result. We can make a list of some probable and conceivable situations, set the rule and standard for making decisions to make priority list. Refusing to make it would effectively let the decisions to be made by random chance. The video above at 2:00 timestamp shows an example.QuoteSelf-driving cars are already cruising the streets today. And while these cars will ultimately be safer and cleaner than their manual counterparts, they can’t completely avoid accidents altogether. How should the car be programmed if it encounters an unavoidable accident? Patrick Lin navigates the murky ethics of self-driving cars.Even with self driving cars, accidents can and will still happen. And their outcome may be determined months or years in advance by programmers or policy makers.
Is it morally acceptable to leave someone's fate to random chance? especially when a better alternative is available?
Just like process safety concept, hazard identification orders us to make multilayered countermeasures. In the automated cars manufacturer' side, the occurence of similar incidents can be significantly reduced by keeping safe distance from vehicles in front of them. Improving reaction time and maneuverability can also help the case.
From regulator's side, they can reduce the occurence of similar incidents by stricter rules to transport cargo. They should penalize irresponsible behaviors, but the decision should be socialized in advance. If it's explicitly stated in the form of law that irresponsible bikers get lower priorities to save in the algorithm of automated cars in such incidents, it would incentivize them to be more responsible in the future. If it still happen, then they should realize that it's the consequences they are willing to take for ignoring the rule.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 11:30:28
Many exercises on moral decision making emphasize on mitigating incidents. Of course, they are more thrilling and less boring. But in real life, preventing them from happening in the first place is an immensely more effective to get desired results.We can take some lessons learned from chess games. Let's say a game finished by a checkmate in move #50. The real decisive move may have happened several moves before that, e.g. #39. It could be a brilliant move by the winner, or a blunder by the loser. Subsequent moves may seem like merely its inevitable consequences.
Building a better virtual universe can help preventing blunders we might make in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 12:56:32
In chess, any move that eventually makes you win a game is a good move. But chess is a finite game, where every move can be evaluated retrospectively after the game ends. On the other hand, game of life has no foreseeable end.
Some individuals die, but life goes on. It's just like a chess piece being captured, and the game continues.
Real life also contains hidden information, which doesn't exist in chess. That's why we should stick to simple and proven rules, until we're confident that there's a better alternative. It can only be determined if we know the long term goal, so we can make comparison of expected consequences among different options. An accurate, precise, and relevant virtual universe can help us make better decisions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 13:49:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2021 13:53:12
If we assume that we or our descendants will be there, our preferred goal will be one that would appeal to us in the future. So we have to imagine ourselves in the position of a time traveller. You do it every day: you have a vision of yourself at work or on holiday, and if the vision is appealing, you get on the train and go there..We can discard time travel if we don't stick to individualistic point of view, and embrace universal altruism.
Apart from the universal altruism, there are non-universal altruism, e. g.Moreover, being altruistic prioritizes the well being of others rather than harming oneself. In your example, one of them can commit suicide, or go somewhere else to find another apple.This problem is better answered in the discussion about universal terminal goal. It would be like jumping in to the final step here. But I'll do it anyway, lest I'll forget about it later.
Here is another expression for Universal terminal goal:
The universe should be kept containing some form of consciousness, but it doesn't have to contain me in particular. I'll just call this universal altruism principle, because, why not?
Individual altruism. A gecko drops its tail to distract a predator, and save its own consciousness.
Parental altruism. Parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children.
Kin altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save their siblings or close relatives.
Tribal altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save their tribe members.
National altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same nation.
Racial altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same race.
Species altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same species.
Genus altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other individuals of the same genus.
Universal altruism. Someone sacrifice their own lives to save other conscious entities.
The altruistic behaviors only make an evolutionary stable strategy if the one being saved is more likely to carry consciousness to the future than the one making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much better than suicide.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/08/2021 22:43:54
Post by: Just thinking on 19/08/2021 23:04:42
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/08/2021 05:34:19
The first, last and only lesson of chess is that it is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops, whilst avoiding getting stuffed yourself. It is total war distilled into a non-contact sport. Not a good starting point for developing a moral code flavored with altruism.
I'm sorry if that's really the only thing you can learn from game of chess. So let me share mine.
Game of chess can help us to exercise in decision making process effectively.
First, we need to identify success criteria. That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king.
Then identify valid steps/options available to us to achieve that goal. In real life, it's like discovering natural laws as well as social laws.
Then identify required steps to achieve the terminal goal. They are the instrumental goals.
Then make priorities. Don't confuse terminal goal from instrumental goal. In light of the universal terminal goal, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are just instrumental goals. They are generally good things, as long as they don't obstruct our efforts to achieve the terminal goal.
Also identify how our opponent would react to our actions. It makes us think from the perspective of others. In real life, there would be more than two parties interacting simultaneously. But to learn something, we must start from the simple one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/08/2021 10:18:38
Then make priorities. Don't confuse terminal goal from instrumental goal. In light of the universal terminal goal, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain are just instrumental goals. They are generally good things, as long as they don't obstruct our efforts to achieve the terminal goal.We also need to be aware of selection bias. Queen is usually considered as highest value chess piece. So getting your queen captured is usually a bad move. But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/08/2021 13:32:46
That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king..................But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.
As I said
it is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops,
I strongly recommend The Queen's Gambit (Netflix). It won't improve your chess, but it's a damn good story, well told.
So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops? And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner. The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/08/2021 16:54:03
It is total war distilled into a non-contact sport. Not a good starting point for developing a moral code flavored with altruism.Your statements above make me feel like you are missing my last, but not least important point here.
The altruistic behaviors only make an evolutionary stable strategy if the one being saved is more likely to carry consciousness to the future than the one making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it wouldn't be much better than suicide.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/08/2021 17:00:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2021 01:37:27
So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops?
You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.
Quote
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Quote
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1771.Sun_Tzu
As I described previously, in making an effective decision, you need to define your terminal goal.
Then ask if it's aligned with the universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2021 02:37:54
So morality is what you do in the service of a concept that you think is more important than anyone and everyone.Haven't you heard that no one is above the law? Everyone is under the law.
The next question is which laws are compatible with the universal terminal goal. Those are the laws we have to follow.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2021 03:21:59
And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner. The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.Making good decisions needs adequate amount of accurate and precise information which is relevant to the situation at hand. Unfortunately I have too limited access to it to let me make good decisions. There are too many important information hidden from me. I have limited information sources, mostly from news media, which is prone to selection bias.
But whatever the information would be revealed, there's one certain thing. Any leader who wants to make an effective decision must know their terminal goal. So, let them declare their own terminal goals, and let them compare with the universal terminal goal. Let's see if they can say it out loud without being embarrassed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2021 04:48:34
Post by: alancalverd on 21/08/2021 12:30:16
You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.But clearly not a chess player. You can move your knights out and back without moving any other piece or attacking your opponent, and lose very quickly.
Quote
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Quote
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.
You can sit at home and watch Nazis and Talibans take over the world, but if that isn't consistent with your goal, it isn't a victory.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/08/2021 07:01:26
Maybe he wasn't. It's more likely that he played Chinese version of chess.You can learn from an ancient general who was also a philosopher.But clearly not a chess player. You can move your knights out and back without moving any other piece or attacking your opponent, and lose very quickly.
Quote
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
Quote
The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.
You can sit at home and watch Nazis and Talibans take over the world, but if that isn't consistent with your goal, it isn't a victory.
Can you subdue your opponent by moving your knight only? Or sitting at home? Or flight to other country?
If not, it can't be the supreme art of war.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/08/2021 15:00:28
So, our efforts to stop what they're doing are our instrumental goals. There are some options we can do. Killing them is just one of many possible efforts to incapacitate them. Yet another option is to stop them from having the desire that would obstruct our efforts to achieve our goals in the first place. It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2021 23:14:37
I want to underline that we don't let our opponents get what they want because it presumably prevents us from achieving our goals.Which rather suggests that neither side subscribes to a universal goal. So why assume that one exists, or could exist?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 04:08:14
It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.
Quote
persuade : induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.
Quote
Persuasion, the process by which a person's attitudes or behaviour are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people.Persuasion means convincing our opponents that either:
- their current terminal goal is wrong, so we need to show them what we think is the correct one, which is compatible with our own goal.
- their current terminal goal is correct, but they chose wrong instrumental goals. We should then show them better instrumental goals, which are more effective and efficient in achieving their terminal goal, and also compatible with our goals.
On the other hand, threat is
Quote
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.which means that we don't have to change their goals. But we need to identify what's important for them. It's presumed that avoiding pain or damage is important for everyone, since it's a common adaptation to evolutionary process. The threat can also be extended to involve someone else which are important to our opponents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 04:33:53
When two statements about reality differ, at least one of them must be false. But there is no guarantee that both of them are false.I want to underline that we don't let our opponents get what they want because it presumably prevents us from achieving our goals.Which rather suggests that neither side subscribes to a universal goal. So why assume that one exists, or could exist?
So, which one is your position in the table below?
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=71347.0;attach=30734)
1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.
Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.
Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal.
Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 04:57:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 06:04:42
I've stated in another thread, that learning is a data compression process. It starts with data pre-processing, which involves data filtering, including removing invalid/false/irrelevant data. When we were kids, our parents and teachers had already done this step for us. But as adults, we must do it by ourselves, using our own experience and reasoning capacities. If we keep picking irrelevant data, the result of our learning process would be useless.That's our terminal goal. In chess game, it's winning the game by checkmating the opponent's king..................But if you see from the list of best chess games of all time, you'll find that chess players who sacrificed their queen are likely end up as the winner.
As I saidit is all about beating your opponent's king into submission, regardless of the cost to your own troops,
I strongly recommend The Queen's Gambit (Netflix). It won't improve your chess, but it's a damn good story, well told.
So back to morality: do you want to thrash your opponents, or minimise the harm to your own troops? And just to make life really interesting, what do you do about civil wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran? Can you justify or condemn invading Iraq? The Russian angle (particularly in Syria) has been to support the government in power on the basis of "better the devil you know", and hope eventually to control or trade with it as a secure and credible winner. The US approach has been to try to impose democracy, however corrupt, from the outset.
Some of us have to learn the hard way. But we can also learn in easier and fun way.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 06:28:29
Quote
On August 15, 2021, the Taliban seize power in Kabul, Afghanistan. 20 years after their defeat, they triumph and the West is shocked. This film was produced in 2019. Six Afghan women share their hopes and memories that connect them to their country.
Afghanistan has been in a state of emergency for four decades. Women in particular suffer as a result, becoming pawns in ideological conflicts. This film depicts their suffering – but also their courage, and determination to control their fate.
The documentary begins in the 1960s, in the peaceful Kingdom of Afghanistan. When communists take power, a war begins that will change the face of the country. Women become pawns in ideological battles. After September 11, 2001, Afghan women hope peace may return. They want to determine their own fate. But the spiral of violence continues to this day.
In a first, this film is told exclusively from the point of view of Afghan women, who talk about how their lives have changed. Six women, including the former "Miss Afghanistan 1972" and the current minister for human rights, take the audience on a journey through the splendor and misery of the country. They show the tangible effects of endless war, and how women in particular have become victims of violent politics. But they also show how much courage Afghan women have. Using mostly unseen archival footage, the film shows how girls grew up, went to school and were socially engaged in the vibrant Kabul of the 1960s. But this "golden age" ended when the monarchy was overthrown and ideological battlelines were drawn between communists and Islamists. Even the Soviet Union could not maintain control, its mighty army falling to Islamist forces, who eventually took control of Kabul. Thus began a downward spiral that darkened the lives of Afghan women. 20 years ago, the fall of the Taliban seemed to open a path to a more promising future. For two decades, women and girls in Afghanistan were able to envisage and live a life in which they could decide their fate, in a country that provided ample choices and chances for them. They wanted their country back, the country they once knew. With the Taliban’s swift coup to seize power in just a few weeks, the women’s dreams seem more unattainable than ever.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/08/2021 17:44:44
Not entirely relevant to this discussion but it does all demonstrate the lack of an obvious universal desideratum, and what happens when you let politics and religion interfere with the things that matter.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2021 23:52:38
Something that's obvious for someone may not be obvious for someone else. Someone still believes that the earth is flat. It doesn't mean that there is no universally accepted objective reality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/08/2021 06:46:24
Some of us have to learn the hard way.And some of us learn a little too late.
Quote
Conservative radio host Phil Valentine died of COVD over the weekend, after spending several months attacking masks and questioning the safety of vaccines. These stories are hitting with far more frequency as the Delta variant continues to spread across the country. Valentine's family announced, prior to his passing, that he would be far more pro-vaccine once he got out of the hospital, that day will never come now. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/08/2021 11:18:13
Biden assumed ...... It turns out to be false.
The pledge and timetable for withdrawal were set by Trump, therefore almost certainly based on falsity. The absurdity of setting a date (the 20th anniversary of 9/11) fixed by the earth's orbit of the sun rather than a clear military dominance and establishment of a stable competent government, just shows how stupid and gullible a president can be - as if we didn't know. Beware of a man who prays - or waves a bible even if he's never read it.
Quite different from Norman Schwarzkopf's press briefing on Desert Storm: "When it's over, we'll tell them who won."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/08/2021 06:35:12
Quote
The Washington Post releases a staggering report about the war in Afghanistan that shows an alarming lack of strategy, gross mismanagement of funds and a continued pattern of painting the war as successful from Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump.No organization can survive in long term based on lies. That's why it's almost universally thought as immoral act. Only in extremely rare case that it becomes acceptable and necessary.
New Rule: The Big Liars | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/08/2021 09:10:37
Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany RickwaldIt's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be done while we're alive.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9V0VitX0AAXAox?format=jpg&name=small)
In current situation, perhaps Covid patients and covid virus are more representative. They're contagious and affect more of us.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/08/2021 09:19:10
Another possibility, although not yet practical, is by editing neuron connections in someone's brain.It can be achieved through persuasions or threats.Quotepersuade : induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument.QuotePersuasion, the process by which a person's attitudes or behaviour are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people.Persuasion means convincing our opponents that either:
- their current terminal goal is wrong, so we need to show them what we think is the correct one, which is compatible with our own goal.
- their current terminal goal is correct, but they chose wrong instrumental goals. We should then show them better instrumental goals, which are more effective and efficient in achieving their terminal goal, and also compatible with our goals.
On the other hand, threat isQuotea statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.which means that we don't have to change their goals. But we need to identify what's important for them. It's presumed that avoiding pain or damage is important for everyone, since it's a common adaptation to evolutionary process. The threat can also be extended to involve someone else which are important to our opponents.
This would be an absolute power to control someone else. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only way to prevent them from self destruction is by making them understand the concept of universal terminal goal, which is the only logically defensible position.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/08/2021 15:04:05
Post by: alancalverd on 27/08/2021 23:44:12
Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany Rickwald
It's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be donewhile we're alive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/08/2021 15:52:37
Death never becomes part of the requirements in science and technology.Would you opt for a life with no pain? - Hayley Levitt and Bethany Rickwald
It's basically what's being offered by most religions in afterlife for those who follow them.
Science and technology offer similar things, except that they can be donewhile we're alive.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/08/2021 22:50:47
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2021 05:46:43
You missed the point. Religions by definition offer things that cannot be done. Things that can be done are called engineering, medicine, farming, whatever....Whose definition are you using?
Quote
re·li·gion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/08/2021 13:27:20
Selling a nonexistent product to people who can't claim compensation because they won't know it doesn't exist until they are dead! Belief in someone or some group who is supposed to be in charge but for whose existence and activities there is no actual evidence.
It gets worse. Some religions sell the concept of an omnipotent omniscient controller who has determined everything, then suggest that you can get him to change his mind by asking nicely, flagellating yourself, or butchering a virgin.
It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between religion and pornography.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/08/2021 10:03:42
It's sometimes difficult to distinguish between religion and pornography.Does it make them immoral?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/09/2021 11:12:50
Most people enjoy a bit of porn (test 1) but wouldn't admit to inflicting it on their children (test 2). So it's immoral. Some people get a feeling of religious ecstacy, but wouldn't enjoy being criticised for worshipping the wrong god, or seeing their children killed for the same "reason". So it's immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/09/2021 12:28:00
Pornography is defined as "that which tends to deprave or corrupt". Anything that induces a person to harm or degrade another fits the bill in my view, and harm surely includes contradicting rational thought.
You seem to have your own definition for English words.
Here's the definition I got from Google.
Quote
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.And merriam-webster.
Quote
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (such as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
Quote
Most people enjoy a bit of porn (test 1) but wouldn't admit to inflicting it on their children (test 2). So it's immoral. Some people get a feeling of religious ecstacy, but wouldn't enjoy being criticised for worshipping the wrong god, or seeing their children killed for the same "reason". So it's immoral.Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/09/2021 00:04:03
There's a neat distinction between erotic and pornographic: it's the difference between being tickled with a feather and slapped with a whole chicken.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/09/2021 00:09:10
Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/09/2021 06:04:04
Does it include Buddhism and Jainism?Some people would admit to inflicting it on their children. On what ground would you call them immoral?The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/09/2021 22:58:47
Immorality often involves ignorance or false convictions which causes someone to have wrong priorities. Take any action or behavior that you think is immoral. You can always find something which is believed by the perpetrator that you think is false.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/09/2021 08:55:20
The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.We can analyze religions like any other memes. The fact that some of them have survived for millenias suggests that they have some benefits for their societies, which outweigh their cost and flaws. One of their main benefits has been identified centuries ago.
Quote
On March 4, 1806, during a meeting of the national committee Napoleon said:
“Je ne vois pas dans la religion le mystère de l'Incarnation mais le mystère de l'Ordre Social. La religion rattache au ciel une idée d'égalité qui empêche le riche d'être massacré par le pauvre."
translation: “I don’t see in religion evidence of the mystery of the incarnation, but rather the mystery of social order. Religion associates heaven with an idea of equality that keeps the rich from being massacred by the poor.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/09/2021 11:57:51
Social disorder is not the only threat to the existence of conscious beings. There's another threat, which is natural disorder or catastrophe. The benefit of social order brought by religion would be overshadowed by its cost of inability to build protection against natural disorders. For example, if religion hinders scientific progress which makes the society incapable of preventing extinction by asteroid impact or global pandemic.The one thing all religions have in common is that they teach you to despise all the others. That's depraved and corrupt.We can analyze religions like any other memes. The fact that some of them have survived for millenias suggests that they have some benefits for their societies, which outweigh their cost and flaws. One of their main benefits has been identified centuries ago.QuoteOn March 4, 1806, during a meeting of the national committee Napoleon said:
“Je ne vois pas dans la religion le mystère de l'Incarnation mais le mystère de l'Ordre Social. La religion rattache au ciel une idée d'égalité qui empêche le riche d'être massacré par le pauvre."
translation: “I don’t see in religion evidence of the mystery of the incarnation, but rather the mystery of social order. Religion associates heaven with an idea of equality that keeps the rich from being massacred by the poor.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/09/2021 13:16:41
Many things we see as immoral actions only become obvious retrospectively. They are caused by miscalculation of risks.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2021 17:40:47
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2021 17:43:05
Does it include Buddhism and Jainism?It certainly describes the adherents I have met.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2021 01:26:24
Religion is what gives perverts the presumed authority to interfere in the lives of others.So do other ideologies like communism, capitalism, liberalism, anarchism.
The CDC had to interfere in people's lives with vaccine and mask mandates to minimize the impact of the pandemic.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2021 09:56:56
The general rule of a civilised society is that some form of parliament or soviet decides what should be prohibited for the public good. Anything that is not prohibited is permitted, and your duties are limited to paying taxes, sitting on a jury, or being liable for military service. If you don't like a decision, you can write to the newspapers or appeal to a court of your peers.
Theocracies (including many European countries) work the other way around: you have all sorts of duties (some imposed by the rights of others) and can only do what is permitted. You have no right to question or challenge the authority of whoever says he has read the book and been anointed by some mythical being.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2021 00:05:24
Difference is that most of the cited isms involve a degree of implicit or explicit public consultation and approval based on clear potential advantages. CDC is publicly accountable. Mullahs and bishops are not.What's clear for you may not be clear for others, and vice versa. What we think is clear might still be false in some circumstances.
They are also accountable, but use different sets of rules. Anyone in any position can be personally corrupt.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2021 04:09:17
The general rule of a civilised society is that some form of parliament or soviet decides what should be prohibited for the public good.The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.
What makes the difference is the accuracy of their model for objective reality that relates actions and consequences. Some societies believe that human sacrifices can prevent famine and natural disasters. Some others believe that killing gays can save them from disasters. Nazis believed that killing Jews can bring them to prosperity. The Confederacy believed that keeping slaves can bring them to prosperity.
Post by: alianawatson1990 on 10/09/2021 08:45:40
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2021 14:18:23
Classic and elegant interior designs elevate the look of your home to a whole new level. Modern interior design has outstanding features like wallpapers, colors, textures, spacing, lighting, etc.What on earth does this have to do with the topic?
Unless you are showing us that you have a very low moral standard by trying to spam us.
Doesn’t work
Bye
Post by: alancalverd on 13/09/2021 09:58:49
The general rule of a civilised society is to encourage behaviors that would more likely bring good consequences to the society, and discourage behaviors that would more likely bring bad consequences to the society.That describes uncivilised societies, which have some kind of predetermined objective. Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others. Hence the incompatibility between English (it is an offence to...) and European (it is a requirement to...) law.
Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/09/2021 12:11:32
Amartya Sen was awarded a Nobel Prize for pointing out that there has never been a famine in a democracy.
Quote
So, Harvard economist Amartya Sen looks wise in his comment that "No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy."If famine takes place in a democratic country, he can just say that their democracy is not functioning.
It sounds like no true Scotsman.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/09/2021 12:14:15
Civilisation is about allowing people maximum freedom to do their own thing without upsetting others.Whatever you do might upset someone. Even when you do nothing.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/09/2021 17:19:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2021 06:49:22
That is why we have parliaments to decide what is so annoying as to be illegal. Thus civilisation happens by evolution, not revolution.People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.
In democratic societies, decisions made by the majority is applied to all members, including those who disagree with them. In representative democracy, it can be manipulated through Gerrymandering.
Quote
What is the difference between Evolution and Revolution?https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-evolution-and-vs-revolution/
• Evolution refers to the gradual development or changes in something over a period.
• On the other hand, the word revolution means ‘a turn around’; a sudden, complete, or radical change in something.
• Revolution is the fundamental change in something in a staggeringly short period.
French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/09/2021 07:26:04
Quote
There's a lot of confusion surrounding the terms Communism and Socialism. The two are often used interchangeably, even by entire governments and political leaders, but they are not the same at all! So what’s the difference?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/09/2021 21:12:59
French, and many third world countries, get their democracy through revolution.Hence the difference between the legal systems of France and the UK. The French revolutionaries imposed a model secular state, the Brits, as usual, meandered in the course of 1000 years or so towards a compromise vaguely associated with the Church of England and the monarch but ultimately ruled by an elected parliament and an unelected senate, but crucially preserving the celtic ideal of the state serving the citizen, not the other way around.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/09/2021 21:35:01
People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/09/2021 11:32:15
What's normal and reasonable in one society may not be normal and reasonable in other societies.People have different level of tolerance toward different types of annoyance.Which is why we have civil courts, English law is full of "normally" and "reasonable", and it is an offence to deliberately annoy anyone.
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2021 05:10:19
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians.Here's an example from a few years ago.
Or this one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2021 06:26:30
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiFZhnakJkADVzUftC4FzPg/videos
Here is one of his video.
Moral Antirealism: Is morality a scam?
Quote
The idea that morality just exists to enforce social norms is rooted in moral antirealism, the idea that there simply are no moral facts. But why believe this is true?
And this one from more popular channel.
Quote
We begin our unit on ethics with a look at metaethics. Hank explains three forms of moral realism – moral absolutism, and cultural relativism, including the difference between descriptive and normative cultural relativism – and moral subjectivism, which is a form of moral antirealism. Finally, we’ll introduce the concept of an ethical theory.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2021 13:26:27
To me, the invention of the word virtue in morality is like adding a hidden layer in a neural network somehere between its input and output. It gives us flexibility to more combinations between possible states of inputs and outputs. But it's hard to define what's virtuous and what's not. Except if we can define the terminal goal, and accurate models to tell us what are the consequences of each options.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2021 13:39:41
Many say that honesty is a virtue. Some say it's a weakness.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=32337)
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2021 17:36:20
Many comedians deliberately annoy politicians. Should they be punished?Not all of them. Annoyance may be enough.
"If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2021 17:42:05
My civil service boss told me that I had been criticised in a probationary staff report for not suffering fools gladly. I said I hadn't expected to meet any. The subject was never raised again.
Post by: marklivin on 23/09/2021 16:09:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2021 04:05:10
There is no and cannot be, if we are not captured by AI and impose its power and one moral code on all. Everything is relative.Your statement implies that it can be, if we are captured by AI.
Dou you agree with moral relativism? Should we let Nazis and ISIS practice their moral rules?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2021 12:25:53
How do you proof that there is no possibility of universal terminal goal?My point is that without a universal terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard, and we can't say if a moral rule is universally good or bad.And there being no possibility of a UTG, there is no UMS.
Without universal moral standard, we can't say if any moral rule is better or worse than any other moral rules. You can't say that ancient Jewish moral rules are better or worst than Nazi's moral rules, nor with modern secular democratic moral rules.
Every action would be equally justified by their own moral standard. Jewish' genocide would be justified by their tribal moral standard. Nazi's holocaust would be justified by their racist/facist moral standard. ISIS' actions would be justified by their theological moral standard. Even Ted Bundy's serial rapes and murders would be justified by hedonistic moral standard. Charles Whitman's mass shooting would be justified by nihilistic moral standard. They are equally good by relativistic moral standard.
You can only say that your moral standard is better than the others by showing that yours is more aligned with the universal moral standard, at least in some specific aspects.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/09/2021 07:57:22
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2021 11:48:28
Quote
Inevitably, life on Earth will come to an end, whether by climate disaster, cataclysmic war, or the death of the sun in a few billion years. What do we do about it?
Watch the Q&A: Get Christopher's Book: https://geni.us/fELYS
In this talk, Christopher E Mason argues we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets can be applied to redesigning biology so that we can sustainably inhabit those planets. And he will lay out a 500-year plan for undertaking the massively ambitious project of reengineering human genetics for life on other worlds.
Christopher E. Mason is a geneticist and computational biologist who has been a Principal Investigator and Co-investigator of several NASA missions and Planetary Protection projects. He is Associate Professor at Weill Cornell Medicine, with affiliate appointments at the Meyer Cancer Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School, and the Consortium for Space Genetics at Harvard Medical School. His book The Next 500 Years: Engineering Life to Reach Other Worlds will be published in April 2021 by MIT Press.
This talk was recorded on 20th April 2021
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2021 00:31:01
we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets.....That's arrogance, not evidence of a moral duty. Having screwed up a perfectly habitable planet, killed off most of the other species on it, and invented politics and religion as excuses for killing each other, it would be best for the earth and the rest of the universe if homo sapiens was eliminated, not encouraged to infect other planets..
Post by: Pseudoscience-is-malarkey on 03/10/2021 02:51:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 06:03:33
It looks like you're a misanthropist.we have a moral duty to explore other planets and solar systems. He envisages the same capacity for ingenuity that has enabled us to build rockets and land on other planets.....That's arrogance, not evidence of a moral duty. Having screwed up a perfectly habitable planet, killed off most of the other species on it, and invented politics and religion as excuses for killing each other, it would be best for the earth and the rest of the universe if homo sapiens was eliminated, not encouraged to infect other planets..
Quote
This video introduces some of the recent philosophical work on misanthropy. The third part is based on the work of Ian James Kidd, particularly his article "Varieties of Philosophical Misanthropy". See also Norlock's "Perpetual Struggle" and Halwani's "Misanthropy and Virtue". The notion of secular theodicies comes from Benatar's book "The Human Predicament", though his focus is on pessimism in general rather than misanthropy specifically.
0:00 - Philosophical misanthropy
3:24 - Secular theodicies
23:50 - Living with misanthropy
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2021 09:27:57
It looks like you're a misanthropist.You paint me with too broad a brush! I'm not anti-human, just pro-universe.
I love and appreciate a few of my fellow beings who really do good things for others and various bits of the planet, but the fact is that all living things convert their environment to toxins: excretion is one of the defining characteristics of life.
Humans produce a wider range of toxins and in vastly greater quantities per capita than any other species, so even when we are not torturing and killing each other in the name of some absurd hypothesis, we cover the planet in crap.
Several excellent products are labelled "not for export". I think homo sapiens is a potentially excellent product, but should not be exported from this planet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 10:36:22
I love and appreciate a few of my fellow beings who really do good things for others and various bits of the planet, but the fact is that all living things convert their environment to toxins: excretion is one of the defining characteristics of life.Have you seen a terrarium that have been running for decades supporting lives isolated from outside world?
In principle, there's nothing to prevent humans from building suitable size terrarium for humans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 11:56:35
Several excellent products are labelled "not for export". I think homo sapiens is a potentially excellent product, but should not be exported from this planet.No one I know claims that humans in current form are perfect. But we can use our knowledge and wisdom to make continuous improvement.
Physically, human body is not suitable for outer space, nor most extraterrestrial worlds. But there's no requirement for us to go there naked.
Do you have a reason to prevent humans from building a multiplanetary society?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 12:08:13
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2021 13:08:08
Have you seen a terrarium that have been running for decades supporting lives isolated from outside world?We already live in a very good one. Better to keep it tidy than to bugger it up and build another one where it isn't wanted.
In principle, there's nothing to prevent humans from building suitable size terrarium for humans.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2021 13:11:33
No one I know claims that humans in current form are perfect. But we can use our knowledge and wisdom to make continuous improvement.Then you would be exporting something that isn't a human. And as it is arguable that environmental stress (including radiation damage) leads to evolution, you would be exporting something too robust to evolve.
Physically, human body is not suitable for outer space, nor most extraterrestrial worlds. But there's no requirement for us to go there naked.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2021 13:12:16
in the effort to achieve the universal terminal goal.defined by whom?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 14:30:10
Then you would be exporting something that isn't a human. And as it is arguable that environmental stress (including radiation damage) leads to evolution, you would be exporting something too robust to evolve.As long as they are not perfect, there's always some room for improvement. Especially when they have access to redesign their own body.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 15:33:52
As long as it's not perfect, there's always some room for improvement. Especially when we have access to redesign our own environment.Have you seen a terrarium that have been running for decades supporting lives isolated from outside world?We already live in a very good one. Better to keep it tidy than to bugger it up and build another one where it isn't wanted.
In principle, there's nothing to prevent humans from building suitable size terrarium for humans.
How long do you think it will stay as good as it is? Should we all just die and extinct with it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2021 15:35:53
By any conscious beings who survived long enough to consider all logically possible alternatives.in the effort to achieve the universal terminal goal.defined by whom?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/10/2021 11:03:31
And here's my opinion about consciousness. Even I have a problem recalling what I've written here previously.By any conscious beings who survived long enough to consider all logically possible alternatives.in the effort to achieve the universal terminal goal.defined by whom?
Vision alone only covers input part of a conscious system. It still requires other parts like self awareness, preference or feedback mechanism, and output or actuating system to change its environment. However, it's possible to build a conscious system where its input from environment is exclusively visual.It looks like those subsystems of conscious entities contribute to overall consciousness, while their effectiveness can be independent from each others. In this case, overall consciousness can be represented as the result of matrix multiplication of the subsystem's effectiveness to achieve their respective goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/10/2021 13:31:41
Post by: alancalverd on 15/10/2021 14:54:13
If you don't control or constrain a machine or an animal, it may do things you don't like.
Or, in the case of my dog, nothing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/10/2021 23:26:02
To summarise AI safety:Animals intelligence are not usually called artificial. Something that we don't like may actually be good for us. Such as physical exercise, or critical thinking.
If you don't control or constrain a machine or an animal, it may do things you don't like.
Or, in the case of my dog, nothing.
The goal of AI creators may be different from others', or from one another. For example, it's possible for a national government to create an AI specifically meant to create havoc in rival country.
In AI safety, we need to identify the AI's internal goal, and make sure that it aligns with ours.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2021 10:05:07
As for AI, to quote the Bible "If thy computer offend thee, switch it off". Or as any driving instructor will tell you, learn to stop it before you start it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2021 10:36:46
As for AI, to quote the Bible "If thy computer offend thee, switch it off". Or as any driving instructor will tell you, learn to stop it before you start it.Unless if the AI has distributed consciousness over thousands of computers in thousands of satellites equipped with solar cells and self maintenance robots.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2021 10:53:24
Part of the magic of reinforcement learning relies on regularly rewarding the agents for actions that lead to a better outcome. That models works great in dense reward environments like games in which almost every action correspond to a specific feedback but what happens if that feedback is not available? In reinforcement learning this is known as sparse rewards environments and, unfortunately, it’s a representation of most real-world scenarios. A couple of years ago, researchers from Google published a new paper proposing a technique for achieving generalization with reinforcement learning that operate in sparse reward environments.I bring this here from my other thread because it can help us understand the fundamental requirements for sustainable moral standards.
Survival of consciousness is the universal ultimate reward. But its success or failure may not be obvious for billions of years in a world where consciousness can naturally emerge. Natural consciousness came up with survival of species and individual survival as meta rewards or instrumental goals. The results can be found in shorter periods, eg. million years or decades, respectively.
Pain avoidance and pleasure from eating food have made good meta rewards for individual survival. While sexual desire and instinctive care for the youngs have made good meta rewards for survival of species.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2021 13:20:02
Unless if the AI has distributed consciousness over thousands of computers in thousands of satellites equipped with solar cells and self maintenace robots.There are very few machines that cannot be corrected by a man with a hammer.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2021 13:21:31
Survival of consciousness is the universal ultimate rewardAnd who reaps that reward? If it doesn't accrue to me or my offspring, it is not worth pursuing.
Survival of species is an effect, not a cause.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2021 13:48:18
Most electronic devices can't.Unless if the AI has distributed consciousness over thousands of computers in thousands of satellites equipped with solar cells and self maintenace robots.There are very few machines that cannot be corrected by a man with a hammer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2021 13:49:26
Conscious entities who exist in the future.Survival of consciousness is the universal ultimate rewardAnd who reaps that reward? If it doesn't accrue to me or my offspring, it is not worth pursuing.
Survival of species is an effect, not a cause.
It means you haven't thought it through long enough. Your moral awareness is still on the level of kin altruism. It's even lower than tribal altruism which many of us consider as the source of many immoral acts.
It's the effect of things before it, and the cause of something after it.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2021 16:16:27
Obviously I have the wrong sort of electronic devices. In my experience, a fair number stop working if they are dropped on a floor or fitted into an airplane. I haven't used a hammer on any but the occasional boot has established who is ultimately in control of my life.Most electronic devices can't.Unless if the AI has distributed consciousness over thousands of computers in thousands of satellites equipped with solar cells and self maintenace robots.There are very few machines that cannot be corrected by a man with a hammer.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/10/2021 16:17:36
Your moral awareness is still on the level of kin altruism.which is what determines the survival and evolution of species.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2021 22:47:11
Quote
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/02/elon-musks-fears-artificial-intelligence-will-destroy-humanity-speciesist-according-google-founder-larry-page-7515207/Larry Page's term for the accusation is not accurate. The more appropriate term would be elementalist.
‘At times, Larry accused Elon of being “speciesist”: treating certain life forms as inferior just because they were silicon-based rather than carbon-based.’
Post by: alancalverd on 17/10/2021 14:32:33
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/10/2021 16:40:05
Just as well Musk isn't trying to eliminate malaria. One would hate to be labelled speciesist for disliking plasmodium.People only hate plasmodium because of harms they induce to humans. If the harms can be eliminated, there's no need in hating them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria_vaccine
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/10/2021 23:22:55
I've mentioned before that the advantage of naturally occurring carbon based consciousness over the silicon counterpart is that they can reproduce more easily. But the silicon based consciousness can be mass produced, although it still needs the involvement of humans in the supply chain, at least for now.Quotehttps://metro.co.uk/2018/05/02/elon-musks-fears-artificial-intelligence-will-destroy-humanity-speciesist-according-google-founder-larry-page-7515207/Larry Page's term for the accusation is not accurate. The more appropriate term would be elementalist.
‘At times, Larry accused Elon of being “speciesist”: treating certain life forms as inferior just because they were silicon-based rather than carbon-based.’
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/10/2021 23:40:55
Simple reward and punishment rules work best for simple conscious agents. More sophisticated agents may device reward hackings, which is detrimental in the long run. The better approach is to tell them their terminal goal and how to achieve it.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2021 00:34:23
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2021 03:06:57
Taking your last two posts together suggests an experiment to demonstrate your point. It's always a good idea to start with a simple, unsophisticated model, so teach or force plasmodium falciparum to be nice to its hosts. Your work will benefit three species!It depends on cost and benefit, while taking into account the effectiveness and efficiency of each option. When humans become immune to their attack, they are forced to feed on other lifeforms to survive. Lower consciousness lifeforms come and go naturally. They should not be of much concern as long as they don't affect the long term survival of some highest concious entities.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2021 10:05:12
Life is competitive. If you don't fight, you won't win.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2021 11:09:27
So I should wait for the invading parasites to "come and go naturally"? At what level? Plasmodium, rats, fascists?No. You should use your available resources to optimally try to achieve the universal terminal goal. Some sacrifices might be necessary. Hence the moral standard will guide you how to set up the priorities.
Life is competitive. If you don't fight, you won't win.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2021 13:39:02
There is no ruling imperative to do anything, but if you do nothing some other being will destroy you.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/10/2021 16:25:46
if you are prepared to sacrifice yourself for the advancement of a meaningless concept, you won't find me standing next to you for long.Unwillingness to make a sacrifice can simply means willingness to make even bigger sacrifice, albeit reluctantly or unwittingly.
The concept of universal terminal goal that I've concluded in my other thread is the most meaningful goal I can think of. I quoted it in my post here marked as the best answer. Let me know if you can find a better alternative. If it's convincing enough, I'll change the best answer of this thread to your post.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/10/2021 17:13:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/10/2021 11:18:17
I can't imagine a better alternative because I don't accept that there is or should be a UTG. Abandoning the concept makes decisions a lot easier.
What's your position regarding the universal terminal goal? Which point(s) is/are unacceptable for you?
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=71347.0;attach=30734)
1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.
Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.
Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal.
Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.
Doing something without thinking about its consequences first is indeed easier. But you are increasing your risk of having regrets. Establishing moral standards and rules are some efforts to minimize regrets.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/10/2021 11:36:20
If you don't experiment, you won't learn. Some experiments generate regret because we didn't anticipate all the downsides. Who would have thought that Stephenson's Rocket or the Haber-Bosch process would precipitate global disaster?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/10/2021 11:52:43
The terminal goal is something you have defined but I don't accept, therefore it is not universal.Do you think that there is something called a goal?
If you do, then you are not in the last position according to the truth table I quoted above.
Do you think that there is a terminal goal?
If there is a goal, but no terminal goal, then every goal is instrumental of other instrumental goals, on top of each other to infinity.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/10/2021 11:54:47
If you don't experiment, you won't learn. Some experiments generate regret because we didn't anticipate all the downsides. Who would have thought that Stephenson's Rocket or the Haber-Bosch process would precipitate global disaster?That's why we must continuously learn and never forget our past mistakes.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/10/2021 23:21:49
Do you think that there is something called a goal?I have no evidence of any goal existing outside of the intentions of an active agent. Since many active agents compete, we observe that their goals are incompatible and therefore there is no evidence of a universal goal.
The simplest example is football. Each team strives to kick the ball into the opponents' goal and defend its own. Your argument is a "god's eye view" that the everyone is trying to kick the ball into a net, but that ignores the fundamental observations that there are two distinct nets, red shirts are not blue shirts, and each team has a goalkeeper whose job is to stop anyone kicking the ball into their net. If you ignore conflicting data, you will reach incorrect conclusions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/10/2021 04:09:33
I have no evidence of any goal existing outside of the intentions of an active agent. Since many active agents compete, we observe that their goals are incompatible and therefore there is no evidence of a universal goal.So you accept that goals exist, but you reject a universal goal. What's not clear yet is whether you accept that there are terminal goals for each conscious agents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/10/2021 04:21:41
The simplest example is football. Each team strives to kick the ball into the opponents' goal and defend its own. Your argument is a "god's eye view" that the everyone is trying to kick the ball into a net, but that ignores the fundamental observations that there are two distinct nets, red shirts are not blue shirts, and each team has a goalkeeper whose job is to stop anyone kicking the ball into their net. If you ignore conflicting data, you will reach incorrect conclusions.Amateur football players play it for fun, recreation, and keeping health. Professional football players play it for money, which can come from salary and sponsorships. All of those are instrumental goals for having good livelihoods.
What you call a "god's eye view" is actually the point of view of conscious entities who exist in the future, as required by the meaning of the word "terminal".
You keep pointing out the differences while ignoring the similarities. If you want to find a universal things, try to look for similarities among different things.
You also keep pointing out the immediate and near term goals while ignoring the long term goals. If you want to find a terminal goal, try to look for the long terms.
Scoring goals is an instrumental goal to win a football game. Other instrumental goal is to prevent your opponents from scoring goals. Some other instrumental goals can exist, although rare, such as getting your opponent disqualified.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/10/2021 13:45:14
o you accept that goals exist, but you reject a universal goal. What's not clear yet is whether you accept that there are terminal goals for each conscious agents.I couldn't possibly tell you. I observe agents doing things, from which I can estimate their immediate goals, but I do not have the presumption to determine their unstated longterm intentions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/10/2021 14:14:32
If someone doesn't have long term goals, but only has immediate goals, then those goals will no longer matter after they are achieved, or after that someone dies, whichever comes first. They would be meaningless for conscious entities who exist in the future.o you accept that goals exist, but you reject a universal goal. What's not clear yet is whether you accept that there are terminal goals for each conscious agents.I couldn't possibly tell you. I observe agents doing things, from which I can estimate their immediate goals, but I do not have the presumption to determine their unstated longterm intentions.
The universal terminal goal must still be meaningful all the time, even when some conscious agents who tried to achieve it die in the process. It would only become meaningless when there is no single conscious entity exists in the universe, because the concept of goal itself would mean nothing by then. Although it's still possible that somehow some new conscious beings re-emerge in the universe after the extinction of all conscious beings. It would make the universal terminal goal meaningful again. But that's totally out of our control, so we shouldn't rely on that.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/10/2021 17:15:05
If someone doesn't have long term goals, but only has immediate goals, then those goals will no longer matter after they are achieved, or after that someone dies, whichever comes first. They would be meaningless for conscious entities who exist in the future.Absolutely true. The graveyards are full of people who were once irreplaceable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2021 22:53:06
Absolutely true. The graveyards are full of people who were once irreplaceable.The great pyramid is a graveyard. They were built with some goals in the minds of the builders. Most of those goals are no longer relevant to the lives of present societies. But one goal remains, even until far in the future, and applies anywhere in any society. It's preserving the consciousness. In other words, extending the existence of conscious entities into the future.
That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.
Why use reason?
We end up with capacity-circularity, which can't be a flaw in an argument, because it's not a property of arguments in themselves.
The capacity to reason isn't a premise or a rule, so the argument for its legitimacy need not be premise-circular or rule-circular.
This argument is closely related to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum, which I've mentioned before.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 03:30:46
Quote
What if I told you that free will is a myth? That we are all just a group of atoms who will react to a particular stimulus in a way that can be predetermined? This is what we call free will; is it real, or just an illusion?
Moral rules/standards are just tools to modify people's decisions in favor of those who set up the rules/standards.
The universal moral standard is taken from the perspective of conscious entities who exist in the future. In practice, we who exist at the present don't have perfect knowledge of what decisions work best for them. But we can make educated guesses of what they are, by learning from experiences of present and past generations.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/10/2021 13:08:02
That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 16:17:33
The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.That would determine their fate.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.4.iv.html
Quote
evil destroys even itself
Post by: alancalverd on 22/10/2021 23:24:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/10/2021 23:30:47
No evidence so far. If crime didn't pay, nobody would do it.Evil things are like cancer. They seek for short term benefits while sacrificing long term goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/10/2021 01:25:48
Post by: marklivin on 24/10/2021 08:12:25
That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.
I absolutely agree with you. Everything is relative in the aspect of morality and for each conviction can be equally strong and correct, both for a fascist and an anti-fascist. And each of them will bring their own incredibly powerful arguments.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2021 04:03:35
The criminal's goal is to eat. If he doesn't, "long term" is meaningless.He could just try farming, fishing, ask, open gofundme, etc. instead of doing crime.
If his longterm goal is limited by his own lifetime, then it can't be universal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2021 04:08:53
It's like saying that the fact that there are still flat-earthers denies the existence of a universal gravitation. Or the existence of people believing in simulation hypothesis denies the existence of an objective reality.That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.
I absolutely agree with you. Everything is relative in the aspect of morality and for each conviction can be equally strong and correct, both for a fascist and an anti-fascist. And each of them will bring their own incredibly powerful arguments.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/10/2021 15:37:53
Universal presumably means that it applies to everyone, nothing to do with long or short term. I have no goals beyond my own lifetime.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/10/2021 22:10:46
More criminals prosper than farmers. Worst that can happen is you spend a few years being fed at the taxpayer''s expense, studying a trade or an Open University degree, playing chess, and learning from your fellow-professionals. Fishing is dangerous.It means that the law enforcement is ineffective, thus needs improvements. Doing crime should be made more dangerous toward the perpetrators, so people with self interest are discouraged from it.
Universal presumably means that it applies to everyone, nothing to do with long or short term. I have no goals beyond my own lifetime.
Universal goal means that it applies to any conscious entities, no matter what element they are based on.
The long term goal is suggested by the word terminal, assuming that causes precede consequences.
The consciousness part is required by the word goal itself.
Don't you want to leave a better world for your kids, grand kids, and the next generation?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/10/2021 23:45:05
Australia works OK but I'd prefer to start with an uninhabited area rather than allow my scum to attack a native population. Bleeding hearts from time to time wail about the depopulation of Scottish islands, so why not pay the remaining inhabitants to resettle on the mainland, and dump our human detritus on a place which does at least have sheep and potatoes?
The problem with your universal goal seems to be that it is something you want to impose on the universe, whereas I interpreted it as something that the universe, or at least those elements that could express an idea, wanted. Problem is that everything that embodies whatever you define as consciousness, has a different idea of perfection.
I'd like to leave the world a better place for my descendants, but this may involve it being less comfortable for your descendants, since we are distributing decreasing resources among an increasing population.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 11:13:15
Law enforcement, i.e. policing and prosecution, is ineffective, and when it results in a conviction, punishment and protection simply puts a burden on the taxpayer and does nothing to prevent further crimes. When the world comes to its senses, criminals will simply be placed on an island or enclosed in a fenced area and left to get on with building whatever alternative society they want, including the right to die from exposure or establish sustainable housing and agriculture.In industrial practice, improvements start with identifying problems. The next step is finding the root cause and contributing causes. Then make a plan to address them to prevent the problem from reoccuring in the future. The chosen plan may depend on available resources, based on its effectiveness and efficiency. Then execute the plan and evaluate the results, which may produce side effects or residual problems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 11:18:34
The problem with your universal goal seems to be that it is something you want to impose on the universe, whereas I interpreted it as something that the universe, or at least those elements that could express an idea, wanted. Problem is that everything that embodies whatever you define as consciousness, has a different idea of perfection.My idea of universal terminal goal is imposed by the definitions of each words in the phrase. I don't remember if you've proposed any alternative. You only said that it doesn't exist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 11:25:31
I'd like to leave the world a better place for my descendants, but this may involve it being less comfortable for your descendants, since we are distributing decreasing resources among an increasing population.decreasing resources and increasing population are just your assumptions. Being multiplanetary and being innovative can increase resource. Regulation and education can reduce or maintain population.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/10/2021 13:35:43
decreasing resources and increasing population are just your assumptions.Observation, definition of life, and basic physics: ΔS > 0. Not assumptions.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/10/2021 13:37:29
I don't remember if you've proposed any alternative. You only said that it doesn't exist.It would be dishonest to propose an alternative definition of something that cannot exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/10/2021 13:48:35
In industrial practice, improvements start with identifying problems. The next step is finding the root cause and contributing causes. Then make a plan to address them to prevent the problem from reoccuring in the future. The chosen plan may depend on available resources, based on its effectiveness and efficiency. Then execute the plan and evaluate the results, which may produce side effects or residual problems.
Problem: criminals (by definition) disrupt the normal working of a cohesive society, and harm innocent individuals
Root cause: parasitism is more efficient than hosting
Plan: identify and segregate parasites in a selfcontained community
Benefit: gradual elimination of problem
Cost: negligible
Residual problems: none in the medium term, if segregation is complete and permanent.
Possible longterm undesirable effect: parasites organise themselves into an army and invade the hosts en masse
Likelihood of side effect: very low, as parasites may prefer to feed on each other (see "bacteriophage"), being closer to hand
Side benefit: the threat of permanent banishment to a small rock in the north Atlantic may discourage newcomers from taking up crime as a career
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 22:11:17
For a closed system. The earth is clearly not one. It continuously receive energy from the sun. Up to some point in the future.decreasing resources and increasing population are just your assumptions.Observation, definition of life, and basic physics: ΔS > 0. Not assumptions.
Survival of consciousness beyond that point is a real possibility. Someone will try to make it, someone else won't. Any form of consciousness which will make it are more likely the product of someone who try to make it. It's just natural selection at work.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 22:21:43
But you offered an interpretation.I don't remember if you've proposed any alternative. You only said that it doesn't exist.It would be dishonest to propose an alternative definition of something that cannot exist.
The problem with your universal goal seems to be that it is something you want to impose on the universe, whereas I interpreted it as something that the universe, or at least those elements that could express an idea, wanted. Problem is that everything that embodies whatever you define as consciousness, has a different idea of perfection.Sure, different forms of consciousness have some differences. But they also have some similarities. The universal goal must be based on those similarities, instead of the differences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 22:40:06
Root cause: parasitism is more efficient than hostingExcept when the hosts goes extinct, or start building effective defensive counter measure.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 23:02:43
Quote
AbstractNowadays, soul and mind can be interpreted as various states of neurons and neurotransmitters which affect someone's behaviors.
This essay examines the history of the concept of mental health. Its origin can be traced to Plato, who argued that immorality is to the soul what disease is to the body. The purpose of this argument was to answer those who thought that morality is a set of social conventions, and in that sense, is contrary to nature. Plato responded by turning to those who made a systematic study of nature--the medical writers of his day--and claiming that if proper balance is needed to maintain a healthy body, the same is true of the soul. Thus the natural state of the soul is one in which the various parts agree on which should rule. This does not mean that Plato sought to excuse immoral behavior by treating it as a medical condition, only that he regarded immoral behavior as contrary to nature and thus treatable. Although later attempts to define mental health are not as rigid as Plato's, it is remarkable how many of his insights are still applicable, in particular the claim that morality and mental health, though not identical, are nonetheless linked. A case in point is the experience of wanting something but not liking the fact that you want it. Plato regarded internal conflict of this sort as a paradigm case of psychic dysfunction. I argue that we can regard it as either a moral failing or a mental one.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18962894/
Quote
Socrates and Plato: the good consequences of being moral are not what make actions good; rather, actions have good consequences because they are good in themselves (and ought to be done for that reason alone). Immorality is due to ignorance of the good.
http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/ethics1a.html
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 23:04:43
I'd like to leave the world a better place for my descendants,Have you found a reason for this?
Do you think that everyone feels the same?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2021 23:09:48
Residual problems: none in the medium term, if segregation is complete and permanent.You seem to assume that people's mind, character, and behaviors can not be changed.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 12:11:11
The simplest way to recycle organic rubbish is to segregate it into a compost heap and let nature reduce it to sterile dust. I am always in favor of a "do nothing" approach if it achieves the desired result, and in this case it is certainly the quickest procedure and guaranteed effective.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 12:28:12
I'd like to leave the world a better place for my descendants,Have you found a reason for this?
Do you think that everyone feels the same?
It's something to do with animal evolution. All those species that can, choose or modify their environment so that their offspring can flourish. Being a fairly recent and very fragile species with exceptionally long maturation and neoteny, I think the instinct is quite deeply rooted in most humans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/10/2021 13:15:09
It's something to do with animal evolution. All those species that can, choose or modify their environment so that their offspring can flourish. Being a fairly recent and very fragile species with exceptionally long maturation and neoteny, I think the instinct is quite deeply rooted in most humans.Prehistoric humans were limited in their capacity to coordinate efforts involving large numbers of individuals, just like other mammals. Social insects seem to do the job better.
That changed with the invention of written language. Modern humans can coordinate to achieve common goals of billions individuals.
Inclusion of direct descendants may involve a dozen or so individuals. Tribal inclusion can involve hundreds to thousands. National inclusion can involve millions.
Instinct based decisions tend to be shortsighted, and have a great chance of being stuck in local minima.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/10/2021 13:57:31
Why bother? The areas of the globe where criminals operate are already overpopulated (parasites need hosts!) so recycling them as reformed humans is not required.I've often mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal.
The simplest way to recycle organic rubbish is to segregate it into a compost heap and let nature reduce it to sterile dust. I am always in favor of a "do nothing" approach if it achieves the desired result, and in this case it is certainly the quickest procedure and guaranteed effective.
Your method relies on the assumption that the criminals aren't smart enough to escape from the segregation. And maintaining it is easy and cheap. Also that neuroscience won't make significant progress from current state.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 20:44:08
Neuroscience has plenty of challenges and opportunities for making life better without wasting resources on our enemies.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2021 20:48:50
Prehistoric humans were limited in their capacity to coordinate efforts involving large numbers of individuals,
Stonehenge suggests otherwise. Building effective calendars permitted trade over the entire west coast of Europe, across north Africa and into India. It was destroyed by the literate Romans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2021 07:19:36
How many people were involved in building it? I guess less than a million.Prehistoric humans were limited in their capacity to coordinate efforts involving large numbers of individuals,
Stonehenge suggests otherwise.
Quote
Building effective calendars permitted trade over the entire west coast of Europe, across north Africa and into India. It was destroyed by the literate Romans.Those trades require written communications. No one can memorize all of the transactions reliably.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2021 07:24:03
Smart is useful, but the ability to swim 50 miles in the North Atlantic is essential. There is no "maintenance" - see above - they can die from exposure or sort out some shelter - I don't care.How do you send them there in the first place?
They could hitch a ride to the vehicles sending newer prisoners.,
They could build their own boat.
Quote
Neuroscience has plenty of challenges and opportunities for making life better without wasting resources on our enemies.How about turning enemies into allies?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2021 23:25:40
Boat or plane. Just like a regular prison bus, but able to cross water. It worked for Botany Bay.Smart is useful, but the ability to swim 50 miles in the North Atlantic is essential. There is no "maintenance" - see above - they can die from exposure or sort out some shelter - I don't care.How do you send them there in the first place?
Quote
They could hitch a ride to the vehicles sending newer prisoners.,fire hoses and guns usually deter hitchhikers - not that you see many on a regular prison bus.
Quote
They could build their own boat.And as long as the bleeding hearts welcome them, they will return to predate on their victims. Life is a constant battle.
Quote
We have no shortage of allies, and indeed an excess of people in most of the habitable regions.QuoteNeuroscience has plenty of challenges and opportunities for making life better without wasting resources on our enemies.How about turning enemies into allies?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2021 23:47:24
There are very few modern enterprises that coordinate more than a million people. Indeed following the demise of the Soviet army, it is likely that the UK National Health Service is the only organisation with more than a million employees, and they are hardly "coordinated", merely facilitated to do their thing in small groups.How many people were involved in building it? I guess less than a million.Prehistoric humans were limited in their capacity to coordinate efforts involving large numbers of individuals,
Stonehenge suggests otherwise.
Quote
No need to do so until VAT was invented. You probably keep very good business accounts but would be regarded as a bit obsessive if you keep all your household supermarket bills and bus tickets. A rural doctor friend never billed his agricultural patients, and never bought food.QuoteBuilding effective calendars permitted trade over the entire west coast of Europe, across north Africa and into India. It was destroyed by the literate Romans.Those trades require written communications. No one can memorize all of the transactions reliably.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2021 05:19:35
We have no shortage of allies, and indeed an excess of people in most of the habitable regions.What if the enemies are a whole nation? Or a group of nations?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2021 05:26:32
There are very few modern enterprises that coordinate more than a million people. Indeed following the demise of the Soviet army, it is likely that the UK National Health Service is the only organisation with more than a million employees, and they are hardly "coordinated", merely facilitated to do their thing in small groups.A nation can coordinate millions or even hundreds of millions of people. The coordination doesn't have to be permanent employments. Managing lives in a pandemic or solving problems of climate change can be shown as examples.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2021 05:37:45
No need to do so until VAT was invented. You probably keep very good business accounts but would be regarded as a bit obsessive if you keep all your household supermarket bills and bus tickets.It would be impossible without written records, which are mostly digital now. At least in the bank side, or supermarket and transportation company.
Quote
A rural doctor friend never billed his agricultural patients, and never bought food.It's an exception instead of the norm. He/she still needs other things than food. As long as they don't live in isolation, they need written records. They couldn't learn much without written records, such as books, web sites, etc.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 11:08:41
What if the enemies are a whole nation? Or a group of nations?We were discussing criminals within a nation. Conflicts between politicians can be resolved by negotiation or war.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 11:15:39
A nation can coordinate millions or even hundreds of millions of people. The coordination doesn't have to be permanent employments. Managing lives in a pandemic or solving problems of climate change can be shown as examples.Politicians can motivate and facilitate but it's very difficult to coerce everyone.
Pandemics have been managed where borders were closed and people were quarantined, but there are very few examples where life management on any finer scale has been effective.
The problems of climate change have not been addressed in any meaningful or effective manner. People will eventually respond by migration, whatever coordination is attempted.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 11:19:55
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2021 11:26:22
Politicians can motivate and facilitate but it's very difficult to coerce everyone.Except when the government has strong influence and authority over the citizens, like in China or North Korea.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2021 11:33:08
I signed up for an Open University foundation course in Humanities. The first three months were devoted to discussing the difference between homo sapiens and other animals, but did not come up with any valid answers. I had to write an essay on the subject but was completely baffled, so I asked the first person I met at work - literally passing in a corridor - what distinguishes us from other species. Without hesitation he said "Man records anything that is too trivial to remember".In the near future, the recordings would be heavily automated. From mass surveillance system,
personal assistance, sensors in self driving cars, to internet of things and metaverse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_China
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 16:57:09
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2021 16:57:54
From mass surveillance system,My point exactly - the more trivial the data, he more effort we expend recording it! Did you look both ways before you crossed the road? Yes, because it is important. Did you write down what you saw? No! But I'm sure your WiFi toaster knows exactly how many slices of bread it has processed, and keeps updating your phone with this pointless statistic.
personal assistance, sensors in self driving cars, to internet of things and metaverse.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/10/2021 08:32:53
The fact that crime pays - even in China - surely underlines the statement that you can't coerce everyone.That's why laws and moral rules were created. They supposed to tip the balance of cost and benefit to incentivize and encourage behaviors that benefit the society as a whole in the long run, and vice versa. They should make even selfish actions to bring benefits to the society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/10/2021 09:29:11
AFAIK, no one argues that we should treat bacteria and viruses nicely as if they have rights.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2021 09:38:20
The laws and moral rules don't have to be based on accurate description of objective reality.If they are based on made up stories deviating from objective reality, they won't be sustainable in the long run. They may create backlash when the conscious agents following them start to realize the truth.
Or maybe not. It depends on the agents themselves how to react to the revelation. People grow up at different rates. Physically and mentally.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/10/2021 13:34:03
That's why laws and moral rules were created. They supposed to tip the balance of cost and benefit to incentivize and encourage behaviors that benefit the society as a whole in the long run, and vice versa. They should make even selfish actions to bring benefits to the society.But no matter how big the rewards and punishments promised by moral rules, they won't change the actions/behaviors of someone who are convinced that they have already secure their terminal goals, and no longer have interest in continuing their current lifeforms. Religious suicide bombers are an example. We can't modify their actions by simply adjusting the amount of rewards and punishments in order to shift their calculation of personal costs and benefits. We need to make them think and act properly, which are treating proven things as proven, and vice versa.
Quote
The Sagan standard is the adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (a concept abbreviated as ECREE). This signifies that the more unlikely a certain claim is, given existing evidence on the subject, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it.
https://effectiviology.com/sagan-standard-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence/
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2021 06:32:10
https://www.teslaoracle.com/2021/10/14/tesla-starts-offering-insurance-in-texas-based-on-real-time-driving-behavior/
Quote
Tesla has devised a formula for calculating the insurance premium for Tesla owners. “A default Safety Score of 90 is used to calculate the premium for your first two months,” says Tesla in its quote.Tesla owners can save insurance money by driving safely. If the scoring system is right, they should benefit the society by reducing traffic accidents while their motivation to do so can be completely selfish.
This means irrespective of your Safety Score above 90, Tesla will use the default score of 90 for the first two months. After two months, the premium rates will vary based on the Safety Score. If the Score is 90 and below 100, the premium will be $89.16/mo. If an owner maintains a score of 100 the premium will drop to $53.9/mo.
The impact of having the wrong safety scoring system is similar to adopting the wrong moral rules or laws.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2021 20:59:03
Morals are basically Logic combined with goals. They are harder to achieve consensus because the terminal goals were kept obscured. The cause and effect relationships among different parameters are not perfectly known, and may involve uncertainty, chaos and black swan events.Thus, nihilism is disqualified as a morality, due to lack of goal. It can not distinguish between the good and the bad, which is precisely what morality is all about. Saying that nihilism is a morality is like saying that abstinence is a sex position. It's defeating its own purpose.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2021 21:33:33
Quote
Moral relativism or ethical relativism (often reformulated as relativist ethics or relativist morality) is a term used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different peoples and their own particular cultures. An advocate of such ideas is often labeled simply as a relativist for short. In detail, descriptive moral relativism holds only that people do, in fact, disagree fundamentally about what is moral, with no judgment being expressed on the desirability of this. Meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong.[1] Normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, everyone ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when considerably large disagreements about the morality of particular things exist.[2]Relativists cannot judge an action as morally good or bad. They tolerate things commonly thought as immoral because they think that everything is moral by its own standard. What were done by Nazis, ISIS, Aztec Priests, Joshua, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, and Ted Bundy are not objectively wrong, they say.
Moral relativism is generally posed as a direct antithesis to "moral idealism" (also known as "ethical idealism" and "principled idealism"). Through an idealistic framework, examples being that of Kantianism and other doctrines advocated during the Enlightenment era, certain behavior seen as contrary to higher ideals often gets labeled as not only morally wrong but fundamentally irrational. However, like many fuzzy concepts, the distinction between idealist and relativist viewpoints is frequently vague.[citation needed]
Moral relativism has been debated for thousands of years across a variety of contexts during the history of civilization. Arguments of particular notability have been made in areas such as ancient Greece and historical India while discussions have continued to the present day. Besides the material created by philosophers, the concept has additionally attracted attention in diverse fields including art, religion, and science.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Just like nihilism, moral relativism defeats its own purpose. It was the result of our inability to identify problems, and giving up searching for answer. Its like getting lost in a jungle, and then declare wherever we are as home.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2021 23:05:47
This can be seen as the basic foundation for other moralities. In other words, other moralities can be aligned with the universal moral standard by adding some conditionals or assumptions that correctly represent objective reality. If those requirements are not met, then they deviate from universal moral standard, hence universally immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2021 00:03:14
There's nothing selfish about careful driving. Quite the opposite, in fact. So the reward is for being selfless and considerate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2021 11:31:20
I think you are looking at Tesla's insurance scheme through the wrong end of the telescope. The theoretical object of an insurance premium is to collect enough money from good drivers to pay out for the damage done by the bad ones. You then adjust the premiums to encourage good drivers to contribute, and screw the bad ones to pay more.What makes you think that your side of the telescope is the right one?
There's nothing selfish about careful driving. Quite the opposite, in fact. So the reward is for being selfless and considerate.
Imagine a society whose moral rules penalize careful driving severely. What a selfish driver would do?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/11/2021 23:55:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2021 04:23:56
Selfish drivers cause accidents and get penalised by their insurers and the courts.It doesn't answer my question. It simply describing observations.
What makes you think that your side of the telescope is the right one?Imagine further if the benefit from compensation of an accident is way higher than the loss. It would incentivize drivers to cause accidents.
Imagine a society whose moral rules penalize careful driving severely. What a selfish driver would do?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2021 07:22:39
There's nothing selfish about careful driving.The insurance discount for driving safely can motivate even selfish drivers to drive safely. That's how moral rules should work.
Story of Santa Claus can make even selfish kids to behave well.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2021 12:01:36
Previously I've described the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal as the morality with the least requirements/necessary assumptions. The minimum requirements are implied by the definitions of each words in the universal terminal goal itself.Let's start with the simplest and most basic type of morality, which is individual/personal morality. Some people may dismiss it on the ground that morality is restricted to social relationship. But it's an unnecessary assumption not based on the definition of morality.
This can be seen as the basic foundation for other moralities. In other words, other moralities can be aligned with the universal moral standard by adding some conditionals or assumptions that correctly represent objective reality. If those requirements are not met, then they deviate from universal moral standard, hence universally immoral.
Having personal goals can give a conscious agent basis for its morality, which will enable it to distinguish between good and bad things, and act accordingly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2021 13:22:44
The ultimate justification that a conscious entity can have to support a bit of information is its necessity for enabling the existence of the conscious entity. For example, we accept the existence of corona virus because this information is necessary to create effective treatments against the negative effects brought by the virus and keep us alive.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/11/2021 16:45:58
Story of Santa Claus can make even selfish kids to behave well.but only for selfish motives. When did the promise of gifts inspire a selfish scumbag to think of others?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2021 10:21:20
That's precisely the purpose of reward and punishment systems based on moral rules. Societies need it as long as they don't have access to read the mind of conscious agents and modify them so their goals and preferences are aligned with the goals and preferences of the society. It doesn't really matter what they think. What they actually do is more important for the society. It's especially true for conscious agents with limited thinking capacity, such as little kids, mentally disabled, or the illiterates.Story of Santa Claus can make even selfish kids to behave well.but only for selfish motives. When did the promise of gifts inspire a selfish scumbag to think of others?
I heard that people are getting sick of thought and prayers offered each time a mass shooting happened, while nothing else has been done by politicians to effectively prevent it from happening again.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2021 11:05:56
Descartes told us that the only thing a conscious agent can be sure of is its own existence. Any other information can be misleading.Simpler forms of conscious entities don't have enough capacities to reason in the long run. They must rely on shortcut thinking, which I mentioned here previously.
The ultimate justification that a conscious entity can have to support a bit of information is its necessity for enabling the existence of the conscious entity. For example, we accept the existence of corona virus because this information is necessary to create effective treatments against the negative effects brought by the virus and keep us alive.
Part of the magic of reinforcement learning relies on regularly rewarding the agents for actions that lead to a better outcome. That models works great in dense reward environments like games in which almost every action correspond to a specific feedback but what happens if that feedback is not available? In reinforcement learning this is known as sparse rewards environments and, unfortunately, it’s a representation of most real-world scenarios. A couple of years ago, researchers from Google published a new paper proposing a technique for achieving generalization with reinforcement learning that operate in sparse reward environments.I bring this here from my other thread because it can help us understand the fundamental requirements for sustainable moral standards.
Survival of consciousness is the universal ultimate reward. But its success or failure may not be obvious for billions of years in a world where consciousness can naturally emerge. Natural consciousness came up with survival of species and individual survival as meta rewards or instrumental goals. The results can be found in shorter periods, eg. million years or decades, respectively.
Pain avoidance and pleasure from eating food have made good meta rewards for individual survival. While sexual desire and instinctive care for the young have made good meta rewards for survival of species.
When a conscious entity has adequate level of consciousness, it will start to realize that there are other conscious entities besides itself. Some of them are similar in many aspects, while some others can be very different.
It will then realize that other conscious entities stop existing. Although it will not realize when it has already stopped existing itself. But it can reason that it too can stop existing in the future. It can conclude that one of the best strategy to preserve consciousness is to create back ups or duplicates of itself.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2021 12:13:46
Following that personal morality will be more likely to help achieving the universal terminal goal, which is the purpose of universal moral standard. As long as it's not a Laplace's demon, some uncertainties will be involved in considerations.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/11/2021 12:19:52
I heard that people are getting sick of thought and prayersA prayer is an insult to both the worshipper and his god. If your god is not omnipotent and omniscient, you are wasting your time seeking his help. If he is omnipotent and omniscient, you are questioning his design and engineering.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/11/2021 13:41:20
When a conscious entity has adequate level of consciousness, it will start to realize that there are other conscious entities besides itself. Some of them are similar in many aspects, while some others can be very different.Since the most reliable information is its own existence, then it's only natural for earlier conscious entities to assume that the best way to extend the existence of consciousness is by preserving other conscious entities similar to itself. They could be identified by their common traits, such as shape, size, color, sound, smell, or other unique signatures. Insects are known to use smell signals extensively to identify allies from enemies, although it can sometimes back fire.
It will then realize that other conscious entities stop existing. Although it will not realize when it has already stopped existing itself. But it can reason that it too can stop existing in the future. It can conclude that one of the best strategy to preserve consciousness is to create back ups or duplicates of itself.
This assumption would then lead to kin selection. Combined with the realization of their own mortality, conscious entities then develop kin altruism.
In other words, kin morality for a conscious entity works based on following assumptions:
1. The conscious entity embracing it is mortal.
2. The other conscious entities with similar traits as itself are the best candidates to extend consciousness to the future after its own death.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2021 02:44:16
In other words, kin morality for a conscious entity works based on following assumptions:Here are some implications from above reasoning:
1. The conscious entity embracing it is mortal.
2. The other conscious entities with similar traits as itself are the best candidates to extend consciousness to the future after its own death.
- A truly immortal conscious entity doesn't need kin morality/altruism.
- With many different traits taking into consideration, it's necessary to define the weights for similarities of each traits to choose which other conscious entities to defend. Is similarity in shape more important than similarity in smell, etc.
- Some conscious entities significantly different than a particular conscious entity can be convincingly proven better at surviving, compared to other conscious entities more similar to itself.
- Different traits can be better or worse for survival, depending on the environmental conditions, which include both conscious and non-conscious entities.
- The environmental conditions in the future can be different than how they are now, or how they were in the past.
- To predict the environmental conditions in the future to make correct decisions, it's necessary to build a relevant, accurate, and precise virtual universe in some forms
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2021 09:57:17
When a conscious entity has adequate level of consciousness, it will start to realize that there are other conscious entities besides itself.For new members not familiar with my threads, this may sound like unnecessary assumption. But it's the most likely situation that we know so far, as shown in the video below.
Why do things exist? Setting the stage for evolution.
This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.
The major premises are:
- It's very unlikely for a complex system like conscious entities to emerge spontaneously in a single random event.
- Mortal conscious entities are vulnerable from environmental events, and they are very unlikely to survive for long unless they can replicate.
- Environmental conditions change from time to time, which may require different traits as possible solutions. So some variations/diversities in the duplicates of a conscious entity are likely to be beneficial in the long run. They give some flexibilities for the group of conscious entities to survive in different possible environmental conditions. A group of exactly the same duplicates of a conscious entity is vulnerable to common mode failures.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/11/2021 02:44:30
They could be identified by their common traits, such as shape, size, color, sound, smell, or other unique signatures.For complex conscious beings, behavioral traits are more likely to have bigger impacts than physical traits. Thieves may look similar to philanthropists. It generates necessity to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.
In biological entities, behavioral traits are tied to physical bodies. Thus identifying physical traits like face or voice recognitions have significant advantages. More modern biometrics like finger prints, retina pattern, and DNA improve precision.
But AI and modern humans with hybrid minds can easily transfer information, including knowledge and behaviors, with each others. An AI can run in several different hardwares at once for load distribution and redundancy. On the other hand, a machine can run several AI agents at once. It makes physical identifications less relevant.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/11/2021 20:19:32
It generates necessity to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.This is what we usually call morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/11/2021 23:20:57
This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.There are only two possibilities as to why things exist. Either (a) they were created for a purpose by a timeless omnipotent being or (b) they just do. There is no evidence for (a).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/11/2021 02:43:22
(c)they were created for a purpose by one or more conscious but mortal beings.This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.There are only two possibilities as to why things exist. Either (a) they were created for a purpose by a timeless omnipotent being or (b) they just do. There is no evidence for (a).
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2021 09:14:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/11/2021 09:47:48
Mortal beings don't create stuff - we just reorganise it.It depends on how you define "create".
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2021 13:41:38
Something → art or engineering → something different Done by natural processes or living things
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/11/2021 05:43:59
In the future, sacrificing someone's organ will no longer be an ethical dilemma.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/11/2021 11:05:49
Environmental conditions change from time to time, which may require different traits as possible solutions. So some variations/diversities in the duplicates of a conscious entity are likely to be beneficial in the long run. They give some flexibilities for the group of conscious entities to survive in different possible environmental conditions. A group of exactly the same duplicates of a conscious entity is vulnerable to common mode failures.This applies to behavioral traits too. Hence there must be some tolerance to differences in behaviors. But there must also be some limits. Behaviors that are proven to cause negative impacts to the society should not be tolerated. We call them immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/11/2021 05:49:44
Quote
I'm sure you've all heard about teenagers and young adults hitting it big with cryptocurrencies. Many of them have been able to turn a few thousand dollars into hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. But like with every money rush, it's often way more lucrative to be the one selling the shovels as opposed to the one mining for gold. One entrepreneur who chose to sell the shovels to crypto traders is Sam Bankman who is the founder of FTX. FTX specializes in offering high-speed trading and leverage options to experienced traders. But, naturally, a lot of retail gamblers have joined the site in hopes of hitting it big. Sam started FTX just a little over two years ago in May of 2019, and it's already made him a deca-billionaire worth $26.5 billion. Aside from FTX, Sam also created the FTX token and is tokenizing popular stocks like Apple. Sam hopes that by making a lot of money, he can donate a lot of money to altruistic purposes. So far, he's donated $25 million, but his goal is in the billions. This video explains the monumental rise of Sam Bankman and how he went from 0 to $26.5 billion in 4 years.Can we find the moral of the story here?
Discord Community:
https://discord.gg/SJUNWNt
Timestamps:
0:00 - Selling The Shovels
1:03 - Sam Bankman
2:22 - Arbitrage Trading
4:13 - Crypto Brokerage
5:41 - Leveraged Trading
8:07 - Sam’s Neutral Stance
Post by: alancalverd on 11/11/2021 11:10:29
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/11/2021 21:15:07
"Speculate to accumulate." Speculating on the speculators is a high risk, high gain strategy.My take is, running the casino should be more profitable than gambling. Although we can still find some casinos that went bankrupt.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2021 00:26:36
When I become Minister for Gambling I will insist that adverts for lotteries and on-line casinos cannot use the words "play" and "game". The only permitted phrase is "give us your money".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/11/2021 05:59:58
Previously I've described the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal as the morality with the least requirements/necessary assumptions. The minimum requirements are implied by the definitions of each words in the universal terminal goal itself.Let's continue from where I've left. Previously, I've identified necessary assumptions to make personal morality and kin morality align with universal moral standard. The scope of the kin can be set small or large, depending on the similarities of traits deemed necessary to distinguish between in-group and out-group. In universal moral standard, the scope is set to be as large as possible. As long as an entity is conscious, it's considered in-group.
This can be seen as the basic foundation for other moralities. In other words, other moralities can be aligned with the universal moral standard by adding some conditionals or assumptions that correctly represent objective reality. If those requirements are not met, then they deviate from universal moral standard, hence universally immoral.
Getting morality with larger scope than that is self defeating. It would lead to "anything goes", and nothing can be considered good or bad anymore, which is the purpose of morality in the first place.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2021 13:02:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/11/2021 13:10:04
Merely adding axioms is not proof.Except if they're necessary axioms to make the reasoning consistent and free from contradictions.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/11/2021 18:28:30
Better to start with observations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2021 09:38:52
If a moral rule doesn't give those kind of results, it might be the time to replace it with a new one. Here's an example.
Quote
Police officers give people tickets for speeding or running a stop sign, but there’s another reason that people are getting pulled over: It’s the dirty little secret called the quota system.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2021 09:52:13
The point is mostly off topic. A universal moral standard need not 'exist' if it is a standard for a universe whose existence isn't distinct from its nonexistence. I deny such a standard, but that stance isn't a function of my stance on the existence of things.If we are presented with two different moral standards. Is there a way to tell which one is universally better? If not, why make any moral standard in the first place?
Universal moral standard is based on universal terminal goal. What's your position in this concept?
I can't imagine a better alternative because I don't accept that there is or should be a UTG. Abandoning the concept makes decisions a lot easier.
What's your position regarding the universal terminal goal? Which point(s) is/are unacceptable for you?Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=71347.0;attach=30734)
1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.
Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.
Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal.
Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.
Doing something without thinking about its consequences first is indeed easier. But you are increasing your risk of having regrets. Establishing moral standards and rules are some efforts to minimize regrets.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2021 10:29:33
To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.
We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.
I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:
Trolley problem is often used to explore human moral values. But even the most basic case produced disagreements among people. Can it be modified to reduce disagreement? Hopefully it can help us finding a common ground to finally construct a universal moral standard.
Here's the basic version.
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Trolley_Problem.svg/330px-Trolley_Problem.svg.png)
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.
You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2021 11:48:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2021 13:22:57
Common decency and Bayes' postulate says save the five. It's the response most likely to find favor with the jury.Is it immoral to choose other options?
Is jury's verdict always moral?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2021 11:03:29
Ethics talks about equipoise: essentially, parity of probable outcomes. So we resort to the numerical probability of causing or not preventing avoidable death, and the answer is obvious.
Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2021 12:58:48
It's outside the strict realm of morality because you stated that you don't know any of the potential victims, so you can't apply my tests. However you could adopt a variant: what is the probability that your nearest and dearest is one of five unknowns, or one of one? Then morality says you would choose the a priori moral stance of saving the larger group.If you already know that all of them are strangers, then your morality asks you to choose option 1. You'll save your stopping device, and efforts to use it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2021 13:09:22
Ethics talks about equipoise: essentially, parity of probable outcomes. So we resort to the numerical probability of causing or not preventing avoidable death, and the answer is obvious.Some of them do, but not all of them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2021 13:13:47
Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.Average Joe, as well as the judge, think that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2021 14:17:14
It's outside the strict realm of morality because you stated that you don't know any of the potential victims, so you can't apply my tests. However you could adopt a variant: what is the probability that your nearest and dearest is one of five unknowns, or one of one? Then morality says you would choose the a priori moral stance of saving the larger group.If you already know that all of them are strangers, then your morality asks you to choose option 1. You'll save your stopping device, and efforts to use it.
Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.
You might review the ethics of war.How many civilian bystanders is it reasonable to kill in order to remove one bad guy hiding in the group? And if the Emperor or Fuhrer is not likely to be in the city, how many civilians should you kill to disable his war effort?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2021 14:23:06
The man on the Kenosha omnibus thinks the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to shoot everyone else. That's why I referred to the law of a civilised country, not some failed state governed by crooks and idiots.Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.Average Joe, as well as the judge, think that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/11/2021 09:01:45
Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.Then you are using more assumptions or principles than you like to admit. If you expect someone else to agree with you, as well with one another, you need to state all of those assumptions explicitly and unambiguously.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/11/2021 09:22:43
You might review the ethics of war.How many civilian bystanders is it reasonable to kill in order to remove one bad guy hiding in the group? And if the Emperor or Fuhrer is not likely to be in the city, how many civilians should you kill to disable his war effort?It may depend on how bad your opponent is. It also depends on how they are involved in the conflict. Are they supporters/ sympathizers/ enablers of your opponent?
It can vary from 0 to almost all of them.
A-bombs in WWII showed that a few hundred thousands can still be considered acceptable.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/11/2021 14:04:02
It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.Then you are using more assumptions or principles than you like to admit. If you expect someone else to agree with you, as well with one another, you need to state all of those assumptions explicitly and unambiguously.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/11/2021 00:36:50
It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.How would you define civilised society?
The Aztecs sacrificed some human individuals, which they thought would save many more from famine or natural catastrophe. Some religious groups execute gays and infidels for similar reasons.
Were they civilised enough?
You seem to commit a circular reasoning.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/11/2021 19:09:12
It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.How would you define civilised society?
Exactly what I said! It is one where the state serves the citizen, not the other way around, by consultation and representation. Thus excluding all theocracies, dictatorships, and states where long lists of "rights" are required. The law of a civilised country is based primarily on "wrongs". Pity about the USA.
The classic example is the UK Air Navigation Order, which states that "flying is prohibited in the following areas*....", compared with, for example, its Danish equivalent which says "flying is prohibited except in the following areas...."
*the list basically covers nuclear power stations, a few (but not all) Ministry of Defence sites, and a daily list of temporary restrictions for military exercises. Private pilots are actually encouraged to use military traffic zones at other times, to keep the radar guys sharp and the airline routes clear for fast traffic!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/11/2021 01:50:46
Exactly what I said! It is one where the state serves the citizen, not the other way around, by consultation and representation.That's what the Aztecs and some others did. They just got the false relationships of cause and effects.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/11/2021 04:05:38
The law of a civilised country is based primarily on "wrongs". Pity about the USA.Those list should mention things that bring negative effects to the society, especially when those effects are not immediately occuring, ornot directly affecting the perpetrators, hence people need to be reminded. A society ignoring these will suffer in the future.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2021 11:36:14
AFAIK the Aztecs were a theocracy. Asking people what they want (bread and circuses, usually) is not the same as asking what they consider unacceptable (being sacrificed by an old pervert).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2021 09:01:18
We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.What do you think about vaccine mandate, safety belt for car driver, or helmet for motorcyclists?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2021 09:07:11
AFAIK the Aztecs were a theocracy. Asking people what they want (bread and circuses, usually) is not the same as asking what they consider unacceptable (being sacrificed by an old pervert).Not all religious persons are pervert. Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexuality and luxury, some are at the borderline with nihilism.
Speaking about universal morality, you need to identify a general rule shared by all moral acts, and violated by all immoral acts. You can't just provide ad hoc rules to follow your personal preferences.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2021 14:26:14
Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexualityDoesn't that denote someone with a perverted attitude to sex? If it wasn't a primary drive and fun, the species would have died out long ago!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2021 21:40:15
What's your definition of perverted? Here's from dictionary.Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexualityDoesn't that denote someone with a perverted attitude to sex? If it wasn't a primary drive and fun, the species would have died out long ago!
Quote
adjectiveThe dying out of our species is supposed to be bad then. Why?
Deviating from what is considered right and correct.
Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion.
Marked by misinterpretation or distortion.
Previously you said it's a good thing.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 11:13:55
It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 11:27:19
1. Anyone who refuses vaccination (other than on genuine medical grounds) should be treated as a social outcast and a potential threat to everyone else. Segregation of conscientious objectors in a time of conflict is perfectly normal in a civilised society, and accepted by those who object. No reason to change the principle when the enemy is a virus.We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.What do you think about vaccine mandate, safety belt for car driver, or helmet for motorcyclists?
2. Safety belts have significantly reduced the impact of motoring on emergency and rehabilitation medical services but also the availability of cadaver organs for transplant. Now there's a better moral conundrum than any runaway trolley!
3. The compulsory wearing of helmets has most significantly reduced the number of animals reduced to vegetables by head injury. Unfortunately the well-meaning turban concession to a few well-meaning Sikhs has turned into a legal nightmare in which there is a precedent for religious belief to outweigh common sense and influence statute law.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2021 16:21:44
It is a reasonable conclusion from the observation of evolution, that "normal" behavior, i.e. that which is statistically the norm, is generally beneficial to the species and by Bayesian principles, is also a priori that which is most likely to benefit the individual (except for bees).What makes the bees different? Are they the only one?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2021 16:34:40
It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.What do you expect to happen if humans go extinct in near future?
Will other species that survive stay how they are now indefinitely? Will some of them evolve to replace the ecological niche left out by humans? Will they follow the path of human evolution and develop science and technology? Will they repeat humans' mistakes? What makes you sure that they will be wiser?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2021 16:37:54
Anyone who refuses vaccination (other than on genuine medical grounds) should be treated as a social outcast and a potential threat to everyone else. Segregation of conscientious objectors in a time of conflict is perfectly normal in a civilised society, and accepted by those who object. No reason to change the principle when the enemy is a virus.What if they are the majority in a society? Who will be the outcast?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2021 17:40:11
2. Safety belts have significantly reduced the impact of motoring on emergency and rehabilitation medical services but also the availability of cadaver organs for transplant. Now there's a better moral conundrum than any runaway trolley!Human organ transplant will soon be a thing of the past. Just like animal farming, floppy disks, and ICE cars.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2021 20:52:17
If humans become extinct, as around Chernobyl, wolves and big cats will become top predators on large land masses, with dogs prevailing on islands.
If a virus is sufficiently deadly or disabling, the vaccinated minority will end up in charge. That's the theory behind biological warfare.
Artificial organs are expensive and unreliable. Human cadaver organs are free waste products, with millions of years of R&D behind them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2021 06:43:03
Artificial organs are expensive and unreliable.Yet. Retrospectively, computers were expensive and unreliable. So were cell phones.
Human cadaver organs are free waste products, with millions of years of R&D behind them.They have their own problems. In terms of compatibility, availability, storage and transport issue.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2021 11:24:54
Part of the problem is the need to solve three major problems: functional efficiency, power supply, and repair.
Natural organs tend to function continuously at the demanded efficiency from birth to total system collapse some 70 - 100 years later, and to develop capacity in response to longterm variations of mean or peak demand. Not many machines have ever achieved that.
Natural organs derive all their power requirements from nontoxic substrates and oxygen delivered by blood. Whilst some "passive" components may work by catalysing such reactions, the problems of catalyst poisoning and lack of inherent development capability don't bode well for longterm implantation.
Natural organs have a significant capacity for selfrepair from all sorts of mechanical or chemical insults, including normal wear and tear, using only the chemicals delivered by the bloodstream.
All functional systems produce waste, so any replacement organ must be compatible with the existing waste disposal system,
Even the simplest approach can run into unsuspected problems. I spent some time looking at a very reliable heart assist device that used a brushless rotor-turbine to pump blood. It turned out that the pulsatile nature of a real heart is actually important to prevent clotting, but reversing the rotor drive dissipates a lot of heat and damages blood cells, so we need something closer to a diaphragm pump - and you end up with something that looks remarkably like a natural heart, but with a flexible diaphragm that doesn''t last as long as the turbo, can't repair itself, and still needs 5 watts of electrical power from somewhere.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2021 14:57:41
There might be still some technical challenges, but they will solve ethical problems. They don't create incentives to have someone else die to get their organs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2021 15:29:33
I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions above. To be fair, I'll also try to answer them in my opinion.It is also clear that species compete for resources, so the elimination of the species that most seriously damages the ecological equilibrium (homo sapiens) would be a Good Thing for the planet as a whole, assuming that biodiversity and sustainability of life are desirable.What do you expect to happen if humans go extinct in near future?
Will other species that survive stay how they are now indefinitely? Will some of them evolve to replace the ecological niche left out by humans? Will they follow the path of human evolution and develop science and technology? Will they repeat humans' mistakes? What makes you sure that they will be wiser?
The other species will continue the evolutionary process. The details of their evolutionary paths will depend on environmental changes at that time.
Some of them may improve their cognitive abilities. Given enough time, they might get close to, or even exceed current human levels.
They will also develop science and technology. They will repeat some of human's mistakes. They will also make new mistakes haven't been done by humans.
The problem is, the time required for the process can be very long. It might even exceed the time when the earth becomes no longer habitable to any living organisms. There's no guarantee that they will be able to pass the great filter. In this regards, humans have a clear advantage in the form of a head start.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2021 19:08:39
The problem with humans is their ability to invent obstacles to progress, like religion and politics, and the fact that they measure progress by their ability to survive in hostile environments, whilst intelligent animals just stay where the climate suits them, and enjoy life.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2021 05:20:48
The questions have been answered by the Chernobyl "experiment" I mentioned earlier. Re-wilding happens quite quickly in the absence of humans and we can observe the rebalancing of the ecology in real time.How long will it take them to develop human level consciousness? How long will they develop the ability to pass the great filter?
The problem with humans is their ability to invent obstacles to progress, like religion and politics, and the fact that they measure progress by their ability to survive in hostile environments, whilst intelligent animals just stay where the climate suits them, and enjoy life.Humans also have the ability to invent solutions. Not everyone has to survive. As long as enough number of humans don't die, they will be able to have a stable society. That's why having independent societies in artificial cities in space or other planets is preferable, because it can increase our chance to pass the great filter.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 00:31:54
There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 03:24:05
"Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies.I've proposed it's definition as the ability to determine one's own future. What makes you think that human's consciousness is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 03:39:59
Not sure what you mean by the "great filter".
Quote
The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.[1][2]
The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universe implies that something is wrong with one or more of the arguments (from various scientific disciplines) that the appearance of advanced intelligent life is probable; this observation is conceptualized in terms of a "Great Filter" which acts to reduce the great number of sites where intelligent life might arise to the tiny number of intelligent species with advanced civilizations actually observed (currently just one: human).[3] This probability threshold, which could lie behind us (in our past) or in front of us (in our future), might work as a barrier to the evolution of intelligent life, or as a high probability of self-destruction.[1][4] The main counter-intuitive conclusion of this argument is that the easier it was for life to evolve to our stage, the bleaker our future chances probably are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 03:45:32
There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.Does the sun alive?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 11:54:52
The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.But it clearly has happened, so there is no Great Filter.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 12:10:34
An interesting definition. So prisoners and slaves have no consciousness, and soldiers, who are trained to be extremely conscious of everything around them, have very limited control of their future therefore less consciousness than Artemia Salina, which can go into a state of longterm hibernation when dehydrated, and re-emerge when it rains. Wolves and daisies are capable of surviving unaided in environments where humans require all sorts of support."Human level consciousness", if it means anything, is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies.I've proposed it's definition as the ability to determine one's own future. What makes you think that human's consciousness is pretty pathetic compared with that of wolves and daisies?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 12:12:06
It's not in equilibrium with anything else.There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.Does the sun alive?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 13:36:17
You seem to be missing about Fermi paradox.The Great Filter, in the context of the Fermi paradox, is whatever prevents non-living matter from undergoing abiogenesis, in time, to expanding lasting life as measured by the Kardashev scale.But it clearly has happened, so there is no Great Filter.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 13:38:43
An interesting definition. So prisoners and slaves have no consciousness,They have, although not as high as free persons, all else being equal. They can revolt, for instance. Some of them succeeded.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 14:17:54
Wolves and daisies are capable of surviving unaided in environments where humans require all sorts of support.Can daisies determine where or how they will live tomorrow?
Some humans have high survivability in their environment due to local wisdom. Some get it through formal trainings.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 15:41:46
The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universeAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is doubtful that any terrestrial civilisation would have been observable even from the outer planets before 1900. Our observability depends on radio signals. It has so far only lasted for 120 years and may not persist for the next 200. It is doubtful whether we could ever observe intelligent radio signals from a planet with a thicker Heaviside layer, and any civilisation on a densely clouded planet or one completely covered with water would probably remain invisible for ever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 19:28:39
Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.It's not in equilibrium with anything else.There has never been a stable society. The essence of all life is a dynamic equilibrium.Does the sun alive?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/12/2021 19:33:27
Why haven't they come here yet?The concept originates in Robin Hanson's argument that the failure to find any extraterrestrial civilizations in the observable universeAbsence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is doubtful that any terrestrial civilisation would have been observable even from the outer planets before 1900. Our observability depends on radio signals. It has so far only lasted for 120 years and may not persist for the next 200. It is doubtful whether we could ever observe intelligent radio signals from a planet with a thicker Heaviside layer, and any civilisation on a densely clouded planet or one completely covered with water would probably remain invisible for ever.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:47:23
(a) I have no reason to believe that I can do more useful business there than here
(b) there are lots of other places to visit.
There are probably 1024 stars in the observable universe, between 8 light minutes and 13,400,000,000 light years away.
It has taken terrestrial life 4,500,000,000 years to get to the moon, just two light seconds away, we haven't spent a whole week there, and nobody has been back for 50 years. Even if every star has a habitable planet, the probability of anyone else visiting us within the span of recorded history is beyond negligible.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:48:43
Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.No. The solar wind is carrying bits of it into outer space.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2021 22:51:50
Some humans have high survivability in their environment due to local wisdom.Not sure how well jungle dwellers would survive in the arctic, or that Inuit hunters would fare too well in the jungle. Wolves seem remarkably adaptable in comparison.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2021 02:37:44
Right. Living organisms don't do such a thing.Its gravitational attraction is in equilibrium with its thermodynamic repulsion.No. The solar wind is carrying bits of it into outer space.
But living organism also perform respiration and perspiration, which means they are not in equilibrium either.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2021 03:29:14
For the same reasons that we haven't been there. Or that I haven't been to Ulan Bator:Living organisms reproduce exponentially. So does technological advancement, with even shorter time scale.
(a) I have no reason to believe that I can do more useful business there than here
(b) there are lots of other places to visit.
There are probably 1024 stars in the observable universe, between 8 light minutes and 13,400,000,000 light years away.
It has taken terrestrial life 4,500,000,000 years to get to the moon, just two light seconds away, we haven't spent a whole week there, and nobody has been back for 50 years. Even if every star has a habitable planet, the probability of anyone else visiting us within the span of recorded history is beyond negligible.
How long will it take for terrestrial life to get to Mars? I bet not much different than 4.5 billion years.
There must be some reason why people think they need to propose the great filter hypothesis. We just have to identify their axioms.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2021 11:32:45
It's worth considering the questions "how unlike us would a life form have to be for us not to recognise it, or for it not to consider us worth seeking?" Assuming the laws of physics are universal, even if homo verosapiens evolved somewhere else, how much time and energy would he have to spend to find us, why would he want to, and what is the probability that he would have done so in the 10-8 part of the life of the universe that we have been hoping to record his visits?
Shrink the timescale for a thought experiment. If you fell into the Pacific Ocean and sank to the bottom, how long would it take for anyone to find you by accident? That's about 30% of the earth's surface accounted for. The Atlantic is another 20%.....chances are that even if they have been here, we'll never know!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2021 05:26:39
Assuming the laws of physics are universal, even if homo verosapiens evolved somewhere else, how much time and energy would he have to spend to find us, why would he want to, and what is the probability that he would have done so in the 10-8 part of the life of the universe that we have been hoping to record his visits?Because stars have finite lifetime. Conscious entities whom they help evolving may find a way to outlast them, by looking for and going to younger stars in order to survive. Some of them may cross path with us. We may not be what they are really looking for. If they consider us as mere disturbance, they may decide to remove us. We would be in a better bargaining position when we do meet them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2021 05:30:11
Shrink the timescale for a thought experiment. If you fell into the Pacific Ocean and sank to the bottom, how long would it take for anyone to find you by accident? That's about 30% of the earth's surface accounted for. The Atlantic is another 20%.....chances are that even if they have been here, we'll never know!What if you can somehow survive for thousands of years? The chance would be near 100%, considering how busy future humans' agents would be with exponential technological advancement.
People are too accustomed with linear thinking. We often feel that exponential progress unintuitive. Just like this one:
If you were to fold a piece of paper in half 42 times, it would reach the moon.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/d9/29/c0d9296c7bb4c51134a8ac85201c3d5d.png)
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2021 18:08:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2021 00:56:42
Not sure how well jungle dwellers would survive in the arctic, or that Inuit hunters would fare too well in the jungle. Wolves seem remarkably adaptable in comparison.It seems that you keep missing to consider collective consciousness. An individual human may not be able to do much, but a global civilization can do a lot. Social animals have shown various levels of collective consciousness.
This video is a good reminder that even an individual human is the product of collective consciousness of individual cells that make him up. They don't even have to be genetically identical.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2021 09:19:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2021 03:01:55
Ah, global civilisation. So that's what causes pogroms, genocide and world wars, eh?pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization. That's why we need to be more civilized.
Global civilization is an intermediate step before we build interplanetary and interstellar civilization.
What do you expect from global wolves community or global daisy community?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/12/2021 14:05:21
pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization.Clearly not true. You need an army to do any of that, which implies civilisation - i.e. some sort of established order - and one of the reasons for starting such action is to preserve what you claim to be a threat to global civilisation, or to establish a global civilisation.
Wolves and daisies do their best to establish what they consider to be a global civilisation by dominating whatever part of the ecology matters to them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/12/2021 04:28:37
What do you call the killing of Canaanites by ancient Jews? Or killing of a tribe of chimps by another chimp tribe? Or killing of an entire bee hive by a group of hornets?pogroms, genocide and wars, already occurred long before humans have global civilization.Clearly not true. You need an army to do any of that, which implies civilisation - i.e. some sort of established order - and one of the reasons for starting such action is to preserve what you claim to be a threat to global civilisation, or to establish a global civilisation.
Wolves and daisies do their best to establish what they consider to be a global civilisation by dominating whatever part of the ecology matters to them.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/12/2021 09:01:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2021 12:46:45
Ah, the joys of religion.Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2021 12:55:10
Chimps and hornets fight for territory and resources - rational causes and further examples of why you can't have a universal moral code.Each individual chimp and hornet can suppress their self interests for the common good of their groups. Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2021 13:03:18
Humans invent abstract reasons for killing other humans who pose no actual threat, which places them lower on the evolutionary ladder than any other species. The most successful parasites don't kill their hosts, thus placing gonorrhea above homo sapiens in terms of morality.What's in the highest place?
Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/12/2021 22:48:29
Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?Yes. Any business that relies on the gullibility of its victims, sells a nonexistent product, and divides people against each other, is evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they all teach their victims to despise those infected by other religions. Any attempt to subvert inquiry with belief is evil.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/12/2021 22:51:14
Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?Obviously not - complete destruction means exactly that. It has been suggested that cockroaches will flourish after the next world war as their genome is exceptionally insensitive to ionising radiation.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/12/2021 22:52:19
Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?Because some of them regard us as prey, and nearly all of them are at least in competition with us.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 06:31:36
Do you see any positive effect of religion? Why did they survive?Do you think that every religion is bad? Why so?Yes. Any business that relies on the gullibility of its victims, sells a nonexistent product, and divides people against each other, is evil. The one thing all religions have in common is that they all teach their victims to despise those infected by other religions. Any attempt to subvert inquiry with belief is evil.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 08:01:05
Do you think that humans have a chance, by having a multiplanetaty society?Is there any species expected to survive the complete destruction of earth in near future?Obviously not - complete destruction means exactly that. It has been suggested that cockroaches will flourish after the next world war as their genome is exceptionally insensitive to ionising radiation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 08:35:20
Universal morality doesn't have to preserve every single conscious entity. Some bad apples may have to go in order to save the others. Even tribal moralities are known to be intolerant to destructive behaviors of their members. It's common for soldiers to execute betrayers.Why can't we expand the membership of our group to include all conscious entities universally?Because some of them regard us as prey, and nearly all of them are at least in competition with us.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 09:04:01
Only conscious entities can implement moral standards.
Extinct conscious entities can no longer implement their moral standards.
A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.
For some of us, above statements may sound obvious, taken for granted, and even no need to mention. But for many others, they are not considered as relevant. That's why we get such a long discussion for millenia without apparent agreement on morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2021 10:43:04
Do you see any positive effect of religion? Why did they survive?1. No.
2. Because people are sufficiently gullible to think that belief in the supernatural matters. And if you join a tribe, however it is defined, you acquire some protection against members of other tribes. I'm delighted to live under UK law and proud to associate myself with fellow Jews, but I can't subscribe to any religious belief. So I recognise that pork and shellfish can carry human pathogens (science) but I don't think it is a sin against the laws of the Almighty to farm, sell or eat them (religion).
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2021 10:47:07
A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.
So there are no carnivores or parasites in your moral utopia. Therefore it can't be universal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 11:54:32
Because people are sufficiently gullible to think that belief in the supernatural matters.Why do people survive despite of their gullibility?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 12:07:55
May be we have language issue here. My statement above simply means that a universal moral standard must include at least one conscious entity.A universal moral standard can't exclude every extant conscious entity.
So there are no carnivores or parasites in your moral utopia. Therefore it can't be universal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 12:33:00
And if you join a tribe, however it is defined, you acquire some protection against members of other tribes.What if the tribe includes all conscious entity in the universe?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2021 12:53:10
If a standard includes less than all conscious entities, it isn't universal.
I'm happy to be a member of the tribe of all conscious entities, but I still recognise prey (several other species) and parasites (including humans).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 13:51:42
I'm delighted to live under UK law and proud to associate myself with fellow Jews, but I can't subscribe to any religious belief. So I recognise that pork and shellfish can carry human pathogens (science) but I don't think it is a sin against the laws of the Almighty to farm, sell or eat them (religion).These videos discuss what becomes your concern.
Quote
Do Human Rights Actually Exist?
'Human rights' are often spoken of as though they are materially existing, ontological principles that can never be violated by right of nature. A great deal of atheistic moral philosophy is predicated on experiences of pleasure and pain, which seem in some instances to come into conflict with a rights-based ethical worldview.
What if pleasure is maximised by violating a right? Can we objectively ground human rights without invoking God or religion? If we cannot, can we still talk about human rights as though they do exist?
The Good Delusion | What's The Closest We Can Get To Objective Ethics?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2021 20:22:12
In a civilised society the population determines what is unacceptable and makes laws to prevent and punish unacceptable behavior - a legal code based on wrongs. There is very little need for rights as the State is subject to the same laws and exists to serve the citizen. The basic rights to vote for your representatives, who form the government, and to a fair trial if accused of wrongdoing, are pretty much all that is required.
Every right imposes a duty on someone else, which is why they should be minimised. So the right to vote demands an electoral commission to ensure that there is no cheating or coercion, and the right to a fair trial demands that almost all citizens are liable to jury service.
Under civilised law you do not need a right to life because it is wrong for anyone to kill you. Nor do you need a right to family life because it is wrong for anyone to interfere in your family affairs.....and so forth. Interestingly, whilst the UN demands that you have a right to a name, UK legal precedent says that your name is whatever your friends call you so you can choose and change it as you wish - deed polls and registration merely change the assignment of any legal documents and contracts you may have signed under a previous name.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 21:02:07
If a standard includes less than all conscious entities, it isn't universal.If you are looking for something that defies natural laws, it's no wonder that you find none.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 21:14:28
People survive by outwitting, militarily defeating, or making a compromise with those of a different gullibility. Could be a religious difference or a political one - they are almost inseparable in some places. Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.It doesn't tell why gullible people survived.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 21:29:22
Human rights are generally a Bad Thing, or at least a reflection of what is wrong with a society.Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?
In a civilised society the population determines what is unacceptable and makes laws to prevent and punish unacceptable behavior - a legal code based on wrongs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 21:33:31
Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 21:49:26
a legal code based on wrongs.In information security, we can use we call it black list approach. Antiviruses fall into this category. It's vulnerable to unknown threats.
The stricter and more secure approach is white list. It only allow requests from known listed sources. It's vulnerable from failing to function when there's a necessary operation not yet included in the list.
A compromised alternative is using heuristic approach.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/12/2021 22:01:42
There is very little need for rights as the State is subject to the same laws and exists to serve the citizen. The basic rights to vote for your representatives, who form the government, and to a fair trial if accused of wrongdoing, are pretty much all that is required.What if all rights are revoked?
Who run the state? Aren't they humans?
You often make random assertions without showing how they are necessary.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2021 13:01:29
It doesn't tell why gullible people survived.Because they were more resilient than other gullible people. Nothing to do with Jaweh vs Baal, but much to do with good military planning and execution despite whatever gullibility existed.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2021 13:05:01
What if all rights are revoked?Until the UK joined the EU, we had very few rights - indeed not much more than were granted by Magna Carta in 1215. So we survived for about 850 years and ruled most of the world, with practically none.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2021 13:09:19
Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?If they wish to die, it is immoral to keep them alive. Even if you ignore morality you will eventually run out of medical options.
What is not acceptable in a civilised society is to ration medical services according to the patient's financial assets rather than clinical needs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2021 14:30:52
There's a significant difference between a few and none.What if all rights are revoked?Until the UK joined the EU, we had very few rights - indeed not much more than were granted by Magna Carta in 1215. So we survived for about 850 years and ruled most of the world, with practically none.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2021 14:35:29
If they want to stay alive, are others obliged to help them?Is it acceptable to let old and sick people die?If they wish to die, it is immoral to keep them alive. Even if you ignore morality you will eventually run out of medical options.
What is not acceptable in a civilised society is to ration medical services according to the patient's financial assets rather than clinical needs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2021 21:43:11
Most people don't think so, and think of them as investment instead. They used up resources now in order to generate resources in the future. No society can survive without investing in their future generations.Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2021 21:53:13
The Good Delusion | What's The Closest We Can Get To Objective Ethics?The arguments in video sound reasonable. But it's unfortunate that the speaker doesn't continue to reason up why avoiding pain and seeking for pleasure are good. They seem to be taken for granted.
I've pointed out before that they are good for helping conscious agents to survive. Pain and pleasure act as meta rewards in sparse feedback systems like life. Without them, before the agents develop long term reasoning, the alternative would be random actions, which are not very effective nor efficient.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2021 14:48:42
Most people don't think so, and think of them as investment instead. They used up resources now in order to generate resources in the future. No society can survive without investing in their future generations.Life would be a lot less stressful if folk were less gullible and recognised parasites for what they are.Are babies and toddlers parasites? Why or why not?
In currently existing life forms, future generation means different individuals than currently existing ones. Scientific progress happen one funeral at a time, as a scientist said. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's predicted that someone who will live for a thousand years has already been alive today.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2021 17:16:11
No society can survive without investing in their future generations.Society is unimportant. People matter.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2021 19:22:21
Society is unimportant. People matter.What count as a people?
In a multicellular organisms, each cell has lost its independence, and depends on the survival of the organism as a whole.
Same things happen to individual members of social organisms.
Protecting individuals is an instrumental goal to preserve the society as a whole.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2021 13:07:42
When society as a whole decides to eliminate certain members because they are somehow "different", protecting individual members of that minority is morally imperative but clearly not conducive to the preservation of the society as a whole.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2021 12:19:11
Not "a" people, but people - things like you and me. "A" people tend to make war on "another" people because they are told that they are different and therefore a threat. The concept is immoral.Which concept?
Why so?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2021 12:26:00
When society as a whole decides to eliminate certain members because they are somehow "different", protecting individual members of that minority is morally imperative but clearly not conducive to the preservation of the society as a whole.It depends on what's the difference that they have. How that difference affects the other members of the society.
Imagine a society of passengers of a flying commercial airplane. A few member are found drilling the cabin wall. Persuasion didn't work.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2021 23:27:14
Which concept?The concept of "a" people, for the reason stated.
Why so?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2021 23:29:29
It depends on what's the difference that they have.I specifically referred to what they are, not what they do. Civilised laws criminalise actions, superstitions criminalise appearance, parentage, etc.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2021 07:45:59
Weren't you the one who stated that the earth would be better off without people?Which concept?The concept of "a" people, for the reason stated.
Why so?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2021 08:04:24
Preventive or proactive measures are often better than reactive measures. But it requires prediction of what people will do in some circumstances.It depends on what's the difference that they have.I specifically referred to what they are, not what they do. Civilised laws criminalise actions, superstitions criminalise appearance, parentage, etc.
What people do is largely determined by what they believe. But it's hard to read people's minds. So people pick easier ways, such as identifying physical appearances, and connect them with some typical behaviors. Another alternative is using social credit systems with various weights for each behavior.
What people did in the past is a pretty good indicator of what they'll do in the future, although not 100% accurate. Precise social credit system will require mass surveillance, which gives enormous power to those with access to it.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2021 12:16:44
Quote
The justice secretary Dominic Raab has been ruthlessly mocked online after his bizarre claim that the police ‘don’t normally look back and investigate things that have taken place a year ago’.......................Jess Phillips, the shadow minister for domestic violence, added: “Dominic Raab seemingly thinks he’s the justice secretary in Minority Report where only future crimes are of interest.”
Crime prevention (locks and fences) is normally passive and designed so as not to inconvenience legitimate activity. Dogs and laser-triggered guns are effective but find it difficult to distinguish criminal intent from faulty navigation. We really don't have much in between.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2021 12:18:58
Weren't you the one who stated that the earth would be better off without people?Absolutely so, but in the meantime people would be better off without using the term "a people". We should act as one collaborative tribe, not several snatch squads ruled by parasites.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2021 13:23:38
Crime prevention (locks and fences) is normally passive and designed so as not to inconvenience legitimate activity. Dogs and laser-triggered guns are effective but find it difficult to distinguish criminal intent from faulty navigation. We really don't have much in between.Massive public camera system with AI to correctly interpret the data will be an option to keep or restore order.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2021 13:29:08
Should we collaborate to organize mass suicide to give the best thing to earth?Weren't you the one who stated that the earth would be better off without people?Absolutely so, but in the meantime people would be better off without using the term "a people". We should act as one collaborative tribe, not several snatch squads ruled by parasites.
Why, or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2021 14:39:46
Should we collaborate to organize mass suicide to give the best thing to earth?Because what is best for the rest of the planet is not best for us. That is the whole point of this discussion: species are competitive for resources, and pollute their environment with their waste products.
Why, or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2021 14:43:26
Massive public camera system with AI to correctly interpret the data will be an option to keep or restore order.
We should act as one collaborative tribe, not several snatch squads ruled by parasites.
"Order" is always defined by the "haves", whether they are corrupt Tories, corrupt Communists, or individual criminals like Trump and Saddam Hussein.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2021 23:36:15
Because what is best for the rest of the planet is not best for us. That is the whole point of this discussion: species are competitive for resources, and pollute their environment with their waste products.Why limit the group to species? Why not bigger or smaller group?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2021 02:10:48
Is there a better alternative?
"Order" is always defined by the "haves", whether they are corrupt Tories, corrupt Communists, or individual criminals like Trump and Saddam Hussein.
What good comes out of chaos?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2021 09:45:17
Good memes improve the survivability of their media, and vice versa. They can encourage their hosts to improve themselves, or jump/duplicate to better/newer hosts.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2021 11:13:47
Why limit the group to species? Why not bigger or smaller group?Because that is the largest known group that might not be internally competitive. Observation shows that species either compete with other species, predate on one another, or avoid contact altogether and occupy different ecological niches.
Always start navigating from where you are, so you don't get lost before you take off!
Post by: alancalverd on 20/12/2021 11:17:15
media, which are the minds of conscious entitiesMy grandmother used to cover the kitchen floor with newspaper in case the dog peed when she was out. One day I found her turning the pages over, because "he can't read but he likes to look at the pictures". I don't know of any other species that uses written or broadcast communication.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2021 21:45:35
Why not choose smaller group? Is it because the larger, the better?
Because that is the largest known group that might not be internally competitive. Observation shows that species either compete with other species, predate on one another, or avoid contact altogether and occupy different ecological niches.
Competition for resource is less likely to happen when the parties involved need different kind of resources. Like between biological and non-biological entities.
Competition within species are likely to happen because they need the same resources. Especially when the demand exceeds the supply.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2021 21:53:26
Human minds, and other conscious entities' minds, act as media for memes.media, which are the minds of conscious entitiesMy grandmother used to cover the kitchen floor with newspaper in case the dog peed when she was out. One day I found her turning the pages over, because "he can't read but he likes to look at the pictures". I don't know of any other species that uses written or broadcast communication.
Pets have their own kind of memes. AI agents may have their own memes too.
Bees are known to use broadcast communication to direct bee workers to food location.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2021 09:40:41
Let me guess. The answer is no.Is there a better alternative?
"Order" is always defined by the "haves", whether they are corrupt Tories, corrupt Communists, or individual criminals like Trump and Saddam Hussein.
What good comes out of chaos?
ISIS is an example of an entity came out of chaos in the region.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2021 12:54:02
Why not choose smaller group?If you are looking for a universal, you won't find it proven in a sample!
Quote
Pets have their own kind of memes.. My point exactly.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2021 12:59:40
ISIS is an example of an entity came out of chaos in the region.ISIS, the Nazi party, and just about every other disgusting regime you can think of, including Pol Pot and Donald Trump, promised "order from chaos" and only benefitted those at the top of the pile.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2021 14:00:33
If you are looking for a universal, you won't find it proven in a sample!A species is a sample.
We don't know how many species humans will branch out in distance future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2021 14:16:50
People wouldn't fall into their promises if their lives were already in order.ISIS is an example of an entity came out of chaos in the region.ISIS, the Nazi party, and just about every other disgusting regime you can think of, including Pol Pot and Donald Trump, promised "order from chaos" and only benefitted those at the top of the pile.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2021 17:02:09
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2021 17:03:38
A species is a sample.No, it's a subset. A subset cannot be a good sample since it is by definition atypical.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2021 21:33:53
The trick of politics is to persuade people that things could be better if they voted for you. On balance, there is no evidence to support this, though things did improve a lot in the UK in 1945. It is difficult to see how any recruit from the chaotic suburbs of London or the godless wastelands of Birmingham to the well-ordered beatings and sex slavery of ISIS has actually benefitted from the experience.What makes you think that life under ISIS is well ordered?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2021 21:40:31
A genus and subspecies are also subsets. Why pick species specifically?A species is a sample.No, it's a subset. A subset cannot be a good sample since it is by definition atypical.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2021 23:08:31
What makes you think that life under ISIS is well ordered?Slight ambiguity in the word "well". Scientifically, well-ordered means that everything is structured and predictable. The hyphen is significant: the sequence of events in an efficient bomb is well-ordered, leading to maximum entropy. Whilst the behavior of ISIS members seems to follow a consistent pattern written by the parasite in charge, it cannot be described as ordered with anyone's wellness in mind.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2021 23:10:43
Why pick species specifically?You did, in #2284 above
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/12/2021 01:21:42
It seems like you forgot what you've said previously.Why pick species specifically?You did, in #2284 above
Should we collaborate to organize mass suicide to give the best thing to earth?Because what is best for the rest of the planet is not best for us. That is the whole point of this discussion: species are competitive for resources, and pollute their environment with their waste products.
Why, or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/12/2021 11:57:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2021 07:25:24
Not sure what your point is here. Mine is that there cannot be a universal goal if every living thing (or every species) is in competition with at least one other. The best you can hope for is coexistence by orthogonal exploitation of the environment (Darwin's finches).Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis? Multicellular organisms are thought to be products of endosymbiosis. Social organisms are also symbiosis among many individuals.
Competition also exists between individuals in a species. Even between cells in an individual specimen.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2021 13:31:24
Any conscious being which don't share that universal feature are unlikely to have influence in the future.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/12/2021 13:40:59
Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis?Mutually symbiotic organisms are rare and usually consume material that other species would find useful too. Collaboration may improve your competitiveness, but you are still competing!
Post by: alancalverd on 27/12/2021 13:42:51
Any currently existing conscious being in the universe are products of the efforts done by conscious beings that have existed in the past, without exception.So you think abiogenesis is impossible? That's an axiom of religion, not science.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2021 22:25:38
Every multicellular organism is a product of mutually symbiosis. Even unicellular eukaryotes are product of endosymbiosis. How rare are they?Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis?Mutually symbiotic organisms are rare and usually consume material that other species would find useful too. Collaboration may improve your competitiveness, but you are still competing!
Of course they will look extremely rare if compared to the whole mass of the observable universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2021 22:28:40
What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis? Can you name an example?Any currently existing conscious being in the universe are products of the efforts done by conscious beings that have existed in the past, without exception.So you think abiogenesis is impossible? That's an axiom of religion, not science.
Synthetic organisms are produced by efforts of humans, which are conscious beings.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2021 20:21:59
What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis?In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2022 01:08:25
Don't put your words into someone else's mouth.What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis?In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.
Abiogenesis only had to produce chemical structure which can replicate in a suitable environment. The structure must be able to resist change to some degree, but not 100% resistant, otherwise evolution won't start.
Conscious beings capable of setting up and following moral standards must come from conscious beings that exist in the past. The transition from non-conscious beings to human level conscious beings happens gradually. Morality as we know it came much later in the process, with many less conscious beings contributed in the past. In turn, we (at least some of us) will contribute to the emergence of more advanced conscious beings in the future. Those who doesn't contribute positively will be deemed immoral by them, or at least irrelevant. Those who does contribute positively will be deemed moral by them. If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the future, which would make all efforts in the past meaningless.
This is how evolutionary process can be modeled, with some extrapolation to predict the future.
I found this tweet, which is in line with this thread.QuoteNaval (@naval) tweeted at 0:23 PM on Thu, Dec 30, 2021:
Evolution only has to use genes to get to a universal computer species, and then the whole system switches to memetic evolution.
The product of memetic evolution, aka knowledge, allows that species to modify genes and its environment directly after that.
(https://twitter.com/naval/status/1476423727529152512?t=6AXZpa9ng0ol9tBDUzCFYg&s=03)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2022 05:52:05
Quote
Life is Meaningless if God Doesn't Exist | Dennis Prager Casually DEBUNKED
Timestamps:
00:00 Just a Fruit
02:27 Just a Fluke
17:41 Just Immoral
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2022 11:25:42
Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2022 11:32:03
If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the futureA is immoral and impregnates B's wife. B is moral but sterile. Immoral wins and there is a conscious next generation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 14:03:35
Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad.There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.
So, which people are legitimately happy?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 14:07:52
What makes A immoral?If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the futureA is immoral and impregnates B's wife. B is moral but sterile. Immoral wins and there is a conscious next generation.
Does it make a difference if there are only those 3 persons left in entire universe, instead of billions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 16:21:16
No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.Do you suggest that everyone can just follow their own moral standards?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 16:34:47
Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?Are you responding to the video I posted above?
If the history of exponential progress continues, then there would emerge some omniscient and omnipotent conscious entities in the future, which resemble the characteristics of gods as imagined by ancient people.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2022 16:55:27
This statement is false in many levels. So I think I'll have to refute it in many different ways. The highest level of consciousness would be omniscient and omnipotent, which I am clearly not.What's the highest level of consciousness produced through abiogenesis?In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.
I can safely say that no human exists from abiogenesis process without involving previous conscious beings.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2022 23:30:23
There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.Thus proving that there is no universal good.
So, which people are legitimately happy?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2022 23:36:21
The highest level of consciousness would be omniscient and omnipotent, which I am clearly not.Would be, yes, but isn't. All your arguments are either anthrocentric, which is understandable since we don't have much insight into the thought processes of other species, or theocentric in some form, and there is no evidence of the existence of any supernatural being.
Quote
I can safely say that no human exists from abiogenesis process without involving previous conscious beings.That's obvious if you accept that we have evolved from other conscious beings, but at some point there were no living things on the planet, so our remotest ancestors must have evolved from inorganic material.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2022 23:41:58
What makes A immoral?Pretty well every society has some form of marriage and some sanctions against adultery. Or you could go back to my simple tests: would you like it if somebody else impregnated your wife? Clearly there are exceptions but the generality of human society considers sexually exclusive pairing to be the moral standard.
Quote
Does it make a difference if there are only those 3 persons left in entire universe, instead of billions?The survival of the species is quite distinct from morality, which is about the behavior of its members towards one another. From the point of view of the universe, any species is inconsequential - it's just a temporary local arrangement of atoms.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2022 23:45:54
Do you suggest that everyone can just follow their own moral standards?No, that would lead to social disruption, and humans rely on cohesion for a comfortable life. Hence good legal systems that list and punish those things that society generally considers immoral (bad legal systems are based on rights and duties, rather than wrongs).
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2022 23:58:18
If the history of exponential progress continues, then there would emerge some omniscient and omnipotent conscious entities in the future,Sadly, the converse seems to be true. "Exponential progress" has led to the potential of humans to eradicate their entire species and to take most others with them. Our lives at present are ruled by a virus on the one hand, and various human parasites on the other. Common sense tells us to restrict our breeding, some religions and many politicians tell their stupid followers to outbreed the infidel. Which is winning?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 02:31:48
No. It just means that we haven't agree on what it is, yet.There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.Thus proving that there is no universal good.
So, which people are legitimately happy?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 02:35:40
Would be, yes, but isn't. All your arguments are either anthrocentric, which is understandable since we don't have much insight into the thought processes of other species, or theocentric in some form, and there is no evidence of the existence of any supernatural being.Your statement implies that conscious beings must be biological. It obviously reduces the universality of your subsequent reasoning.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 03:14:07
That's obvious if you accept that we have evolved from other conscious beings, but at some point there were no living things on the planet, so our remotest ancestors must have evolved from inorganic material.Some conscious beings attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future. Some others don't.
Future conscious entities would see currently existing conscious beings which don't attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future as immoral. Like wise, currently existing conscious entities would see the past conscious beings which don't attempt to preserve the existence of consciousness in the future as immoral. But no one would say that their predecessors are immoral if they were not conscious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 03:53:07
Pretty well every society has some form of marriage and some sanctions against adultery. Or you could go back to my simple tests: would you like it if somebody else impregnated your wife? Clearly there are exceptions but the generality of human society considers sexually exclusive pairing to be the moral standard.The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
You can try to debunk my universal moral standard by showing an exception to the universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 04:03:20
The survival of the species is quite distinct from morality, which is about the behavior of its members towards one another. From the point of view of the universe, any species is inconsequential - it's just a temporary local arrangement of atoms.The survival of consciousness is the goal. Moral standards are the instruments.
Any moral standard which causes the extinction of consciousness is a bad one. A good moral standard enhances the survival chance of consciousness, including physical improvements, which means changing from previous forms. Fish like human ancestors might have gone extinct, but that's all right since we as their descendants still survive. Like wise, humans in current form might go extinct, but that's fine as long as our successors are better than us at preserving consciousness in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 04:25:41
Sadly, the converse seems to be true. "Exponential progress" has led to the potential of humans to eradicate their entire species and to take most others with them. Our lives at present are ruled by a virus on the one hand, and various human parasites on the other. Common sense tells us to restrict our breeding, some religions and many politicians tell their stupid followers to outbreed the infidel. Which is winning?Immoral behaviors can give you advantage in short terms. But if they are not corrected, they will hurt you in longer terms.
In the past, number of soldiers strongly determined which side would win a war. But it's becoming less relevant. The invention of machine gun shifted the balance. Nuclear bombs and killing drones are shifting it even further.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 08:44:44
Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad. No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.If you refuse to determine what your goal is, then your decisions will be based on instinct and emotion, instead of reason.
Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?
If you refuse to determine what your terminal goal is, then its place will be taken over by your instrumental goals. Following instinct and emotion are some of more primitive instrumental goals, which act as meta rewards for biological organism. It's still possible to achieve your terminal goal by chance that way, but it's unlikely to get it effectively and efficiently.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2022 12:10:45
The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.Which is why I said "pretty well", not "every". But I think you will find polyandrous societies still have rules, which is what defines a society.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2022 12:18:26
In the past, number of soldiers strongly determined which side would win a war. But it's becoming less relevant. The invention of machine gun shifted the balance. Nuclear bombs and killing drones are shifting it even further.Depends on your definition of "winning". Since 1945, the high-tech powers have lost every conflict with barefoot soldiers wielding Kalashnikovs and pointed sticks. In the latest debacle, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the bad guys with enough weaponry to invade almost anywhere else. The victors in Iraq (a high-tech vs high-tech conflict) and Iran are a bunch of religious savages.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2022 13:28:47
Depends on your definition of "winning". Since 1945, the high-tech powers have lost every conflict with barefoot soldiers wielding Kalashnikovs and pointed sticks.You seem to eagerly use the word "every" even when there are exceptions. Israel won their wars thanks to more advanced weaponry.
In the latest debacle, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has left the bad guys with enough weaponry to invade almost anywhere else.The former Afghan government lost because of corruption by their high ranking officers. By reporting inflated number of soldiers and weapons, they reallocated military assistance money for personal gain. The Afghan people now pay the price.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2022 08:01:14
No, that would lead to social disruption, and humans rely on cohesion for a comfortable life. Hence good legal systems that list and punish those things that society generally considers immoral (bad legal systems are based on rights and duties, rather than wrongs).Not all disruption are morally bad.
Buddhism's individual outlook and disregard for the caste system caused social disruption.
Lincoln's decision to abolish slavery created social disruption, even caused a civil war.
Martin Luther King Jr. caused disruption too with his American civil rights movement.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2022 08:03:38
ISIS and Talibans also have rules. So did Mongols under Genghis Khan.The existence of acceptable exceptions show that your morality is not universal.Which is why I said "pretty well", not "every". But I think you will find polyandrous societies still have rules, which is what defines a society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 09:18:01
If pain is intrinsically bad, then avoiding it is a good thing, which means it's also a moral thing. It forms one of the basis of utilitarianism, besides seeking for pleasure. I've argued before that this view (and its variations) has weaknesses, namely utilitarian monster. See https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg584583#msg584583
We can solve the problem by figuring out why pain is bad. Pain is a product of evolutionary process to tell the organism that something bad is happening to its body, which prompts it to take action to make the pain disappear. It has similar function like other senses like vision, hearing, touch, smelling, and taste. Inability to feel pain would make it more likely to get the organism killed. In the end, it comes back to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum.
In industrial practice, we acknowledge correction, corrective and preventive actions. To do those things, we need to identify the problem, the symptoms, the root cause and contributing causes. Confusion between symptoms and root cause will prevent us from making effective and efficient actions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 10:00:18
Quote
Consequentialism is a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome. Consequentialism, along with eudaimonism, falls under the broader category of teleological ethics, a group of views which claim that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value.[1] Consequentialists hold in general that an act is right if and only if the act (or in some views, the rule under which it falls) will produce, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative. Different consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods, with chief candidates including pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences, and broader notions of the "general good".Even in deontological ethics, an action is morally judged by its consequences. We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its expected consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
Quote
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.[1] It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics.[2][3] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[4] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2022 10:28:28
Is pain intrinsically bad?Good things make people happy, bad things make people sad. Marmite is 50:50, pain is at least 1:99. I have a friend who is allergic to champagne - you can't win them all!
But beware of using "thing" to signify both a noun (pain) and a verb (avoid) - they are not inherently comparable!
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2022 10:30:04
We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its probable consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 14:13:25
Ok. Since we don't know for sure what would happen in the future.We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its most likely consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 20:14:49
But beware of using "thing" to signify both a noun (pain) and a verb (avoid) - they are not inherently comparable!If we believe that pain is bad, then avoiding it would be a good action.
Action and avoiding are both nouns.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 21:10:52
We can imagine what would happen if people don't have a concept to distinguish between good and bad things. They would act randomly following their own instinct and emotions. No cooperation and coordinated long term effort would be possible, and the society would collapse.
Some of the former members of the society may survive, but if they don't learn from their previous mistakes, they would also go extinct.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 21:28:33
Moral abolitionism.
Realism vs anti-realism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2022 01:16:38
And like in other fields of engineering, this rule of thumb applies.
Quote
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2022 09:29:20
Quote
What if morality is just a fiction used by the herd of inferior human beings to hold back the few superior men? In this Sprouts special with Stephen Hicks, we examine Nietzsche’s explanation for how ethics develop and the consequences for master types living in a world that’s dominated by the morality of slaves.Nietzsche acknowledged that morality is a strategy to survive by a society.
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:30 Master-slaves morality
3:19 The origin of the bad conscience
6:02 Ending
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2022 13:36:53
Moral Antirealism: Is morality a scam?
Quote
The idea that morality just exists to enforce social norms is rooted in moral antirealism, the idea that there simply are no moral facts. But why believe this is true?
Moral Realism
But without mentioning the goal of morality, they can't provide a clear answer on which is the best moral position.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2022 21:27:33
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.An agent's consciousness level determines how close will the consequences be to its intentions. More conscious agents make less false assumptions and more true knowledge. That's where critical thinking and scientific literacy enters moral discussion. If someone believes that drinking bleach can cure Covid19, then their good intentions can lead to bad consequences, and vice versa.
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2022 06:26:23
Quote
This is a lecture explaining a brief section called "Interlude: Relativism" in his book "Morality: An Introduction to Ethics." The basic idea that Williams has is that there is a tension between moral relativism and some kind of universal toleration principle. These two view, which Williams believes contradict one another, however, are often held together, by the same people, as part of a view that he calls "Vulgar Relativism." The problem with Vulgar Relativism, Williams claims, is that it is self-defeating or self-contradictory. This video lecture is part of an introductory level philosophy course, Introduction to Ethics.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2022 17:12:05
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 10:00:18Beg to differ.
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.
Your frying pan catches fire. Full of good intention, you pour water on it. The water boils instantly when it hits the hot metal, dispersing oil mist which then explodes. It's a classic demonstration by local fire brigades at country fairs, and sadly in kitchens everywhere. But rarely repeated (except by the fire brigade).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2022 22:22:31
I've covered your concern here.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2022 10:00:18Beg to differ.
We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.
Your frying pan catches fire. Full of good intention, you pour water on it. The water boils instantly when it hits the hot metal, dispersing oil mist which then explodes. It's a classic demonstration by local fire brigades at country fairs, and sadly in kitchens everywhere. But rarely repeated (except by the fire brigade).
If someone with bad intention fail at first attempt, they will repeat the attempt with improvement so they will succeed next time. That's why conscious agents require different treatment than non-conscious agents.We must also acknowledge that intentions play some role in moral judgment. They determine the reliability of the actions, and whether or not the actions will be repeated in the future.An agent's consciousness level determines how close will the consequences be to its intentions. More conscious agents make less false assumptions and more true knowledge. That's where critical thinking and scientific literacy enters moral discussion. If someone believes that drinking bleach can cure Covid19, then their good intentions can lead to bad consequences, and vice versa.
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2022 23:13:04
And it is by no means obvious that everyone with "bad intent" (which presumably means an intention to do something that profits him at the expense of others) will necessarily persist if he fails at his first attempt. Far more likely to repeat and develop an antisocial action if it succeeds.
That said, lying and spreading misinformation is the path to power in politics and religion. You won't get to the top by repeating obvious truths, because anyone can see the truth: genius makes untruth plausible and palatable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2022 04:24:15
Quote
This is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 07:29:04
I think you are confusing consciousness (whatever that may mean) with experience and intention.I think you forgot what I mean with consciousness in this thread, and instead keep using your own definition, which you haven't stated clearly. You can replace the word with X, if you wish. As long as you know the meaning, we can continue to discuss it.
The definition of consciousness in this thread is an extension of clinical definition, which is not adequate to discuss about universal morality. You can think of it like the extension of definition of light to cover electromagnetic radiation beyond the visible spectrum.
The usage of the word consciousness here is comparable to its use in AI researches, like in Yann Le Cunn's thought experiment. It can be used for biological as well as non-biological entities.
Agreements on universal morality is becoming more urgent when AGI is on the rise, and autonomous vehicles as well as killing drones are very close to be a reality. On biological side, it's driven by genetic engineering and wealth inequality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 08:49:22
Bad intentions are not strictly individualistic. They are not even restricted to oligarchy nor minority. They can even be held by majority of the society.
And it is by no means obvious that everyone with "bad intent" (which presumably means an intention to do something that profits him at the expense of others) will necessarily persist if he fails at his first attempt. Far more likely to repeat and develop an antisocial action if it succeeds.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 09:12:22
That said, lying and spreading misinformation is the path to power in politics and religion. You won't get to the top by repeating obvious truths, because anyone can see the truth: genius makes untruth plausible and palatable.It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 10:01:13
If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.Morality can be thought as an algorithm to distinguish between good and bad behaviors. Another algorithm is used to distinguish between cats and dogs. It's not the case that the distinctions are not real. It's just not as simple as what Hume had imagined. It needs deep neural networks to get reliable answers, because simpler algorithms aren't adequate to do the job.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 10:16:27
Republican Activist Who Fought COVID Safety Measures Dies From COVID
Quote
A former Republican District Attorney in Orange County who had become a GOP activist fighting against COVID measures has died from COVID. These stories are becoming far too frequent, especially now that vaccines are readily available. The fact that these deaths aren't acting as a wake up call for Republicans is possibly even more terrifying, as it signals that there is nothing - no amount of death - that will convince them to be safe. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins discusses this.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2022 15:58:16
It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.That is, every society that has ever declared war, started a pogrom, or enslaved others. In other words, all of them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2022 20:02:47
They happened in the past. And if we don't learn from them, we are going to repeat them.It can only happen in a society where critical information can be hidden from society, and significant part of the society can be mislead due to lack of critical thinking.That is, every society that has ever declared war, started a pogrom, or enslaved others. In other words, all of them.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/01/2022 11:45:59
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2022 15:35:59
Who we? Why "going to"? There are several extant theocracies, with varying levels of civil and international conflict, and the basic tenets of capitalism and communism can't both be right. Happy, smiling, Buddhist Myanmar has frequent internet shutdowns. The USA is only just beginning to extricate itself from the harm done by Antivaxers for Jesus and Fox News.We, whoever read my sentences, and understand what they mean.
"Going to repeat" means they will happen again in the future, except if we can provide adequate counter measures.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2022 21:31:03
That's why lying and spreading misinformation in every society are considered immoral in almost all situations, with only few exceptions.False knowledge can be the main reason someone commit immoral actions. They believe that what they are doing is the best available options for them in the moment. That's including Ted Bundy and Charles Whitman's case.
That's also the case in ancient Jewish and other societies' practice on genocide, slavery, xenophobia, and misogyny. Human sacrifice, honor killing, suicide bombing, are also driven by belief in false information.
The falsehood of the information may seem obvious for those who don't share the same belief systems. But it may not be the case for them. That's why we always need to keep some dose of self doubt/criticism and introspection. Whatever we currently belief can turn out to be false.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2022 14:04:39
If the goal defined in the game of chess or go is changed, then we will have different set of good moves and bad moves in every position in the game. The same thing happens in the game of life, which is often called ethics.
David Hume's Argument Against Moral RealismQuoteThis is a lecture video about a short selection from book 3 of David Hume's famous work of philosophy, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40). Hume was an empiricist. The lecture of basically a presentation of his argument from empiricism to the conclusion that there are no genuine, objective moral facts residing in actions themselves (rather, there are only sentiments of moral disapprobation or disapproval in us). This lecture of part of Introduction to Ethics.If we follow Hume's arguments, then we won't find objectively good moves in the game of chess or go.
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EthicsReviewing non-universal morality from the perspective of universal morality is like what meta-ethics does.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch[1] of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".[2] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value; these fields comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.[3]
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.[4] As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[2]
Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined;
Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action.[2]
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethics
In metaphilosophy and ethics, meta-ethics is the study of the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment. It is one of the three branches of ethics generally studied by philosophers, the others being normative ethics (questions of how one ought to be and act) and applied ethics (practical questions of right behavior in given, usually contentious, situations).
While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do?", evaluating specific practices and principles of action, meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the assumptions underlying normative theories. Another distinction often made is that normative ethics involves first-order or substantive questions; meta-ethics involves second-order or formal questions.
Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that studying moral judgments about proper actions can guide us to a true account of the nature of morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2022 12:02:02
Quote
This is the first part of the discussion for normative ethical theories. It covers the principles of deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics theory.The video can help us differentiates between three theories of normative ethics.
At this point, it seems that everything I need to say about universal moral standard has been said. But since people tend to forget things, perhaps I will have to say it again in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2022 16:07:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/01/2022 06:02:57
What Is Virtue Ethics? | Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism vs Deontology
Quote
What is virtue ethics? What are some of its strengths as an ethical theory? In this video we'll explore virtue ethics by contrasting it with utilitarianism and deontology.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 12:07:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 12:36:46
Based on the classification described in the video above, the universal moral standard as I proposed here is classified as teleological as well as consequential ethics.Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences. Perhaps we can call morality which only consider short term consequences as naive consequentialism.
AFAIK there's no reasonable objection against decisions that consider and aim for long term common goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2022 13:20:48
Every criticism against consequentialism essentially points out that some actions with desired short term consequences can presumably lead to undesired long term consequences.Ah, philosophy! The art of arrogating the bloody obvious and decorating it with made-up-isms.
Long term common goal: world peace. Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 13:30:15
In the perspective of universal moral standard, utility function is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 13:44:37
Long term common goal: world peace.Can you think of a longer term goal? What should we do next if the world peace is achieved?
What's the boundaries of your world? Is it limited to earth? Should Mars colonizers be taken into consideration too?
Can you imagine an interstellar civilization?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 13:50:27
Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 14:42:56
- Plato
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2022 17:48:08
Disputes over territory and resources are in principle rational and can be resolved to mutual benefit as long as there is no overriding population pressure and everyone realises that they are the same species. Priests and politicians depend on irrationality and division for their continued existence.Short-term decision: kill all priests. The end justifies the means - ask any terrorist.Did we have world peace before priest as a profession was invented? Wasn't there any conflict between two secular societies?
If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2022 22:30:15
If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2022 06:20:42
Disputes over territory and resources are in principle rational and can be resolved to mutual benefit as long as there is no overriding population pressure and everyone realises that they are the same species.In the past, we've seen moral standards based on mutual benefit for the same family. Then they expanded to those from the same tribe, then the same race and country. You go one step further to the same species. Someone else have gone even further to the same genus, phyla, or even life form.
The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities. We can't go further from that because it will lead to nihilism, where anything goes without distinction between good and bad.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2022 21:28:06
What Is Virtue Ethics? | Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism vs DeontologyAny morality other than long term consequentialism is a shortcut which works based on Pareto principle. Most problems are caused by few common things. Those moralities act like a hash table, which works most of the time, but useless or even misleading in some edge cases. Their justification is mainly based on efficiency, which is the universal instrumental goal.
It should be unsurprising in hind sight that philosophers haven't reached an agreement even after millenias of heated debate on morality. Because their solutions only work partially.
If a self driving car fails in 1% of real traffic situations, the result would be disastrous.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/01/2022 22:02:17
It has the same problem as deontology, where good moral behaviors have to be identified first, and differentiated from bad moral behaviors. Only then we can evaluate if someone has a good or bad moral character. The differentiator itself must come from something else.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2022 02:15:47
The end justifies the meansAny objections to the statement essentially points out that the forementioned end is actually not the terminal goal. There's presumably a longer term goal which can be jeopardized by the forementioned means.
This counter-argument doesn't work against the universal terminal goal, since there's no longer term goal can exist.
The word terminal in the term universal terminal goal emphasizes time dimension over space and the others. It's better to have a finite number of conscious entities for infinite time rather than infinite number of conscious entities for a finite amount of time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2022 13:37:42
Quote
This video outlines a new argument from moral disagreement, which challenges moral realists to provide a theory of error: an explanation of why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts. This is based on Nicolas Smyth's article "Moral Knowledge and the Genealogy of Error"To get the acceptance from moral philosophers, the universal moral standard also needs to take the reliability challenge. Why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts?
0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - The reliability challenge
9:43 - Denying disagreement
16:01 - Non-moral error
28:08 - Distorting factors
34:36 - Consistency reasoning
40:57 - Intuitionism
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2022 18:28:33
You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2022 18:30:39
The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.Including foxes and rabbits.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2022 22:45:09
Yes, although they are more likely to do it instinctively. If they evolve to become some organisms with more advanced cognitive capacities, they may apply the universal moral standard more rationally.The most universal moral standard is not restricted by the similarities of physical traits nor chemical composition. It applies to any conscious entities.Including foxes and rabbits.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2022 22:51:41
We can modify their genetic codes. And the modified genes can be spread to the entire population through gene drive, which can also be used to eradicate them, if we consider that it would be more effective and efficient.You can't make a parasite change its modus vivendi. Have you tried talking to a tapeworm? Or educating a priest?If you are going to clean up a house, it's a good idea to remove the most offensive pile of sh1t first.Killing isn't always the best way to clean up people's minds.
Some prominent anti religion activists were preachers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2022 09:43:43
We can modify their genetic codes.A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2022 12:43:44
Human's genetic code changes over time. It's a natural thing. Human individuals come and go.We can modify their genetic codes.A person is the embodiment of a genetic code, so you would destroy the person by doing so. But priests and politicians come in all shapes, sizes and colors - their evil is a chosen way of life, not conferred at conception.
Why do they choose evil way of life? Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2022 16:36:51
All animals tend to the Principle of Least Action, hence theft and parasitism. Religion is the simplest form of parasitism because you don't need any original thought. Just quote the book and demand money. There's no risk because by definition the victim never gets to see the promised product, so no complaints.
The more pain and indignity you inflict on the victim, the more he will pay you, right up to the point of demanding that he commit suicide for the glory of the Almighty,or give you all his money and crawl on his knees to Santiago to atone for whatever you have told him is a sin. If that's boring, tell him that everyone who thinks otherwise must be killed, and watch the fun as your sucker throws stones at Catholic schoolgirls or launches rockets at random into Israel.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2022 21:56:08
Because it's easy.What makes someone choose the easy way, while some others don't?
Is it because of their genetic codes? Is it because of their environmental influence?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2022 23:33:16
Adolescent mammals push the behavioral boundaries of their society. Some break the rules and prosper, so continue to do so and become career criminals. Others recognise that inventing and imposing more boundaries on the gullible can also lead to prosperity, and become a different sort of parasite.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/01/2022 02:09:24
Nurture and circumstance.Does genetic has any role at all in determining the behaviors of an individual?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2022 21:37:41
Some neural connections can act as memory. Combined with predictive function, they create emotional states like happiness and sorrow.
Deformed or broken neural connections can be caused by genetic disorders, infection by virus or biological parasites, cancerous cells, or physical incidents.
Some abnormalities in neural connections can cause impaired empathy, or the lack of capacity to place oneself in another's position. They render the golden rule useless as a formal moral system, because they deny the empathy, which is the basic foundation of the golden rule.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2022 22:45:45
Moral Realism and Moral ErrorLet's start with moral realism. The name suggests that morality must be based on something that is real, instead of imaginary. Imaginary things can only be used as proxy to approximate objective reality, when there's not enough evidence to support a position with adequate relevance, accuracy, and precision. The validity of this proxies must be reviewed frequently enough against newly coming information, and processed with sound statistics and probability theory.QuoteThis video outlines a new argument from moral disagreement, which challenges moral realists to provide a theory of error: an explanation of why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts. This is based on Nicolas Smyth's article "Moral Knowledge and the Genealogy of Error"To get the acceptance from moral philosophers, the universal moral standard also needs to take the reliability challenge. Why so many people have been so mistaken about the moral facts?
0:00 - Introduction
0:39 - The reliability challenge
9:43 - Denying disagreement
16:01 - Non-moral error
28:08 - Distorting factors
34:36 - Consistency reasoning
40:57 - Intuitionism
Some examples of those proxies are human and animal rights, equality in income or opportunity, democracy, free speech, safe space, etc.
No proxy should be defended if it is known to cause the extinction of all known conscious beings, which is the worst case scenario in the discussion about universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/01/2022 08:21:59
Let's start with moral realism. The name suggests that morality must be based on something that is real, instead of imaginary.Some people go one step further to get to moral naturalism, who think that morality must be based on something natural. To hold this position, we must first define what's natural, and tell the difference with something unnatural. Is snowflake natural? what about igloo, clam shell, bird nest, bee hive, beever dam, burj khalifa, ISS? What makes the difference?
How's predation, parasitism, cannibalism, sexism, nepotism, tribalism, racism, nationalism, humanism, patriotism, altruism, socialism, communism, capitalism, slavery, genocide, homicide ?
Someone may argue that naturalness is not a binary value. But they will have to show how to determine which one is more natural between two different things. Then we can sort everything from the least natural to the most natural things.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2022 16:41:23
How's predation, parasitism, cannibalism, sexism, nepotism, tribalism, racism,I havenationalism, humanism, patriotism,altruism,socialism, communism, capitalism,slavery, genocide,homicide
However you might get more mileage by distinguishing "natural" as "real, physical or concrete" compared with "supernatural".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2022 05:37:12
"Natural" means whatever you want it to mean, but mostly means "not man-made".Does it include unintended consequences of human actions?
- Someone walks on a muddy ground leaving footprints.
- Increase of atmospheric CO2 level.
- Pacific garbage patch.
Or indirectly created by human, such as arts created by AGI?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2022 08:48:30
However you might get more mileage by distinguishing "natural" as "real, physical or concrete" compared with "supernatural".Some folks think that supernatural things are also real, and can have real effects to their lives. They are called supernatural just because they are hard to detect and are subject to different set of physical laws.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2022 18:16:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2022 09:42:34
Quote
Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2] Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
Moral philosophy includes meta-ethics, which studies abstract issues such as moral ontology and moral epistemology, and normative ethics, which studies more concrete systems of moral decision-making such as deontological ethics and consequentialism. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."[3][4]
Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles.[5][6][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Descriptive_and_normative
In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrong. Descriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[10]
In its normative sense, "morality" refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[10]
IMO, studying descriptive ethics is like reading a map. It tells us what we will find in the area that's mapped, but doesn't tell us what we should do or where our destination is, let alone how to get there.
Quote
Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality.[1] It contrasts with prescriptive or normative ethics, which is the study of ethical theories that prescribe how people ought to act, and with meta-ethics, which is the study of what ethical terms and theories actually refer to. The following examples of questions that might be considered in each field illustrate the differences between the fields:
Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
Meta-ethics: What does "right" even mean?
Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2022 12:32:30
There's one born every minute, which is why priests can make a living.
Quote
Having kids... in this economy?!
Parents want the best for their children, even if they don't have the power to guarantee their happiness. Is it worth the risk to create new life as the world is burning around us? Let's find out in this Wisecrack Edition: Is Having Babies Ethical?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2022 21:30:38
Is Having Babies Ethical?In a word, no.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2022 21:33:41
morality must be based on something that is realAs they say in Parliament, I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave several pages ago.
1. Would you like it if I did it to you?
2.Would you do it to your own family members?
How much more real can you get?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 02:22:43
What would happen if no one has babies?Is Having Babies Ethical?In a word, no.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 02:35:36
I also answered the questions before. Here is the latest one.morality must be based on something that is realAs they say in Parliament, I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave several pages ago.
1. Would you like it if I did it to you?
2.Would you do it to your own family members?
How much more real can you get?
Genetic codes determine neural connections which interpret some combination of sensory inputs as pleasure or pain. They also determine instinctive behaviors.By your moral standard, a nihilist or psychopath can do whatever he wants without breaking any moral rules.
Some neural connections can act as memory. Combined with predictive function, they create emotional states like happiness and sorrow.
Deformed or broken neural connections can be caused by genetic disorders, infection by virus or biological parasites, cancerous cells, or physical incidents.
Some abnormalities in neural connections can cause impaired empathy, or the lack of capacity to place oneself in another's position. They render the golden rule useless as a formal moral system, because they deny the empathy, which is the basic foundation of the golden rule.
What family do you refer to? Is it limited to nuclear family? Is it applicable to extended family? tribal family, racial family, national family, global family?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 03:25:20
IMO, studying descriptive ethics is like reading a map. It tells us what we will find in the area that's mapped, but doesn't tell us what we should do or where our destination is, let alone how to get there.Another metaphor for it is studying chess notation from various games in chess tournaments without making conclusions on what moves are generally good, or what is the goal being tried to achieve in playing chess.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 04:06:28
Quote
A Taxonomy of Moral Realism
M. Y. Chew
Wolfson College
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthChew.htm
ABSTRACT: The realist dispute in ethics has wide implications for moral ontology, epistemology, and semantics. Common opinion holds that this debate goes to the heart of the phenomenology of moral values and affects the way in which we understand the nature of moral value, moral disagreement, and moral reflection. But it has not been clearly demonstrated what is involved in moral realist theory. I provide a framework which distinguishes three different versions of the theory while at the same time showing the interrelations between them. I also demonstrate how issues such as objectivity, cognitivism, and truth can be related into the discussion by means of this framework.
Quote
This framework can be diagrammatically represented in the following manner:
Are ethical statements truth-evaluable?
Yes
-
No
-- Early Emotivism (Ayer)
Does descriptivism offer a correct account of moral semantics?
Yes
-- Descriptivism
No
-- Non-descriptivism
Emotivism (Stevenson)
Prescriptivism (Hare)
Quasi-Realism (Blackburn)
Expressivism (Gibbard)
Are any of these statements true?
Yes
-- Cognitivism
No
-- Non-cognitivism
Error Theory (Mackie)
Do we know whether these are true?
Yes
-
No
-- Scepticism
Are ethical statements to be given a literal interpretation?
Yes
-
No
-- Non-realist Cognitivism
Rationalism (Kantian Constructivism)
Relativism (Harman, Wong)
Do moral properties supervene on natural properties?
Yes
-
No
-- Non-supervenient Moral Realism
Ethical Intuitionism (Moore)
Are these reducible to natural properties?
Yes
-- Reductive supervenient Moral Realism
Confirmation Theory (Railton, Boyd, Sturgeon)
No
-- Non-reductive supervenient Moral Realism
British Moral Realism (McDowell, Platts)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2022 10:08:36
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Quote
Moral Realism
First published Mon Oct 3, 2005; substantive revision Tue Feb 3, 2015
Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. That much is the common and more or less defining ground of moral realism (although some accounts of moral realism see it as involving additional commitments, say to the independence of the moral facts from human thought and practice, or to those facts being objective in some specified way).
As a result, those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (non-cognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).
It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true. Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).
The debate between moral realists and anti-realists assumes, though, that there is a shared object of inquiry—in this case, a range of claims all involved are willing to recognize as moral claims—about which two questions can be raised and answered: Do these claims purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false? Are some of them true? Moral realists answer ‘yes’ to both, non-cognitivists answer ‘no’ to the first (and, by default, ‘no’ to the second) while error theorists answer ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the second. (With the introduction of “minimalism” about truth and facts, things become a bit more complicated. See the section on semantics, below.) To note that some other, non-moral, claims do not (or do) purport to report facts or that none (or some) of them are true, is to change the subject. That said, it is strikingly hard to nail down with any accuracy just which claims count as moral and so are at issue in the debate. For the most part, those concerned with whether moral realism is true are forced to work back and forth between an intuitive grasp of which claims are at issue and an articulate but controversial account of what they have in common such that realism either is, or is not, defensible about them.
By all accounts, moral realism can fairly claim to have common sense and initial appearances on its side. That advantage, however, might be easily outweighed; there are a number of powerful arguments for holding that it is a mistake to think of moral claims as true.
1. Moral Disagreement
2. Metaphysics
3. Psychology
4. Epistemology
5. Semantics
...
Post by: alancalverd on 27/01/2022 22:42:13
By your moral standard, a nihilist or psychopath can do whatever he wants without breaking any moral rules.Which underlines the point I have made many times: there isn't (and can't be) a universally applicable moral code.There are some tests which elucidate a very consistent majority opinion, and in the civilised world we base our legal system on that opinion. The most civilised among us do not differentiate our behavior between our nearest and dearest and other people, but various parasites try to convince you that They are Different.
What family do you refer to? Is it limited to nuclear family? Is it applicable to extended family? tribal family, racial family, national family, global family?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/01/2022 22:45:26
the difficulties that moral philosophers are facing in order to reach a general agreement.If two philosophers were to agree, they would both be declared redundant. The "difficulty" is inventing enough points of disagreement to justify a salary.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 07:02:29
Which underlines the point I have made many times: there isn't (and can't be) a universally applicable moral code.Your failure to find one doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. Tell me why extending the existence of consciousness to the future can not be universal?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 07:31:45
If two philosophers were to agree, they would both be declared redundant. The "difficulty" is inventing enough points of disagreement to justify a salary.I've read this kind of statement about managers in the same company. I'm not sure if it's also applicable to other professions, such as teachers, scientists, medical doctors, engineers, etc.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 07:55:07
There are some tests which elucidate a very consistent majority opinion, and in the civilised world we base our legal system on that opinion.The majority are not always correct. There was a time when most people on earth believed in geocentric model.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 10:11:01
The most civilised among us do not differentiate our behavior between our nearest and dearest and other people, but various parasites try to convince you that They are Different.They are more tolerant to physical differences, such as skin color and some other genetic traits.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 11:31:22
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#1
Quote
1. Moral DisagreementInstinct and emotions are naturally occurring shortcuts to process information to. help biological organisms to survive and thrive. In most situations, following them would bring better results than random actions. At least until major changes in mental capacity which produced radical changes in social structure. In this new environment, rational thoughts bring advantages that are more than enough to compensate for the extra time and energy requirement compared to instinct and emotions.
Perhaps the longest standing argument is found in the extent and depth of moral disagreement. The mere fact of disagreement does not raise a challenge for moral realism. Disagreement is to be found in virtually any area, even where no one doubts that the claims at stake purport to report facts and everyone grants that some claims are true.
But disagreements differ and many believe that the sort of disagreements one finds when it comes to morality are best explained by supposing one of two things: (i) that moral claims are not actually in the business of reporting facts, but are rather our way of expressing emotions, or of controlling others’ behavior, or, at least, of taking a stand for and against certain things or (ii) that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, but the required facts just are not to be found.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 13:16:39
(ii) that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, but the required facts just are not to be found.Almost all moral analysis I've read so far only consider direct consequences of moral actions, and some of them also consider indirect consequences up to a few levels.
Without identifying the terminal goal of morality, we will find discrepancy of moral claims in different situations. It's like playing chess without knowing what the winning condition is.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2022 15:05:49
Even in deontological ethics, an action is morally judged by its consequences. We can't say if an action, like pushing a red button, is morally good or bad without knowing its expected consequences.Here's a fictional scenario depicting this situation.
An foreign politician is invited to inspect a Russian nuclear submarine in a process of purchasing one. He was breiefed by an officer that in the control room there are three red buttons with different critical functions.
The first is to send SOS signal to headquarters and help will come immediately.
The second button will activate self destruction to keep the secret missions and technology brought by the submarine from falling into enemy's hands.
The third will launch nuclear attack to a predetermined location in EU.
During the inspection, a terrorist group attacks and try to hijack the submarine. The crews fight back, and the gun fight ends up killing everyone except the politician, and the submarine is slowly sinking and burning. He's left alone in the control room where there are three red buttons with labels in Russian which he doesn't understand.
Should he push a button?
He observes that the fire can accidentally activate one or more buttons.
It seems that whatever the outcome of this situation, we can't assign it to the morality of the politician.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2022 23:19:04
we can't assign it to the morality of the politician.You can't use "morality" and "politician" in the same sentence. The idea of a politician alone in a blazing, sinking ship is always appealing, but it's pretty obvious that he will push a button in the hope of being rescued, without worrying too much about polluting the ocean or destroying a city, which is his day job anyway. The fact that he has no idea what he is doing and couldn't be bothered to learn elementary Russian before spending the taxpayers' money on a Russian war machine, is par for the course.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2022 01:14:00
You just did.
You can't use "morality" and "politician" in the same sentence.
Quote
Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.Whenever collective actions are done, some forms of politics must be involved. Some actions can only be done collectively, such as building roads, dams, and other infrastructures. So, politicians are always needed. Although there's no explicit requirement that they must be human. It's possible to replace them with some advanced AIs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2022 01:14:49
The apartment has fire alarm buttons on every floor in the building. And the fire events only happen extremely rarely. So, in most of the time, B's instinct is more useful. But when the fire event does happen, it could be fatal.
That's where understanding cause and effect, and awareness of current situation give advantage over instinct.
Essentially, moral rules are intended to identify common behaviors which bring positive outcomes for most situations. For example, being honest, diligent, brave, fair, polite, loving, and caring for others. But we also acknowledge that there are rare cases where following those rules causes bad consequences, like being honest to terrorists.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2022 14:26:34
Essentially, moral rules are intended to identify common behaviors which bring positive outcomes for most situations. For example, being honest, diligent, brave, fair, polite, loving, and caring for others. But we also acknowledge that there are rare cases where following those rules causes bad consequences, like being honest to terrorists.Accepting exceptions to moral rules must be done consistently. Otherwise, the rules are as good as if they don't exist. We can call the things that bring the required consistency as moral standards.
Someone who has a moral standard may see someone else who has different moral standards as immoral, because they break moral rules without an acceptable justification.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/01/2022 18:09:23
Some actions can only be done collectively, such as building roads, dams, and other infrastructures. So, politicians are always needed.I have done many things for groups of people, using engineers, architects, accountants and craftspersonsofwhatevergendertheyidentifiedas. Whenever the project was commissioned by a politician, the effect was disastrous.
The most spectacular was to improve a mountain road. The problem was that the agricultural village at the top was being depopulated as the youngsters left for the towns in the valley. Local politicians of both parties said that improving the road would bring tourists and provide employment. The day the road opened, most of the farmers abandoned the village, loading their possessions on trucks to move to the towns. No tourists want to visit a ghost village.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2022 20:54:39
I have done many things for groups of people, using engineers, architects, accountants and craftspersonsofwhatevergendertheyidentifiedas. Whenever the project was commissioned by a politician, the effect was disastrous.Great projects need the directions of resources in large amounts which are only feasible to be done collectively. Most of them are initiated by politicians, such as moon landing, the building of great wall and pyramid.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2022 21:07:26
Someone who has a moral standard may see someone else who has different moral standards as immoral, because they break moral rules without an acceptable justification.Here are some examples. The Aztecs justified human sacrifice because they believe that doing so would appease their gods, which then would spare them from natural disasters such as volcanic eruption or famine.
The Inuits justify infanticide to preserve resources, which is deemed necessary for them to survive in harsh environment.
On similar ground, Nazis justified killing of the disableds, also genocide of what they called sub-human races.
Many pre-modern societies justified slavery.
Deception and lies to the enemy are norms in wars.
A common feature found in those examples is the goal to preserve the existence of a group, often at the expense of another group.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 08:33:09
A common feature found in those examples is the goal to preserve the existence of a group, often at the expense of another group.There is a more general concept which makes us see someone else's moral standard as immoral instead. We see that their moral standards are merely instrumental to comply with a more fundamental moral standard. In other words, we think that they are confusing between terminal goal and instrumental goals.
Hence, in case when we realize that someone else's moral standard is more fundamental and universal than our own moral standard, we will find ourselves in the wrong side of moral landscape. And we will have to admit that we are the immoral ones, when our actions, which were guided by our previous moral standard, turn out to violate their more fundamental moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 12:00:02
But as a conscious agent, his actions must had been driven by his personal goal and preference, supported by his knowledge. He expected that those actions were the best options known to him in his particular situations, according to his criteria for goodness. Otherwise, he must have chosen the better option.
It seems like he held an extreme hedonistic moral standard. His criterion for goodness is his own pleasure, unlike common utilitarianism, which consider the aggregate of pleasure minus pain in a group of people.
We can see that he was wrong on many levels. Getting pleasure and avoiding pain are merely instrumental goals to survive. His personal goal was not fundamental nor universal. His pleasure wasn't even good as instrumental goal, as it turned out bad for his own survival.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 21:08:06
Self inflicted pain is not generally seen as immoral either if it doesn't cause pain on others. But more often, self harm or attempted suicide can cause hassle and loss of valuable resources, which made them seen as immoral in many societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 21:23:30
Post by: alancalverd on 30/01/2022 21:58:03
Great projects need the directions of resources in large amounts which are only feasible to be done collectively. Most of them are initiated by politicians, such as moon landing, the building of great wall and pyramid."look on my works, ye mighty, and despair" - well worth reading "Ozymandias" in this context.
A dozen men have walked on the moon - so what?
The Great Wall is a series of fortifications, some of which are less than 150 years old, and it wasn't much of a military success, despite costing the lives of about a million workers.
The occupants of the pyramids are all dead.
Compared with the work of Einstein, Roentgen, Curie, Milstein, Salk, Newton, and a thousand others whom I quote or praise daily, the accomplishments of most politicians are nothing. I will make an exception for Churchill and Bevan, but even Churchill was just responding to another politician.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 22:14:11
Let's address the first objection found here.Let's continue from where we've left.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#1
Quote
Some moral realists argue that the disagreements, widespread as they are, do not go very deep—that to a significant degree moral disagreements play out against the background of shared fundamental principles with the differences of opinion regularly being traceable to disagreements about the nonmoral facts that matter in light of the moral principles. On their view, the explanation of moral disagreements will be of a piece with whatever turns out to be a good explanation of the various nonmoral disagreements people find themselves in.
Quote
Other moral realists, though, see the disagreements as sometimes fundamental. On their view, while moral disagreements might in some cases be traceable to disagreements about nonmoral matters of fact, this will not always be true. Still, they deny the anti-realist's contention that the disagreements that remain are well explained by noncognitivism or by an error theory. Instead, they regularly offer some other explanation of the disagreements. They point out, for example, that many of the disagreements can be traced to the distorting effects of the emotions, attitudes, and interests that are inevitably bound up with moral issues. Or they argue that what appear to be disagreements are really cases in which the people are talking past each other, each making claims that might well be true once the claims are properly understood (Harman 1975, Wong 1984). And they often combine these explanatory strategies holding that the full range of moral disagreements are well explained by some balanced appeal to all of the considerations just mentioned, treating some disagreements as not fundamentally moral, others as a reflection of the distorting effects of emotion and interest, and still others as being due to insufficiently subtle understandings of what people are actually claiming. If some combination of these explanations works, then the moral realist is on firm ground in holding that the existence of moral disagreements, such as they are, is not an argument against moral realism. Of course, if no such explanation works, then an appeal either to noncognitivism or an error theory (i.e. to some form of anti-realism) may be the best alternative.If we're already informed of the universal terminal goal, we can assign the disagreements to uncertainty due to limited information. Long chain of causality can lead to unexpected results. It prevents us from being 100% sure about the best options for the long run.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2022 22:30:38
Theoretical works mean nothing if they are not applied.Great projects need the directions of resources in large amounts which are only feasible to be done collectively. Most of them are initiated by politicians, such as moon landing, the building of great wall and pyramid."look on my works, ye mighty, and despair" - well worth reading "Ozymandias" in this context.
A dozen men have walked on the moon - so what?
The Great Wall is a series of fortifications, some of which are less than 150 years old, and it wasn't much of a military success, despite costing the lives of about a million workers.
The occupants of the pyramids are all dead.
Compared with the work of Einstein, Roentgen, Curie, Milstein, Salk, Newton, and a thousand others whom I quote or praise daily, the accomplishments of most politicians are nothing. I will make an exception for Churchill and Bevan, but even Churchill was just responding to another politician.
Moon landings validated that human's fate is not tied to earth. Humans or their successors don't have to go extinct when the earth stops existing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2022 14:09:22
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#2Moore's arguments seem to refer to direct consequences or short term goals. He doesn't seem to successively ask why questions deep enough to reveal the terminal goal of morality.
2. Metaphysics
Putting aside the arguments that appeal to moral disagreement, a significant motivation for anti-realism about morality is found in worries about the metaphysics of moral realism and especially worries about whether moral realism might be reconciled with (what has come to be called) naturalism. It is hard, to say the least, to define naturalism in a clear way. Yet the underlying idea is fairly easy to convey. According to naturalism, the only facts we should believe in are those countenanced by, or at least compatible with, the results of science. To find, of some putative fact, that its existence is neither established by, nor even compatible with science, is to discover, as naturalism would have it, that there is no such fact. If moral realism requires facts that are incompatible with science (as many think it does) that alone would constitute a formidable argument against it.
Noncognitivists and error theorists alike have no trouble respecting naturalism while offering their respective accounts of moral claims. In both cases, their accounts appeal to nothing not already embraced by naturalism. Of course noncognitivists and error theories disagree in crucial ways about the nature of moral thought, and noncognitivists and error theorists disagree among themselves too about which versions of their preferred accounts are better. But they all are, from the point of view of naturalism, on safe ground.
Moral realists, in contrast, are standardly seen as unable to sustain their accounts without appealing, in the end, to putative facts that fly in the face of naturalism. This standard view can be traced to a powerful and influential argument offered by G.E. Moore (1903). As Moore saw things, being a naturalist about morality required thinking that moral terms could be defined correctly using terms that refer to natural properties. Thus one might define ‘good’ as ‘pleasant’, thus securing naturalistic credentials for value (so long as pleasure was a natural property) or one might define ‘good’ as ‘satisfies a desire we desire to have’ or as ‘conforms to the rules in force in our society’ or ‘promotes the species.’ Any one of these proposed definitions, if true, would establish that the facts required to make claims about what is good true or false were compatible with naturalism. Yet, Moore argued, no such definition is true. Against every one, he maintain, a single line of argument was decisive. For in each case, whatever naturalistic definition of moral terms was on offer, it always made sense to ask, of things that had the naturalistic property in question, whether those things were (really) good.
Consider someone who held not merely that pleasure was something good but (as a definition would have it) that pleasure was goodness—that they were one and the same property. According to that person, in claiming that something is pleasant one is claiming that it is good, and vice versa. In that case, though, it would not make sense for people to acknowledge that something is pleasant and then wonder, nonetheless, whether it was good. That would be like acknowledging that something is a triangle and then wondering, nonetheless, whether it has three sides. Yet, Moore maintained, the two cases are not alike. A person who wonders whether a triangle has three sides shows he does not understand what it is to be a triangle. His competence with the terms in question is revealed to be inadequate. In contrast, Moore observed, for any natural property whatsoever it was always an open question whether things that had that natural property were good. A person who raised that question did not thereby reveal himself not to be competent with the terms in question. What this shows, Moore argued, was that moral terms did not refer to natural properties and so a proper account of moral claims would have to recognize that they purport to report non-natural facts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2022 12:36:29
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#3"Some feature of moral claims that makes them not well captured by nonmoral claims".
3. Psychology
Nonetheless, realists and anti-realists alike are usually inclined to hold that Moore’s Open Question Argument is getting at something important—some feature of moral claims that makes them not well captured by nonmoral claims.
According to some, that ‘something important’ is that moral claims are essentially bound up with motivation in a way that nonmoral claims are not (Ayer 1936, Stevenson 1937, Gibbard 1990, Blackburn 1993). Exactly what the connection to motivation is supposed to be is itself controversial, but one common proposal (motivation internalism) is that a person counts as sincerely making a moral claim only if she is motivated appropriately. To think of something that it is good, for instance, goes with being, other things equal, in favor of it in ways that would provide some motivation (not necessarily decisive) to promote, produce, preserve or in other ways support it. If someone utterly lacks such motivations and yet claims nonetheless that she thinks the thing in question is good, there is reason, people note, to suspect either that she is being disingenuous or that she does not understand what she is saying. This marks a real contrast with nonmoral claims since the fact that a person makes some such claim sincerely seems never to entail anything in particular about her motivations. Whether she is attracted by, repelled by, or simply indifferent to some color is irrelevant to whether her claim that things have that color are sincere and well understood by her.
Noncognitivists often appeal to this apparent contrast to argue that moral claims have this necessary connection to motivation precisely because they do not express beliefs (that might be true or false) but instead express motivational states of desire, approval, or commitment (that might be satisfied or frustrated but are neither true nor false). Nonmoral claims, they maintain, commonly express beliefs and for that reason are rightly seen as purporting to report facts and as being evaluable as true or false. Yet, because beliefs alone are motivationally inert, the fact that someone is sincerely making such a claim (that is, is expressing something she actually believes) is compatible with her having any sort of motivation, or none at all. In contrast, claims that commonly express desires, preferences, and commitments do not purport to report facts and are not evaluable as true or false. Yet, because these are all motivationally loaded, the fact that someone sincerely makes such a claim (that is, is expressing something she actually feels) is incompatible with her failing to have the corresponding motivations. As soon as the contrast is in place, noncognitivists argue, we can well explain the motivational force of sincere moral claims and explain too the insight behind Moore’s Open Question Argument, by seeing moral claims as not beliefs but (perhaps a distinctive kind of) desire, preference, or commitment.
Moral claims take side on conscious beings. Any bias toward some specific types of conscious beings must be based on (presumed) merits.
Non-moral claims don't take any side. They are truly objective, where conscious beings are not considered more important than non-conscious counterparts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2022 13:09:25
Quote
Aztec Human SacrificesWhy most modern humans think that human sacrifice is immoral, while some ancient humans thought otherwise?
0:00 Introduction
2:52 Intro to "Aztec" Religion
6:04 Intro to "Aztec" Sacrifices
8:15 Heart-Extraction Sacrifice
16:52 God Impersonator Sacrifice
19:15 Intro to the Historical Theories
20:01 Ecological Argument
21:23 Political Argument
23:58 Conclusion to the Sacrifices and Theories
26:20 Problems With the Source Material
33:53 Conclusion
How was human sacrifice tolerable in those societies?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/02/2022 23:19:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2022 10:08:51
Imagine a human society that violate the rule above, e.g. sacrificing every female member of theirs. Unless the male members found an alternative to reproduce, that society will go extinct.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/02/2022 21:44:00
The human sacrifice is only tolerable in a society if the remaining conscious beings can replace those being sacrificed.This requirement may sound too cheap. Until we factor in competition with other societies. It amplifies the impact of differences among them. Slight disadvantages can be exploited by the competitors, especially in the situations where the winners take all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2022 11:00:29
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#4This argument also limits its analysis to direct consequences of moral acts, which are called here as moral facts. It doesn't seem to consider longer chains of causality to finally arrive at the determining moral facts to distinguish good things from bad things. It should also be noted that as long as we have only have finite information on objective reality and limited capability of processing that information to eliminate any uncertainty, then our moral judgment must be based on probabilistic theory. A behavior is morally good if it increases the likelihood of preserving the existence of consciousness in the long run, based on all available information.
4. Epistemology
Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there are moral facts. Suppose even that the moral facts are properly thought of as at least compatible with science. One thing Moore’s Open Question Argument still seems to show is that no appeal to natural facts discovered by scientific method would establish that the moral facts are one way rather than another. That something is pleasant, or useful, or satisfies someone’s preference, is perfectly compatible with thinking that it is neither good nor right nor worth doing. The mere fact that moral facts might be compatible with natural facts does nothing to support the idea that we could learn about the moral facts. David Hume seems to have been, in effect, pressing this point long before Moore, when he argued that no moral conclusion follows non-problematically from nonmoral premises (Hume 1739). No “ought,” he pointed out, followed from an “is”—without the help of another (presupposed) “ought.” More generally, there is no valid inference from nonmoral premises to moral conclusions unless one relies, at least surreptitiously, on a moral premise. If, then, all that science can establish is what “is” and not what ought to be, science cannot alone establish moral conclusions.
Just in case you wonder what the open-question argument is.
Quote
The open-question argument is a philosophical argument put forward by British philosopher G. E. Moore in §13 of Principia Ethica (1903),[1] to refute the equating of the property of goodness with some non-moral property, X, whether natural (e.g. pleasure) or supernatural (e.g. God's command). That is, Moore's argument attempts to show that no moral property is identical to a natural property.[2] The argument takes the form of a syllogism modus tollens:
Premise 1: If X is (analytically equivalent to) good, then the question "Is it true that X is good?" is meaningless.
Premise 2: The question "Is it true that X is good?" is not meaningless (i.e. it is an open question).
Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good.
The type of question Moore refers to in this argument is an identity question, "Is it true that X is Y?" Such a question is an open question if a conceptually competent speaker can question this; otherwise it is closed. For example, "I know he is a vegan, but does he eat meat?" would be a closed question. However, "I know that it is pleasurable, but is it good?" is an open question; the answer cannot be derived from the meaning of the terms alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2022 15:51:22
The human sacrifice is only tolerable in a society if the remaining conscious beings can replace those being sacrificed.You are confusing society with people. Politicians are perfectly happy to sacrifice others for their own benefit. Given absolute authority over some 65,000,000 people, our Beloved Leader would happily immolate the 64,000,000 who don't directly contribute to His wellbeing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2022 20:56:27
Tolerable here simply means it doesn't cause the extinction of the society. In other words, it's permitted to exist by nature.The human sacrifice is only tolerable in a society if the remaining conscious beings can replace those being sacrificed.You are confusing society with people. Politicians are perfectly happy to sacrifice others for their own benefit. Given absolute authority over some 65,000,000 people, our Beloved Leader would happily immolate the 64,000,000 who don't directly contribute to His wellbeing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2022 21:18:23
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/#5Moral facts are things yet to happen, which are consequences of the actions being morally evaluated. So, it's no wonder if there are still moral disagreements even when the universal moral standard has been agreed upon, as long as we still have uncertainty on the future chains of events.
5. Semantics
Moral realists have here been characterized as those who hold that moral claims purport to report facts, that they are evaluable as true or false in light of whether the facts are as the claims purport, and that at least some such claims are actually true. Many have thought there are good reasons—even decisive reasons—for rejecting moral realism so conceived.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/02/2022 05:44:38
Tolerable here simply means it doesn't cause the extinction of the society.But what's the big deal with preservation of society? Civilisations have come and gone. People matter, organisations don't.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/02/2022 07:55:25
You think so because you assume that organizations consist of people. Hence, existence of organizations depend on the existence of people. No people, no organization.Tolerable here simply means it doesn't cause the extinction of the society.But what's the big deal with preservation of society? Civilisations have come and gone. People matter, organisations don't.
People as we know it also come and gone. They are not timeless.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2022 11:16:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 14:05:42
Thousands of organisations and hundreds of civilisations, all different, have disappeared. People remain pretty much the same.How did people look like a million years ago? How did they behave?
How about their ancestor from 100 million years ago?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 14:21:30
objection against moral realism.Here's another entry in the website which is dedicated to describe Moral Anti-realism.
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/#CharMoraAntiReal
1. Characterizing Moral Anti-realism
Traditionally, to hold a realist position with respect to X is to hold that X exists objectively. On this view, moral anti-realism is the denial of the thesis that moral properties—or facts, objects, relations, events, etc. (whatever categories one is willing to countenance)—exist objectively. This could involve either (1) the denial that moral properties exist at all, or (2) the acceptance that they do exist but this existence is (in the relevant sense) non-objective. There are broadly two ways of endorsing (1): moral noncognitivism and moral error theory. Proponents of (2) may be variously thought of as moral non-objectivists, or idealists, or constructivists. So understood, moral anti-realism is the disjunction of three theses:Using such labels is not a precise science, nor an uncontroversial matter; here they are employed just to situate ourselves roughly. In this spirit of preliminary imprecision, these views can be initially characterized as follows:
- moral noncognivitism
- moral error theory
- moral non-objectivism
Moral noncognitivism holds that our moral judgments are not in the business of aiming at truth. So, for example, A.J. Ayer declared that when we say “Stealing money is wrong” we do not express a proposition that can be true or false, but rather it is as if we say “Stealing money!!” with the tone of voice indicating that a special feeling of disapproval is being expressed (Ayer [1936] 1971: 110). Note how the predicate “… is wrong” has disappeared in Ayer’s translation schema; thus the issues of whether the property of wrongness exists, and whether that existence is objective, also disappear.
The moral error theorist thinks that although our moral judgments aim at the truth, they systematically fail to secure it: the world simply doesn’t contain the relevant “stuff” to render our moral judgments true. For a more familiar analogy, compare what an atheist usually claims about religious judgments. On the face of it, religious discourse is cognitivist in nature: it would seem that when someone says “God exists” or “God loves you” they are usually asserting something that purports to be true. However, according to the atheist, the world isn’t furnished with the right kind of stuff (gods, afterlife, miracles, etc.) necessary to render these assertions true. The moral error theorist claims that when we say “Stealing is morally wrong” we are asserting that the act of stealing instantiates the property of moral wrongness, but in fact there is no such property, or at least nothing in the world instantiates it, and thus the utterance is untrue.
Non-objectivism (as it will be called here) allows that moral facts exist but holds that they are non-objective. The slogan version comes from Hamlet: “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” For a quick example of a non-objective fact, consider the different properties that a particular diamond might have. It is true that the diamond is made of carbon, and also true that the diamond is worth $1000, say. But the status of these facts seems different. That the diamond is carbon seems an objective fact: it doesn’t depend on what we think of the matter. (We could all be under the impression that it is not carbon, and all be wrong.) That the diamond is worth $1000, by contrast, seems to depend on us. If we all thought that it was worth more (or less), then it would be worth more (or less).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 14:39:44
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/#NoncIt seems that what Ayer thought as feeling is more accurately called moral intuition. It's similar to how players of Go contemplate for their next moves. It's like an unexplainable neural network of deep learning AI which acts like a black box. This may come from experiences that generally, morally wrong actions/behaviors cause undesired consequences/results.
3.1 Noncognitivism
On the face of it, when we make a public moral judgment, like “That act of stealing was morally wrong,” what we are doing is asserting that the act of stealing in question instantiates a certain property: moral wrongness. This raises a number of extremely thorny metaethical questions: What kind of property is moral wrongness? How does it relate to the natural properties instantiated by the action? How do we have epistemic access to the property? How do we confirm whether something does or does not instantiate the property? (And so on.) The difficulty of answering such questions may lead one to reject the presupposition that prompted them: One might deny that in making a moral judgment we are engaging in the assignment of properties at all. Such a rejection is, roughly speaking, the noncognitivist proposal. (See entry for moral cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism.)
It is impossible to characterize noncognitivism in a way that will please everyone. Sometimes it is presented as a view about mental states and sometimes about moral language. This is because it is a claim about “moral judgments,” and we can consider moral judgments either as private mental acts or as public utterances. If we are thinking of moral judgments as mental states, then noncognitivism is the claim that moral judgments are not beliefs. If we are thinking of moral judgments as speech acts, then noncognitivism is the view that moral judgments do not express beliefs—i.e., it is the view that moral judgments are not assertions. Here, for brevity, the latter formulation will be preferred.
If moral judgments are not assertions, then what are they? Here the different kinds of answers give rise to different forms of noncognitivism. Ayer, as was mentioned earlier, maintained that when we make a moral judgment we are expressing certain feelings, such as approval or disapproval. Another influential kind of noncognitivism called “prescriptivism” claims that moral judgments are really veiled commands whose true meaning should be captured using the imperative mood: Someone who says “Stealing is morally wrong” is really saying something like “Don’t steal!” (see Carnap 1935: 24–25). R.M. Hare (1952, 1963) restricted this to commands that one is willing to universalize.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 14:50:51
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/#ErroTheoAt least in principle, unicorn can be created using genetic engineering. Hence the example above is not very useful.
3.2 Error Theory
The error theorist is a cognitivist: maintaining that moral judgment consists of beliefs and assertions. However, the error theorist thinks that these beliefs and assertions are never true. (The error theorist contrasts here with what can be called the “success theorist.”) Moral judgments are never true because the properties that would be necessary to render them true—properties like moral wrongness, moral goodness, virtue, evil, etc.—simply don’t exist, or at least are not instantiated. Defenders of moral error theory include Mackie 1977, Hinckfuss 1987, Joyce 2001, and Olson 2014.
If I assert that my dog is a reptile, then I’ve asserted something false—though in this case there are other things that are reptiles. If I assert that my dog is a unicorn then again I’ve asserted something false—though in this case there’s nothing in the actual world to which I could attach the predicate “… is a unicorn” and end up with a true assertion. The error theorist thinks that employing moral discourse is rather like talking about unicorns, though in the case of unicorns most people now know that they don’t exist, while in the case of moral properties most people are unaware of the error. To be an error theorist about unicorns doesn’t require that you think unicorns are impossible creatures; it’s enough that you think that they simply don’t actually exist. In the same way, to be a moral error theorist doesn’t require that you think that moral properties couldn’t possibly exist; it would be enough to think that they are never actually instantiated. (Note that there may be a difference between saying “Property P is never actually instantiated” and “Property P doesn’t exist,” but that’s a problem for metaphysicians to sort out. Holding either view with respect to moral properties is enough to make one a moral error theorist.)
Here's a simple program to predict if you got an extremely rare disease with >99% accuracy.
function result()
print "false"
I think it sums up error theory pretty well.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 15:01:07
Quote
3.3 Non-objectivismIf there is no mindful/conscious entity in the universe, then there's no way to verify if an assertion/belief about a fact is true or false, let alone a moral fact. We can say that universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal stands at the boundary between objectivism and subjectivism.
To deny both noncognitivism and the moral error theory suffices to make one a minimal moral realist. Traditionally, however, moral realism has required the acceptance of a further thesis: the objectivity of morality. “Moral non-objectivism” denotes the view that moral facts exist and are mind-dependent (in the relevant sense), while “moral objectivism” holds that they exist and are mind-independent. (Note that this taxonomy makes the two contraries rather than contradictories; the error theorist and the noncognitivist count as neither objectivists nor non-objectivists. The error theorist may, however, be an objectivist in a different sense: in holding that objectivity is a feature of morality conceptually speaking.) Let us say that if one is a moral cognitivist and a moral success theorist and a moral objectivist, then one is a robust moral realist.
Yet this third condition, even more than the first two, introduces a great deal of messiness into the dialectic, and the line between the realist and the anti-realist becomes obscure (and, one might think, less interesting). The basic problem is that there are many non-equivalent ways of understanding the relation of mind-(in)dependence, and thus one philosopher’s realism becomes another philosopher’s anti-realism. At least one philosopher, Gideon Rosen, has expressed pessimism that the relevant notion of objectivity can be sharpened to a useful philosophical point:
To be sure, we do have “intuitions” of a sort about when the rhetoric of objectivity is appropriate and when it isn’t. But these intuitions are fragile, and every effort I know to find the principle that underlies them collapses. We sense that there is a heady metaphysical thesis at stake in these debates over realism … but after a point, when every attempt to say just what the issue is has come up empty, we have no real choice but to conclude that despite all the wonderful, suggestive imagery, there is ultimately nothing in the neighborhood to discuss. (1994: 279. See also Dworkin 1996.)
As Rosen says, metaphors to mark non-objectivism from objectivism are easy to come by and easy to motivate in the uninitiated. The objectivist about X likens our X-oriented activity to astronomy, geography, or exploration; the non-objectivist likens it to sculpture or imaginative writing. (These are Michael Dummett’s metaphors (1978: xxv).) The objectivist sees the goal of our inquiries as being to “carve the beast of reality at the joints” (as the popular paraphrase of Plato’s Phaedrus puts it); the non-objectivist sees our inquiries as the application of a “cookie cutter”: imposing a noncompulsory conceptual framework onto an undifferentiated reality (to use Hilary Putnam’s equally memorable image (1987: 19)). The objectivist sees inquiry as a process of detection, our judgments aiming to reflect the extension of the truth predicate with respect to a certain subject; the non-objectivist sees inquiry as a process of projection, our judgments determining the extension of the truth predicate regarding that subject.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2022 15:14:19
Quote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/Many consequential moral theories limit their consideration to direct or short term consequences of actions or behaviors being morally judged. And that's exactly what's being attacked by non-consequentialists.
Consequentialism, as its name suggests, is simply the view that normative properties depend only on consequences. This historically important and still popular theory embodies the basic intuition that what is best or right is whatever makes the world best in the future, because we cannot change the past, so worrying about the past is no more useful than crying over spilled milk. This general approach can be applied at different levels to different normative properties of different kinds of things, but the most prominent example is probably consequentialism about the moral rightness of acts, which holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2022 23:46:44
How did people look like a million years ago? How did they behave?Homo sapiens has not been around for a million years. There isn't a consistent definition of species but by consensus all members of a species have a lot of characteristics in common.
How about their ancestor from 100 million years ago?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2022 23:57:16
At least in principle, unicorn can be created using genetic engineering.Physicists are perfectly happy to discuss things that don't exist if the mathematical abstraction allows for degeneration into something that does exist, or an observable phenomenon. We talk about multiverses, wave functions and probability distributions, and even anthropomorphise electrons with equanimity. Electrical and radio engineering is largely about imaginary numbers. Philosophers are people who don't understand science.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2022 00:02:55
If there is no mindful/conscious entity in the universe, then there's no way to verify if an assertion/belief about a fact is true or false,So a logic gate is a conscious entity? The crosscoupled NAND debouncer even makes a firm decision from indistinct data.
This certainly spits in the eye of human vanity - every living thing makes decisions!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 04:09:10
Transition from non-human to human happened gradually. It didn't happen over a single generation.How did people look like a million years ago? How did they behave?Homo sapiens has not been around for a million years. There isn't a consistent definition of species but by consensus all members of a species have a lot of characteristics in common.
How about their ancestor from 100 million years ago?
Moral standards didn't appear suddenly either.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 04:47:06
I mentioned elsewhere in this forum that science is a data compression process. Elon Musk has expressed this too. It take observations as input, and churns out a compact set of relationships adequately represents observed data within limits of application.At least in principle, unicorn can be created using genetic engineering.Physicists are perfectly happy to discuss things that don't exist if the mathematical abstraction allows for degeneration into something that does exist, or an observable phenomenon. We talk about multiverses, wave functions and probability distributions, and even anthropomorphise electrons with equanimity. Electrical and radio engineering is largely about imaginary numbers. Philosophers are people who don't understand science.
Electrical and radio engineering largely deal with periodic functions, which are conveniently analyzed using complex numbers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 04:58:18
Consciousness is an emergence phenomenon. Take anything/anyone which everyone agreed is a conscious entity. Break it down to its basic components. Repeat the process until we arrive at some point, where we will have to say that those components are not conscious. AFAIK, individual human neurons, or any other cell types, are not conscious by most standards.If there is no mindful/conscious entity in the universe, then there's no way to verify if an assertion/belief about a fact is true or false,So a logic gate is a conscious entity? The crosscoupled NAND debouncer even makes a firm decision from indistinct data.
This certainly spits in the eye of human vanity - every living thing makes decisions!
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2022 17:24:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/02/2022 21:29:28
You seem to have defined a conscious entity as something that can verify a Boolean variable. In my experience the crosscoupled NAND debouncer is the simplest device that can do so.You seem to have forgotten what I've said about consciousness. So, let me remind you once again.
In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future. Thus it requires self awareness, which means some portion of the entity's memory space is used to represent itself apart from its environment. Since the environment is dynamic, the entity must involve a dynamic process too.
If you insist on using another definition, I suggest you to start another thread and use it consistently there, so we don't talk passing each other, and the conversation can be kept in order.
You can try to debunk my universal moral standard by showing an exception to the universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 07:40:57
Thus it requires self awarenessThe other requirement is access to objective reality. The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2022 09:14:14
In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future.So slaves, prisoners, and sailors in a damaged submarine, are not conscious, but sunflowers are.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2022 09:18:55
The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.The switch debouncer has an SPCO switch input and a logic-level output. Its function is to tell the downstream system unequivocally whether the switch has been flipped between its two states.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:21:27
I think I have addressed this issue already. Those slaves, prisoners, and sailors in a damaged submarine are conscious for the time being, which are presumably not long. They will lose their consciousness when they die.In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future.So slaves, prisoners, and sailors in a damaged submarine, are not conscious, but sunflowers are.
The slaves and prisoners can try to revolt or escape in various ways, or behave nicely hoping things will get better soon. The sailors can try to save themselves using their ingenuity and available tools, or call for help.
What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:25:57
You forget the first requirement.The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.The switch debouncer has an SPCO switch input and a logic-level output. Its function is to tell the downstream system unequivocally whether the switch has been flipped between its two states.
In this thread, anytime I write consciousness, I mean the ability to determine one's own future. Thus it requires self awareness, which means some portion of the entity's memory space is used to represent itself apart from its environment. Since the environment is dynamic, the entity must involve a dynamic process too.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:45:47
Quote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster
Robert Nozick, a twentieth century American philosopher, coined the term "utility monster" in response to Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism. Nozick proposed that accepting the theory of utilitarianism causes the necessary acceptance of the condition that some people would use this to justify exploitation of others. An individual (or specific group) would claim their entitlement to more "happy units" than they claim others deserve, and the others would consequently be left to receive fewer "happy units".
Nozick deems these exploiters "utility monsters" (and for ease of understanding, they might also be thought of as happiness hogs). Nozick poses utility monsters justify their greediness with the notion that, compared to others, they experience greater inequality or sadness in the world, and deserve more happy units to bridge this gap. People not part of the utility monster group (or not the utility monster individual themselves) are left with less happy units to be split among the members. Utility monsters state that the others are happier in the world to begin with, so they would not need those extra happy units to which they lay claim anyway.[1]
It can be shown that all consequentialist systems based on maximizing a global function are subject to utility monsters.[1]
Different types of utilitarianism has their own kind of utility monster.
Quote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism), or whether agents should conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to whether total utility (total utilitarianism), average utility (average utilitarianism) or the utility of the people worst-off[3] should be maximized.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 14:00:30
In modern society, we can see parents work hard for their children, which can be seen as their version of utility monsters.
In the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal, the utility monsters are any conscious entities who exist in the distant future. You may raise objections now. But in that distance future, those who don't survive won't exist anymore to raise their objections. You can easily spot a survival bias here. But note that as long as we survive, we have the chance to make improvements. Cogito ergo sum as the first knowledge can no longer be applied by conscious entities who don't survive.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2022 18:58:31
You forget the first requirement.The interface is a piece of wire (well, four, actually) through which it senses its environment and talks to other systems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 21:37:23
Individual neurons do those things too. We don't call them conscious.You forget the first requirement.The interface is a piece of wire (well, four, actually) through which it senses its environment and talks to other systems.
On the other hand, adequately advanced AI can meet the criteria. Some of their decisions can already have bigger impacts than many individual humans. For example, AI that is used to screen out job applications, determine credit rating, or diagnose cancer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/02/2022 21:23:16
Even deontological moralities have their own versions of utility monsters.Hedonistic morality makes everyone a utility monster of their own. The reward function is determined by whatever neural connections happen to be in someone's brain, which are pretty much incidental. It seems like it's not much better than no morality at all. But it's because we often take for granted that everyone would behave according to their pleasure and pain, which have helped them survive. True/radical nihilists would be worse than that. If every adult suddenly accept and consistently practice the doctrine of nihilism, we would see dead bodies all over the place. Some of them would decide to stop breathing or eating.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/02/2022 14:08:58
Individual neurons do those things too. We don't call them conscious.Come on, HY, you keep moving the goalposts - that's a foul in my book!
On the other hand, adequately advanced AI can meet the criteria.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/02/2022 05:15:13
Where was the initial goalpost? Where did I move it to?Individual neurons do those things too. We don't call them conscious.Come on, HY, you keep moving the goalposts - that's a foul in my book!
On the other hand, adequately advanced AI can meet the criteria.
What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 03:17:12
Quote
F
10 months ago (edited)
Ok I'm an truly anti moral realist.
Maybe it's a bit because of nihilism or so.
HAMDANI YUSUF
4 months ago
Are you ok with slavery?
Nayer Yayer
3 days ago
@hamdani yusuf I'd love to own slaves. Slavery has been accepted by humanity for thousands of years. It was only abolished recently. Morals are arbitrary and changeable.
HAMDANI YUSUF
3 days ago
@Nayer Yayer Are you ok with genocide?
Nayer Yayer
3 days ago
@hamdani yusuf Yeah, it's entertaining. We're all going to die anyway, what's the big deal if some people die sooner?
HAMDANI YUSUF
3 days ago
@Nayer Yayer Why do you want to be entertained?
What makes seeing or doing genocide entertaining to you?
Nayer Yayer
3 days ago (edited)
@hamdani yusuf Because I enjoy violence. No other reason needed. We're all just sacks of meat on a floating rock in space. We're all going to die soon. So what if some random people are killed?
HAMDANI YUSUF
2 days ago
@Nayer Yayer Will you let someone kill you? Why or why not?
HAMDANI YUSUF
2 days ago
@Nayer Yayer Non-universal moralities are conditional. They have their own time, space, and situation to be applied. On the other hand, a universal morality always applies.
Nayer Yayer
2 days ago (edited)
@hamdani yusuf I act in my own self-interest and do whatever benefits me. I have no reason to care about others. I live my short life to the fullest.
HAMDANI YUSUF
13 hours ago
@Nayer Yayer What do you think benefits you the most? Why do you think so? Do you have a reason, or is it just your instinct or emotion?
Nayer Yayer
13 hours ago (edited)
@hamdani yusuf Why do you ask? I’m going to ask you some questions. Explain your “universal morality” and give me evidence that it exists?
HAMDANI YUSUF
2 minutes ago
@Nayer Yayer Besides of curiosity, perhaps to prevent regrets. Either by you, or someone you will interact with. I discussed the universal morality extensively in a forum. You can search for "universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal". Essentially, it's to extend the existence of consciousness into the future.
Here's another conversation which I'm not involved in.
Quote
Sensei
9 months ago
Wouldn't moral antirealism simply be the same as non-morality? Why call it a moral stance at all?
To me it sounds like a cop-out, a way to throw your hands up on morality and just say, "Whatever!" If what a moral antirealist values is tolerance, what would that have to do with ethics at all in the first place?
ant
9 months ago
Moral antirealists can still view moral statements as true or false, they just don't think that there are moral facts. For example you could believe that morality is decided by the individual or by the society. Additionally there are views which reject the idea that moral statements can have a truth value but still have something to say about moral statements like emotivism or prescriptivism.
Note: I'm just learning this myself so I may say some stuff that's wrong.
Sensei
8 months ago
@ant Thing is that you discount yourself from moral argument as soon as you disavow the existence of moral fact. The moment you engage in moral argument you are acknowledging the existence of moral fact, otherwise you'd have no basis for a moral argument.
Yes a moral antirealist can view moral statement as true of false but they wouldn't have anything to back their view of it as true or false based on their own view. Moral antirealists that engage in moral arguments are closet moral realists. Otherwise all you could argue about as an antirealist would be the metaethics of morality.
There's no point in arguing morality from an antirealist perspective, since by definition it does not accept the existence of moral fact, or claims moral facts cannot be known.
ant
8 months ago (edited)
@Sensei It may not have been clear what I meant by moral fact but forms of ethical subjectivism allow for moral discussion/justification without admitting moral fact by grounding morality in individual attitudes. These can be cultural or individual, which would make morality relative, but they can also be universal like ideal observer theory and arguably divine command theory. Even the relative positions allow for justified moral argument within certain contexts. And all these positions are generally considered antirealist.
Some people actually define moral realism to include these views, although my understanding is that this is a less common usage of the term. The simplest way I've heard this usage summarized is "moral realism = cognitivism - error theory"
Sensei
8 months ago
@ant That's the qualm I have with absolute relativism/antirealism. In some sort of god-given irony a pure subjectivist falls into the same pitfall as the pure objectivist. In either case morality becomes purely arbitrary, that is, there's no actual basis to it other than "just because".
And yeah I think I understood what you were trying to say. Most subjectivsts do believe in some semblance of moral fact despite the fact that they'll tell you otherwise. I do believe subjectivists can make statements that are more so morally factual than not, but that's because I believe human beings are capable of knowing moral truth. This would apply no matter what you believe about morality assuming that what I state is true.
I don't think you can really enter into a moral conversation without believing in moral fact. To believe in moral fact is simply a foundation that is necessary for moral argument. It's the simple fact of believing that there are some things that are right and some things that are wrong.
If the basis for morality is purely subjective then there might as well be no such thing as moral fact, since morality would only exist relative to some arbitrarily preset instantiation.
Transient cog
8 months ago
@Sensei I agree sir. I always thought the term moral relativism to be an oxymoron. Moral relativists cannot make moral judgements, only moral descriptions. That is because they believe Taliban’s actions are valid, for example, as valid as any other action. “To each his own” kinda philosophy. At least that’s what I think :P
If everything is valid, nothing is. So they’re moral nihilists. Moral subjectivism is not a possible moral philosophy because it says nothing about moral actions/principles.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 04:13:25
Quote
https://thisviewoflife.com/a-universal-principle-within-moralitys-ultimate-source/
There is a dilemma that must be solved by all beings that form highly cooperative societies. This dilemma is how to obtain the benefits of cooperation without future benefits being destroyed by exploitation, such as by free riders accepting a benefit but not reciprocating. Solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma is difficult because exploitation is virtually always the ‘winning’ strategy in the short term and can be in the longer term.
Fortunately for us, our ancestors came across solutions that have enabled us to become the incredibly successful social species we are. Evolution encoded some of these solutions in our moral sense and cultural moral codes as “morality”. The science of the last 50 years or so reveals human morality to be elements of cooperation strategies2,3,4,5,9 which have made us “SuperCooperators”6.
Cultural moralities are solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, but they are also diverse, contradictory, and sometimes strange. Exploitation of out-groups (such as slaves, women, and “others”) has been common. Strange markers of being a moral person such as circumcision, dress and hairstyle, and food and sex taboos have been required.
Quote
Could there be a universally moral subset of these “descriptively moral” behaviors (behaviors described as moral in one culture but perhaps not in others)? Even when cooperating to exploit or make war8 on out-groups, we must necessarily begin by solving the cooperation/exploitation dilemma within an in-group. To sustainably obtain these benefits of cooperation, people within this in-group “circle of moral concern”7 are not exploited.
This defines a universal moral principle: “Solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma without exploiting others in your circle of moral concern”. This principle is universal because it is a necessary component of all cultural moralities, even sub-cultures which restrict in-groups to family or friends and exploit everyone else. We can simplify this universal principle as “Increase the benefits of cooperation without exploiting others”, leaving “others” undefined for the moment.
This universal moral principle is an attractive reference for refining moral codes to better meet shared needs and preferences. It advocates increased cooperation which both increases material goods benefits and triggers the emotional rewards evolution encoded that motivate further cooperation. Because our moral sense was selected for by the benefits of cooperation, these cooperation strategies are innately harmonious with our moral sense. This moral principle is practical. Following common moral norms such as the Golden Rule is universally moral when the benefits of cooperation are increased. But when following such norms would not solve the cooperation/exploitation dilemma, as when dealing with criminals and in wartime, following them would not be moral. Since this universal moral principle defines only moral ‘means’ (actions that increase cooperation’s benefits without exploiting others) and is silent on moral ‘ends’ (what those benefits are), societies are free to define what those benefits of cooperation ought to be and change them as circumstances change. The universal moral principle also sheds light on the morality of two human invented solutions to the cooperation/exploitation dilemma: money economies (which efficiently enable cooperation that produces material goods) and rule of law (which effectively uses force to punish exploiters). Finally, because universally moral means are accurately tracked, this moral principle is a useful objective reference for resolving many moral disputes. (Disputes can persist about how “others”, “exploiting”, ultimate moral ‘ends’, and other implementation details are defined even among people who accept the principle.)
Individuals can benefit from this science by realizing that, properly understood, morality is not a burden; it is an effective means for increasing the benefits of cooperation, especially emotional well-being resulting from sustained cooperation with family, friends, and community. Also, cultural moral norms are best understood not as moral absolutes but as heuristics (usually reliable, but fallible, rules of thumb) for sustainably increasing the benefits of cooperation. Further, if “others” are defined as all people, then all ‘moral’ norms that exploit out-groups contradict the universal moral principle. These include economic systems based on the unfettered pursuit of self-interest leading to exploitation and prohibitions against homosexuality that exploit homosexuals as imaginary threats.
This purely science-based definition of what ‘is’ universally moral appears to be culturally useful independent of any arguments for mysterious1 sources of obligation or moral authority. However, the principle does not answer all moral questions. What benefits for acting morally ought we seek and who ought to be included in “others” who are not to be exploited? Common preferences might be “increased well-being” and “everyone”. But here objective science goes silent; answers to these questions are in the domain of moral philosophy.
The open questions in the end of the article are there because the author hasn't consider to find out about the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2022 20:28:53
Where was the initial goalpost? Where did I move it to?
Quote
the conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.And as soon as I described a simple logic circuit that does exactly that, you said it didn't qualify!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2022 12:25:20
Here's my original post before you cut it out improperly.Where was the initial goalpost? Where did I move it to?Quotethe conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.And as soon as I described a simple logic circuit that does exactly that, you said it didn't qualify!
Does your simple logic circuit meet all the requirements? The main requirement here is self awareness, in case you haven't figured it out already.Thus it requires self awarenessThe other requirement is access to objective reality. The conscious system must have some input and output interface, either directly or indirectly, such as sensor and actuator.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2022 12:29:23
What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 07:28:27
This sunflower thing reminds me of what's happening in Ukraine.What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 13:16:23
The original trolley problem creates disagreement because it's like comparing apple to orange. Different people come up with different conversion factor.To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.
We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.
I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:
Trolley problem is often used to explore human moral values. But even the most basic case produced disagreements among people. Can it be modified to reduce disagreement? Hopefully it can help us finding a common ground to finally construct a universal moral standard.
Here's the basic version.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Trolley_Problem.svg/330px-Trolley_Problem.svg.png)
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.
You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
First option includes:
- do nothing
- death of 5 strangers
While second option includes:
- do something, which is pulling a lever
- death of a stranger
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 16:21:19
First option includes:Assuming that every stranger has equal value, the original trolley problem is basically asking us to compare the cost of doing something (pulling a lever, and all of its expected consequences) with losing lives of four strangers.
- do nothing
- death of 5 strangers
While second option includes:
- do something, which is pulling a lever
- death of a stranger
The decision would then depend on the value of conversion factor, which converts the value of the action into the quantity of strangers' lives.
Historically, the survey showed that most people thought that the action worth less than 4 lives of strangers. Unfortunately, the study didn't come with follow up question: how much less was it? Did it worth 3 lives? 2? 1? 0? or a fractional value?
Nevertheless, there were respondents who thought that the action worth more than 4 lives of strangers. Similar follow up question should have been asked: how much more was it? Did it worth 5 lives? 10? 100? 1000? a million? a billion? a trillion? infinity?
The conversion factor wasn't set by the questioner. Thus it must have been set by each respondents from their own experiences. Some type of environments came up with higher values of conversion factor compared to the others.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 16:22:19
They turn to follow the sun in order to maximise energy input to the flower mechanism, which determines the survival of the species by attracting pollinators and producing seeds..What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 16:33:31
Statistically, if you were among the group of prospective victims and the group were selected at random, it is more likely 5 in 109 that you would be in the larger group rather than the smaller group (1 in 109).
Now apply my first test: would you like it to happen to you? Statistically, you would want me to save the larger group because that is more likely to contain you (or your loved ones, if you want to apply the second test) .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 16:44:42
Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.A condition can be added to make the options free from conversion factor. It's that the stopping device is going to be expired soon, which will make it useless after the event. So, the options are basically as follow:
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.
You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
1. sacrifice 6 strangers
2. sacrifice 1 stranger
3. sacrifice 5 strangers
I think I can safely say that most people will choose second option. But I won't be surprised if there are people who choose first option, because they think that reducing the number of people, especially strangers, is a good thing to do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 16:53:21
They turn to follow the sun in order to maximise energy input to the flower mechanism, which determines the survival of the species by attracting pollinators and producing seeds..What makes it different than automaton, like a bimetal that bends when being heated?
Can they choose not to follow the sun, e.g. when the energy is excessive?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 17:01:05
Let us naively assume that you don't want to die in a trolley accident.Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?
Statistically, if you were among the group of prospective victims and the group were selected at random, it is more likely 5 in 109 that you would be in the larger group rather than the smaller group (1 in 109).
Now apply my first test: would you like it to happen to you? Statistically, you would want me to save the larger group because that is more likely to contain you (or your loved ones, if you want to apply the second test) .
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?
Post by: Origin on 02/03/2022 18:07:27
By the way the answer to the OP is no.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2022 03:05:13
Can anyone find a good justification to choose third option? If a survey respondent somehow choose to save 1 life of a stranger instead of 5 or 0, what could possibly be the reason?Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.A condition can be added to make the options free from conversion factor. It's that the stopping device is going to be expired soon, which will make it useless after the event. So, the options are basically as follow:
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.
You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
1. sacrifice 6 strangers
2. sacrifice 1 stranger
3. sacrifice 5 strangers
I think I can safely say that most people will choose second option. But I won't be surprised if there are people who choose first option, because they think that reducing the number of people, especially strangers, is a good thing to do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2022 02:38:12
I hate this blog, I am putting it on ignore.To restore your credibility, may be it's a good idea to start doing what you said you wanted to do many times already.
By the way the answer to the OP is no.
Did you get your answer based on the result of flipping a coin?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2022 17:10:53
Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?I'm sure you can do the statistics. 5>2 in my world, and 1 = 1.
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2022 00:43:34
So, at how many strangers on the track would you not pull the lever?Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?I'm sure you can do the statistics. 5>2 in my world, and 1 = 1.
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2022 08:55:26
The moral dilemma is where you have three equal target groups labelled politicians, philosophers and priests, and only one trolley.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2022 12:17:02
Where {do nothing} → ndead ≤ nalive, obviously.I thought you prefer less humans on earth.
The moral dilemma is where you have three equal target groups labelled politicians, philosophers and priests, and only one trolley.
Perhaps it would be called trilemma. Why did you leave other profession, such as lawyers and bankers?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2022 12:27:56
Lawyers and bankers work for me when I need them, and oil the wheels of society. The 3Ps are parasites who contribute nothing but friction.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2022 13:05:36
The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.What makes the difference?
Lawyers and bankers work for me when I need them, and oil the wheels of society. The 3Ps are parasites who contribute nothing but friction.
Good lawyers are ambiguous. Are they good if they serve justice, or if they serve clients to win their case, even when they did wrong things?
If a banker makes huge profit while bringing down national or global economy, should we call them good or bad banker?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2022 14:25:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2022 04:46:54
The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.What makes the difference?
Is there any particular reason?
Is it based on your intuition?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2022 14:43:00
But every baby is a net consumer for about the next 20 years, without having contributed anything. So a baby not born is a significant exchequer saving and improvement in the future quality of life for those already here.
Killing people takes effort and organisation, and doing it on a big scale can pose problems disposing of the bodies. Not making babies is the perfect "do nothing" option, with no waste product.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2022 15:25:27
You might then start on pensioners, but we have a limited life span anyway, and have contributed to the public good through our taxes and investments, so we should be allowed to enjoy our pensions. Companies that rashly introduced early retirement to save money on the short term often found that, within a year or two, everyone who knew anything useful or had acquired a significant skill, had disappeared.Killing pensioners would remove incentives for younger generations to work harder and smarter to save money for their future, which would reduce productivity of the society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2022 15:29:51
But every baby is a net consumer for about the next 20 years, without having contributed anything. So a baby not born is a significant exchequer saving and improvement in the future quality of life for those already here.On the other hand, killing babies or reducing their number significantly would change future demography so future population would have less productive members. That's why China stopped one child policy.
Killing people takes effort and organisation, and doing it on a big scale can pose problems disposing of the bodies. Not making babies is the perfect "do nothing" option, with no waste product.
Curing degenerative diseases can help solve this problem. Afaik, billionaires such as Zuckerberg and Bezos have been investing heavily for that.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2022 17:05:18
On the other hand, killing babies or reducing their number significantly would change future demography so future population would have less productive members.
Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.
If you consider the statistics of a stable population (i.e one where every female has two children and life expectancy is not increasing) you can see that in the western world the age 0 - 20 cohort A (consumers) roughly equals the 60 - 100 cohort C (pensioners) and the productive "working fraction" aged 20 - 60 (cohort B) is about the same as the sum of the other two. For simplicity, assume both children are born when the woman reaches the age of 20 (it's sort of true-ish on average).
Now if we suddenly reduce the reproduction rate to 1 child per woman without affecting the death rate, A immediately decreases, so B has more disposable income (less expenditure on food,clothes, schools, hospitals,police, etc) or can pay more tax to support C.
After 20 years the first of our reduced cohort A' enters the working fraction, but at the same time A' reduces to A'', so although B' < B, it is supporting an even smaller group of children.
The working fraction peaks at about 60% over time, but meanwhile the entire population is decreasing so the natural resources available per capita increases. Within 100 years the UK population (our great grandchildren) would decrease to a number than can be indefinitely sustained, at a far better standard of living than present.
Not a bad outcome for doing nothing at all for the next hundred years!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2022 06:02:46
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2022 06:05:02
Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.Are there specific reasons for those? I just want to be more explicit with reasonings.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2022 18:25:32
19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2022 06:52:10
1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.Do you mean that passing your morality tests makes an action moral, and failing to pass means that the action is immoral?
19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2022 14:43:15
Some historical figures were willing to sacrifice their own children to achieve their goals, either based on religion or not. Your moral tests would give them permission to sacrifice other people's children without being immoral.1960 - oral contraceptives. Every child is intentional - or should be.Do you mean that passing your morality tests makes an action moral, and failing to pass means that the action is immoral?
19th century - child labor acts in civilised countries. You may apply my morality tests.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2022 16:24:51
Part of your problem is your desire for absolutes. When I drew up a code of conduct in a previous employment, my wise boss said "could you sprinkle a few "normallys" over it?" British jurisprudence always refers to "the common man" and "normally", and in consequence Voltaire pointed out that "The English have very few laws, and they obey them all." Hence proper games like cricket and rugby are based on "fair and reasonable" play and although potentially dangerous, are much more fun than tennis or soccer which are about absolutes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2022 13:42:25
They would have to pass the first test - would you be happy if I sacrificed you for my purposes?A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.
Practical nihilists don't give a damn. Although natural selection keeps their number low, but random chances and information war might create some of them once in a while.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2022 13:51:05
Part of your problem is your desire for absolutes. When I drew up a code of conduct in a previous employment, my wise boss said "could you sprinkle a few "normallys" over it?" British jurisprudence always refers to "the common man" and "normally", and in consequence Voltaire pointed out that "The English have very few laws, and they obey them all." Hence proper games like cricket and rugby are based on "fair and reasonable" play and although potentially dangerous, are much more fun than tennis or soccer which are about absolutes.Why do you see it as a problem?
Moral relativism brings disagreements which will be settled by force.
Slavery, human sacrifice, and genocide were common and normal just a few centuries back.
Searching for the universal moral standard inevitably asks us to identify similarities and differences among various moral standards, and underlying assumptions made to set those standards.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/03/2022 10:49:46
A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.But you have only used half of Test 1. Would they like me to kill them to glorify my deity, not theirs?
General Patton's famous speech: "No goddam sonaofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2022 07:51:55
You might have to ask them before they died. But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.A suicide bomber brought his wife and kid to his action. They don't mind being killed. They thought they are martyrs.But you have only used half of Test 1. Would they like me to kill them to glorify my deity, not theirs?
General Patton's famous speech: "No goddam sonaofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other guy die for his country."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2022 14:09:29
What someone thinks is good for them may not be the case for someone elses. That's why the golden rule may not work in some circumstances.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2022 15:56:56
But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.No, I said I would kill them because of my religion. Just as they would have said on their own behalf.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/03/2022 16:01:19
But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.No, you have made it circular by misrepresenting the tests. My tests don't define good, they merely ask whether you would like me to do it to you, and whether you would be happy to do it to your loved ones. Nothing circular there.
The good (if I can use the word!) thing is that it encompasses the moral argument about euthanasia, without reference to any philosophy or third party diktat.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 05:06:51
It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts, so I guess they would like you to try. But don't expect that they won't fight back though.But they said that if you kill them because of their religion, they will go to heaven, which is what they wanted.No, I said I would kill them because of my religion. Just as they would have said on their own behalf.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 05:10:06
But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.No, you have made it circular by misrepresenting the tests. My tests don't define good, they merely ask whether you would like me to do it to you, and whether you would be happy to do it to your loved ones. Nothing circular there.
The good (if I can use the word!) thing is that it encompasses the moral argument about euthanasia, without reference to any philosophy or third party diktat.
The good is in the definition of morality. If your tests don't distinguish between good and bad, or right and wrong, then they have nothing to do with morality. If that's the case, why do you bring them here?
Quote
mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2022 16:51:46
It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts,Wrong. I'm not requiring them to testify or even admit to having any cause for which they might be considered martyrs. I've been told by the scum who run my faith that anyone who gets on a plane or happens to be in Manchester arena must be killed for the greater glory of my god and the continuing income of his priests.
The victims of religious murder have no status in anyone's eyes, which is why they have been chosen, and why religious murder is immoral. Though in the words of the scum and the belief of the perpetrator, it is Good.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 22:32:54
We are not discussing the correctness of their belief. We are discussing the usefulness of your tests to distinguish between moral, immoral, and amoral actions and behaviors.It would also make them martyrs in their thoughts,Wrong. I'm not requiring them to testify or even admit to having any cause for which they might be considered martyrs. I've been told by the scum who run my faith that anyone who gets on a plane or happens to be in Manchester arena must be killed for the greater glory of my god and the continuing income of his priests.
The victims of religious murder have no status in anyone's eyes, which is why they have been chosen, and why religious murder is immoral. Though in the words of the scum and the belief of the perpetrator, it is Good.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2022 00:44:29
Producing babies requires a lot of resources. Killing them would waste those resources, which could have been used elsewhere if they were not produced in the first place. So, refraining from killing them can be based on efficiency reason, which is a universal instrumental goal.Killing babies went out of fashion in 1960 in civilised societies, and child labor is pretty abhorrent.Are there specific reasons for those? I just want to be more explicit with reasonings.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2022 11:30:16
We are not discussing the correctness of their belief. We are discussing the usefulness of your tests to distinguish between moral, immoral, and amoral actions and behaviors.and my tests do it perfectly, provided they are administered exactly as written.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2022 11:32:36
Producing babies requires a lot of resources. Killing them would waste those resources, which could have been used elsewhere if they were not produced in the first place. So, refraining from killing them can be based on efficiency reason, which is a universal instrumental goal.In the western world, babies are net consumers for the first 20 years of life, so it's more efficient not to make them in the first place.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2022 14:01:23
How do you reconcile this with that?We are not discussing the correctness of their belief. We are discussing the usefulness of your tests to distinguish between moral, immoral, and amoral actions and behaviors.and my tests do it perfectly, provided they are administered exactly as written.
My tests don't define good
Quote
mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2022 20:03:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2022 22:21:51
My tests determine whether an action is moral. They are concrete, and don't offer or depend on a dictionary definition of morality, which is abstract.You just redefined morality then.
If an action doesn't pass your moral tests for you, would you call it immoral or amoral?
If an action doesn't pass your moral tests for you, but it passes your moral tests for someone else, would they call it moral?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2022 22:45:05
The golden rule relies on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves. It can be true, depending on how we define good. But if good is defined as what we want, then it becomes a circular logic.Alan's moral tests are basically an extended version of golden rule. There are other variations called silver, bronze, platinum, and diamond rules.
What someone thinks is good for them may not be the case for someone elses. That's why the golden rule may not work in some circumstances.
Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2022 16:07:49
Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion?
No, I leave it entirely to the prospective agent to decide. Remember it has to pass both tests for his action to be considered moral.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2022 16:09:01
You just redefined morality then.I never mentioned it. I have no time for philosophical abstractions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2022 06:41:56
Without properly defining it, people would confuse between love and obsession, and some other feelings.Alan's second test of morality needs to define love or dear. It needs to justify who should we love, and what distinguishes them from who shouldn't. Is it enough if it's just based on instinct or emotion?
No, I leave it entirely to the prospective agent to decide. Remember it has to pass both tests for his action to be considered moral.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2022 15:55:27
Not that any of this matters in practice. If you would be perfectly happy for me to kill you for no reason to do with you, and would be perfectly happy to kill your wife and children for any reason or none, I may still try to stop you killing anyone because I find the action offensive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2022 22:18:23
Under English law, your name is whatever your friends and family call you. That definition is good enough for the courts. So I leave it to each person to determine who is his nearest and dearest - no need to define near and dear as long as he can distinguish them from the rest of humanity - and ask whether he would be happy to do whatever it is, to them.Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests. But feelings can change. Someone wants to kill themselves, their own lovers, their own parents or children. Thus your tests are not as reliable as you might want.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2022 22:21:34
Not that any of this matters in practice. If you would be perfectly happy for me to kill you for no reason to do with you, and would be perfectly happy to kill your wife and children for any reason or none, I may still try to stop you killing anyone because I find the action offensive.How do you find that the action is offensive? What does it have to do with morality?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2022 23:47:27
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2022 23:51:33
Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests.No implication of good things, only of harm.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2022 22:40:21
It is entirely up to me whether I find an action offensive. In general, it would be an action that failed one or both of my tests and could not, in my opinion, be justified by expediency. So I wouldn't go out of my way to kill anyone who wasn't a threat to life and limb, and I would happily kill anyone who was - that's expedient justification.It sounds like moral relativism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2022 22:42:23
Good here merely means the reverse of harm.Your tests rely on the assumptions that everyone wants good things for themselves and their own love interests.No implication of good things, only of harm.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2022 00:27:32
It sounds like moral relativism.Call it whatever you like. It works.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2022 00:32:47
Good here merely means the reverse of harm.Too narrow and complicated to be of use. A cut finger is harm: what is the reverse of a cut finger? What is the reverse of an insult? Absence of harm is demonstrable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2022 10:10:22
what is the reverse of a cut finger? What is the reverse of an insult? Absence of harm is demonstrable.Healing finger.
Compliment.
Doing nothing can also produces harms.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2022 10:30:59
It is harmful (and can be illegal) to insult anyone. It is not mandatory to compliment anyone or everyone.
Doing nothing may not prevent harm, but is not an active cause of harm.
My concern is whether a proposed action is moral, and in most cases it is easier to determine if it is immoral.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2022 04:39:26
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2022 10:57:35
However if everyone abstained from actions that fail my tests, the world could be a happier place. They are, after all, the basis of the legal system in a civilised country, and of international law.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2022 16:11:16
I didn't say better, nor are they rules for following. They are tests to classify a proposed action as moral or otherwise.Is happier means better?
However if everyone abstained from actions that fail my tests, the world could be a happier place. They are, after all, the basis of the legal system in a civilised country, and of international law.
Is there any case where happiest moment is rather worse? Or less happy is actually better?
If there's an alternative method to get happier place that is more effective and efficient without passing your tests, is it permissible?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2022 17:21:35
Ways to make the world a happier and more efficient place are to reduce the population density everywhere to a sustainable level, abolish religion, and establish a single world government. We would have to kill a lot of parasites to achieve this, and establish means of preventing their recurrence.
The laws of secular states are generally similar so the single government could be put in place fairly quickly. The trick would be to base the laws on interpersonal behavior (as in the USA) rather than maintenance of market prices (as in the EU). This nascent global state could then apply trade sanctions to any state that did not adopt these laws as supreme, and thus erode theocracies over time. My plans for a painless (indeed joyful) reduction of the population have been discussed elsewhere in this forum.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2022 06:17:55
Happier means happier.Why does it preferred over less happy?
What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?Are those cases just the same?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2022 06:20:32
Ways to make the world a happier and more efficient place are to reduce the population density everywhere to a sustainable level, abolish religion, and establish a single world government. We would have to kill a lot of parasites to achieve this, and establish means of preventing their recurrence.What makes you think that current population density is not sustainable?
How do you abolish religion? What should be done to those who practice religion in secret?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2022 13:40:32
What makes you think that current population density is not sustainable?1. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but most of it is in the wrong place, and with increasing urbanisation, that problem is growing. So we need to process and transport it, which needs fossil fuels, which are not sustainable.
How do you abolish religion? What should be done to those who practice religion in secret?
About 30% of all food now grown, depends on artificial fertilisers and mechanical sowing and harvesting, all of which require fossil fuels.
We might all scratch a living from the soil (it takes about one acre of arable land per capita in temperate regions) but most of us aspire to a western standard of living which demands at least 5 kW per capita of energy on tap, which requires fossil fuels.
2. Classify religious speech as hate speech wherever the religion preaches discrimination of any sort, and as fraud wherever anyone promises an afterlife or any other non-deliverable benefit in exchange for goods, money or service.
3. Require educational curricula to include the dangers of faith and the history of religious conflict.
4. Speak nicely to British Sikhs and explain that the reasonable exemption from crash helmet laws for those wearing turbans has created an unfortunate and unforeseen precedent that excuses egregious behavior on religious grounds. Suggest that for the greater good, they might agree to end the exemption as a good example and new precedent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 04:44:49
1. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but most of it is in the wrong place, and with increasing urbanisation, that problem is growing. So we need to process and transport it, which needs fossil fuels, which are not sustainable.If the problem is fossil fuel, then the solution is electrification from more sustainable sources. Some researches I've read say that combination of solar, wind, and battery is the best option.
About 30% of all food now grown, depends on artificial fertilisers and mechanical sowing and harvesting, all of which require fossil fuels.
We might all scratch a living from the soil (it takes about one acre of arable land per capita in temperate regions) but most of us aspire to a western standard of living which demands at least 5 kW per capita of energy on tap, which requires fossil fuels.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 04:52:43
2. Classify religious speech as hate speech wherever the religion preaches discrimination of any sort, and as fraud wherever anyone promises an afterlife or any other non-deliverable benefit in exchange for goods, money or service.They might work, if the law makers were rational thinkers supported by rational constituents.
3. Require educational curricula to include the dangers of faith and the history of religious conflict.
4. Speak nicely to British Sikhs and explain that the reasonable exemption from crash helmet laws for those wearing turbans has created an unfortunate and unforeseen precedent that excuses egregious behavior on religious grounds. Suggest that for the greater good, they might agree to end the exemption as a good example and new precedent.
Unfortunately, it's rarely the case.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2022 15:58:00
If the problem is fossil fuel, then the solution is electrification from more sustainable sources. Some researches I've read say that combination of solar, wind, and battery is the best option.Certainly feasible where the population density is low, but we have discussed the required collection area per capita elsewhere in this forum and it really doesn't seem feasible in western Europe, even without battery storage. I was encouraged today by an interview with the CEO of the Energy Council who said that hydrogen was the way to go - some sense seems to have pervaded the corridors of power at last!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 21:49:58
even without battery storage.The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 22:11:23
I was encouraged today by an interview with the CEO of the Energy Council who said that hydrogen was the way to go - some sense seems to have pervaded the corridors of power at last!They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2022 22:17:33
If you think that happiness is an independent parameter from goodness, then it has nothing to do with morality.Happier means happier.Why does it preferred over less happy?What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?Are those cases just the same?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2022 23:06:03
The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.but a lot of cost and a considerable expenditure of fossil fuel to make the battery
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2022 23:11:14
They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .And because it can use existing infrastructure for storage and distribution, and requires very little modification of the machinery we already use for moving and heating, unlike electricity which requires us to replace practically all vehicles and cookers, boilers, furnaces.....You can even burn hydrogen in a conventional power station to make electricity!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2022 23:16:56
The same argument could be used to resist disruptive transition from horse powered chariots to gas powered cars. In the end, effectiveness and efficiency of the technologies to serve their functions will determine whether or not they are more widely accepted.They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .And because it can use existing infrastructure for storage and distribution, and requires very little modification of the machinery we already use for moving and heating, unlike electricity which requires us to replace practically all vehicles and cookers, boilers, furnaces.....You can even burn hydrogen in a conventional power station to make electricity!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2022 23:18:08
Why can't the battery be produced without fossil fuel?The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.but a lot of cost and a considerable expenditure of fossil fuel to make the battery
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2022 23:26:56
The lack of consensus in study of morality can be attributed to inconsistency of the meaning of words we use in the discussion, and refusal to address hidden assumptions that we made in making assertions.If you think that happiness is an independent parameter from goodness, then it has nothing to do with morality.Happier means happier.Why does it preferred over less happy?What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?Are those cases just the same?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2022 07:51:37
The same argument could be used to resist disruptive transition from horse powered chariots to gas powered cars. In the end, effectiveness and efficiency of the technologies to serve their functions will determine whether or not they are more widely accepted.Only if there are no other constraints such as availability of capital and resources, actual need, or flexibility of the alternative.
Fact is that we have most of the infrastructure in place for a hydrogen-powered economy, so very little capital is required. Most domestic and industrial heating is done by grid-supplied gas, so the least end-user investment to achieve zero carbon is to change the gas from methane to hydrogen (we've already done the opposite, 60 years ago!). Similarly for vehicles: a bit more infrastructure is needed but most existing vehicles can be modified rather than scrapped, and we won't need to mine and process any more materials for batteries and motors (mining and refining use a lot of fossil fuel).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2022 16:12:16
Fact is that we have most of the infrastructure in place for a hydrogen-powered economy, so very little capital is required. Most domestic and industrial heating is done by grid-supplied gas, so the least end-user investment to achieve zero carbon is to change the gas from methane to hydrogen (we've already done the opposite, 60 years ago!). Similarly for vehicles: a bit more infrastructure is needed but most existing vehicles can be modified rather than scrapped, and we won't need to mine and process any more materials for batteries and motors (mining and refining use a lot of fossil fuel).Time will tell. But big auto companies tried to produce hydrogen cars to compete with battery cars have given up their efforts, which means that they see it as not an economically viable option.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2022 16:23:59
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2022 17:48:35
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2022 17:56:07
But big auto companies tried to produce hydrogen cars to compete with battery cars have given up their efforts, which means that they see it as not an economically viable option.People will do whatever makes a profit. You can make a profit selling battery cars, cigarettes and cocaine, because they can be used immediately without government encouragement or third party investment.
The growing problem with electric cars, which has now been publicly explained by the manufacturers, is the inadequacy of the supporting infrastructure and the government's response to its own policy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2022 03:10:38
The growing problem with electric cars, which has now been publicly explained by the manufacturers, is the inadequacy of the supporting infrastructure and the government's response to its own policy.When facing a problem in our efforts to achieve our goals, we can try to find a solution, or discard the goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2022 07:33:13
How you treat yourself is not a moral consideration. How you treat all others is.How should you treat your loved ones?
How should you treat your hated ones?
Is there a legitimate justification for love and hate?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2022 19:49:59
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2022 19:54:56
When facing a problem in our efforts to achieve our goals, we can try to find a solution, or discard the goals.
That's philosophy - i.e a statement of the blindingly obvious. Politics is about inventing a problem and proposing a facile "solution" that might appeal to the electorate for just long enough to get re-elected. Engineering is about finding the best solution to a real problem, which is rarely the political one.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2022 13:43:12
Politics is about inventing a problem and proposing a facile "solution" that might appeal to the electorate for just long enough to get re-elected.Politics are not limited to democratic government. It also plays a role in monarchy as well as autocratic government.
Engineering is about finding the best solution to a real problem, which is rarely the political one.Politics can be viewed as a form of social engineering.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2022 13:43:33
There is often a reason for love or hate. Legitimacy is judged by third parties.That's why your tests are inherently subjective, and depends on preexisting reward function of moral agents. When no reasoning can be found to justify our decisions, we tend to revert back to emotion and instinct, which was provided by evolutionary process through natural selection as a shortcut to make quick decisions which is usually better than random action. Intuition, which is slightly more advanced than emotion, might play a role in decision making, although not as reliable as sound reasoning.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2022 17:47:34
Politics are not limited to democratic government.I used "electorate" loosely. In some countries there is a "free and fair" election with only one permitted candidate, and in others the presidential succession depends on military or secret police commanders talking to the presidential chef, but there's always an electorate of some sort.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2022 17:50:05
That's why your tests are inherently subjective,I haven't mentioned love, hate, reward or legitimacy. These are all motives, not criteria of morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2022 07:57:35
How should you treat your loved ones?Can you use your tests to answer above questions?
How should you treat your hated ones?
Furthermore, who should you love or hate?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2022 08:04:27
How you treat yourself is not a moral consideration. How you treat all others is.Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2022 12:45:10
Can you use your tests to answer above questions?You would obviously treat your loved ones as you would wish them to be treated. Little point in hating anyone other than those who pose a threat, and you should of course treat them so as to eliminate the threat. Whether that is done by compromise or killing is a question of expediency.
Furthermore, who should you love or hate?
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2022 12:46:31
Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.If you have a more universally applicable moral standard, how does it address the "me or him" question?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2022 04:26:39
You would obviously treat your loved ones as you would wish them to be treated.Is there any reason to choose who should we love?
Is there any reason to choose how should our loved one be treated?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2022 04:28:48
Little point in hating anyone other than those who pose a threat, and you should of course treat them so as to eliminate the threat. Whether that is done by compromise or killing is a question of expediency.It seems like Putin hates Zelenskyy. Is it morally justified?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2022 04:29:21
What's the question?Then your morality is less applicable than most other moral standards I know.If you have a more universally applicable moral standard, how does it address the "me or him" question?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2022 17:33:49
It seems like Putin hates Zelenskyy. Is it morally justified?I would find it difficult to assign moral justification to anything Putin does or thinks. The man has always been a vicious and selfish louse. Never mind the morality, killing Putin (and whoever has protected him from that fate) would be an act of expediency and just revenge for all those whose lives he has damaged in a wholly despicable career.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/04/2022 09:13:12
Never mind the morality, killing Putin (and whoever has protected him from that fate) would be an act of expediency and just revenge for all those whose lives he has damaged in a wholly despicable career.Is it morally good or bad?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2022 20:49:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/04/2022 22:37:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/04/2022 22:40:46
I wouldn't like it if you killed me without my permissionDo you have any particular reason?
Is it just your instinct or intuition?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/04/2022 22:45:00
Which is why I said "never mind the morality....act of expediency".It means that you just follow your own moral standard and disregard other people's.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/04/2022 22:47:33
There's the problem faced by conscientious objectors: when should you set local morality aside for the greater good? And that's the weakness of your search for a universal moral standard - killing bad people is sometimes a good thing to do.Have you read my post on the universal terminal goal? Do you find any problems in it?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/04/2022 16:48:05
Morals are useless when you are dead.Which is why I said "never mind the morality....act of expediency".It means that you just follow your own moral standard and disregard other people's.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/04/2022 23:11:13
Morals are useless when you are dead.OK, but it can still be useful for your descendants or successors. Death of previous generations can be necessary to improve the survival chance of future generations. Although it may no longer apply when technological singularity has been achieved.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/04/2022 23:35:02
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2022 13:06:54
Morality is a social lubricant, but like other lubricants, it only works with compatible surfaces. War is the conjunction of incompatible societies, and personal violence is the conjunction of incompatible individuals, so moral considerations may not always be paramount.The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerations. In simpler animal lives and game theory, it calls for fight or flight responses. The basic rules they use to make those decisions represent their moral standard, whatever they might be.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2022 17:19:01
The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerationsJust one: Can I gain political support or deflect mounting political criticism by invading someone else's territory?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/04/2022 03:42:20
It depends on how you can convince your constituencies. Some historical figures have done it.The decision to go to war or not depends on some considerationsJust one: Can I gain political support or deflect mounting political criticism by invading someone else's territory?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/04/2022 15:11:07
Successive failed invasions of Afghanistan were actually a clever derivative of the Principle, where you offer armed support (and eventually commit combat forces) to the sides in a third-party civil war until your chosen side wins, whereupon you withdraw or even support the other side thus gaining electoral kudos for "bringing the troops home" or supporting the underdog.
Foreign war is more popular and less divisive than football.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2022 08:46:40
In recent examples, Afghan government officials chose to not go to war, evacuated, and let the Talibans to take control.
On the other hand, Ukrainian government officials chose to go to war against Russian invasion.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/05/2022 15:21:14
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/05/2022 10:04:27
Aha! So invasion is an inevitable consequence of third-party attitudes,It's inevitable conclusion of your own reasoning.
and self defence is a matter of choice.They can choose to flee. They can choose to resist. Their decision depends on many factors to consider. Let's hear what their reasonings are.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2022 15:09:16
They can choose to flee.Not if they are killed, surrounded and starved, enslaved, or males of military age. What fairyland do you inhabit?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2022 12:10:13
Some of them have already fled the country and became refugees. Are you living under a rock?They can choose to flee.Not if they are killed, surrounded and starved, enslaved, or males of military age. What fairyland do you inhabit?
If something is beyond someone's control, such as their genetics, or their cultural background, it can't be used to evaluate their moral standard. Being invaded has different moral burden than invading neighbor.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2022 12:14:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/05/2022 12:07:07
So the civilians currently trapped in the Mariupol steelworks have only themselves to blame? And the soldiers defending themselves are as immoral as the scum attacking them? Get real, HY.
I think it's a good time for you to learn about strawman fallacy.
Quote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula "so what you're saying is ... ?", converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2022 16:32:09
Quote
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/politics-quotesI'd like to emphasize that embracing a wrong moral value will bring unwanted consequences. It's in contrast with what moral relativism says.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
Plato
Freedom isn't free. It shouldn't be a bragging point that 'Oh, I don't get involved in politics,' as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn't insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.
Bill Maher
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/06/2022 16:34:11
We usually call something immoral by pointing out short term gains while sacrificing longer term goals. The short term gain here is money from gun sales. The longer term goal is the peaceful lives of their next generations.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2022 22:37:22
Quote
Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Nothing wrong with that. Many other countries have a well-regulated militia, with compulsory gun training and ownership in the case of at least Norway and Switzerland, and very little gun crime. What the USA does not have is a well-regulated militia.
I've met many enthusiastic proponents of "home defence" in the USA but never been met at the door by any of them carrying a gun, so there is no evidence of sincerity or consistency. A pistol under the pillow might be useful in the middle of the night, but an AK47 at short range and short notice is more of an encumbrance, and if you ever managed to hit a deer with it, you'd end up with bone splinters in hamburger, not prime venison, so it's hardly a sporting gun.
The answer to mass shootings is surely to note that the sole function of an automatic weapon is to kill people, so whenever anyone asks to buy such a weapon, he should be required to list and inform those he intends to kill.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2022 06:54:58
The answer to mass shootings is surely to note that the sole function of an automatic weapon is to kill people, so whenever anyone asks to buy such a weapon, he should be required to list and inform those he intends to kill.That's a good idea.
Unwillingness to look for the real cause of a problem prevents us from solving it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/06/2022 23:41:27
Quote
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics/gun-mass-shootings-politicians-poll/index.htmlIs mass shootings really a necessary evil of living in a free society? How to justify who should be the victims?
As Congress considers, again, the possibility of moving a package of gun control reforms, a number from a new CBS News/YouGov poll jumped out at me as evidence of why solving America's gun violence problem is so hard.
It's this: 44% of Republicans said that mass shootings are something we have to accept as part of a free society. (A majority of Republicans -- 56% -- said mass shootings are something we can prevent and stop if we really tried.)
That number is a striking departure from how the country as a whole views the issue. More than 7 in 10 Americans (72%) said that mass shootings could be prevented if we really tried, while just 28% said they were part of living in a free society.
Consider what those Republicans are saying: There is no policy -- or cultural -- solution to the problem of mass shootings. Instead, it is a necessary evil of living in a free society.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/06/2022 00:18:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2022 06:19:59
Quote
This is a philosophy video lecture that compresses a course that normally takes 15 weeks into just one video. Or really, it only manages to condense half of that course into 22 minutes.
What is the morally right thing to do? Is there some moral law that applies to everyone, or is morality relative in some way? And what’s so good about morality anyway? To answer these questions, we read Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Nozick, Singer, O’Neill and others. This is an introductory level philosophy course. Students do not need any prior experience with philosophy.
For more of my videos: https://www.jeffreykaplan.org/youtube
Post by: alancalverd on 13/06/2022 10:20:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/06/2022 14:24:27
The test we use in my medical research ethics committee is "would the man on the bus approve if we did it to him?". Clearly the answer depends on whether he is fit and healthy or at death's door, so the concept of true universality is meaningless.The fact that a value depends on something doesn't necessarily disprove its universality.
The magnitude of gravitational force depends on the mass of the object. It doesn't proof that there's no universal law of gravitation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/06/2022 03:19:24
Quote
https://twitter.com/evolutionofgods/status/1536201030601699328?t=iABtr52mgWblDcJwFQmMLA&s=03
In dark ages people were best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.'
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 01:15:59
The disagreements can emanate from differences of model parameters used to make the prediction, including who will be more likely to exist as the future conscious beings.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2022 11:21:11
Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?
Contraception?
Spaying a pet dog?
Ah, philosophy. Ask a question with no defined parameters, then get paid for not answering it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 11:34:55
Suppose I could have prevented the birth of Pol Pot. Serious negative impact on one known conscious being, major benefit to everyone else. Moral or immoral?How did you predict what the unborn Pol Pot would do?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2022 11:40:54
Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 11:45:14
Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?The moral judgement should be done case by case, considering what's known to the moral agents, and the most likely consequences from the actions/behaviors, and how they would affect the life of future conscious beings.
Contraception?
Spaying a pet dog?
Is pushing a red button moral/immoral?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 11:49:47
The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.
Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/06/2022 11:51:48
Quote
Veganism will win, but you're wrong about why
Loose workings for how many cows my dairy consumption will kill (for a reason unknown to me, this text didn't render on the video, sorry): Based on my current rate of dairy consumption (1 litre milk + 500g of cheese per week) I’ll consume another 15,600 litres of milk if I reach 82. The average cow produces 49,780 litres of milk throughout its life, and for every cow there is a culled bull and a child that’s taken away.
Timestamps:
00:00 Why Make it Easy?
02:48 Can They Suffer?
06:53 Unnecessary Harm
16:02 An Arbitrary Definition
19:34 Two Sovereign Masters
27:58 Why Not Vegan?!
Post by: alancalverd on 25/06/2022 14:43:41
I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.
In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.
Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.
Whilst vegans don't drink milk, the quantity of water required to produce a liter of almond "milk" is ludicrous. Nonveggies argue that the culled bull calf will be eaten anyway, either now as veal or later as beef, but beef is a very inefficient form of grass-protein conversion so now is better.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2022 02:23:00
In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.With more knowledge and more accurate and precise model of reality, we can avoid and prevent more immoral actions. We forgive but not forget. Any moral rule involving reward and punishment system is meaningless if it doesn't help making life easier for future conscious beings.
Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2022 10:50:37
I was at a Monday project meeting some years back, when we were building a new clinic. Doctors, scientists, engineers, craftsmen and bankers sat around my boardroom table. The architect arrived last and said he had just returned from a visit to Auschwitz "which was designed, built and run by people just like us". Sobering thought, my friend.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/06/2022 11:09:35
Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.The collapse of the systems that they built show that their models of reality are not as good as you'd like to think.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/06/2022 10:27:41
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/06/2022 23:17:45
No, it just shows that society is dynamic and evolutionary (except in the USA).It shows that the models don't take dynamics of the society into account, which makes them inaccurate and can only be good for a short period of time.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/06/2022 19:21:21
It is for example difficult to imagine how science would have evolved if Newton was not in quarantine. Or if someone had studied the antibiotic effect as thoroughly as Fleming (who just noticed the accidental contamination of a culture) in time to cure Henry VIII's syphilis: No Anglican church → vastly different history of Britain and America....
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2022 12:52:25
In order to model the future evolution of society completely, you will need a complete model of every individual plus a predictive model of the climate and all natural disasters.With finite data and computational resources to run a model of the world, we must work smart, using Pareto principle, and address most significant things first.
It is for example difficult to imagine how science would have evolved if Newton was not in quarantine. Or if someone had studied the antibiotic effect as thoroughly as Fleming (who just noticed the accidental contamination of a culture) in time to cure Henry VIII's syphilis: No Anglican church → vastly different history of Britain and America....
To avoid unnecessary and inevitable disagreements, we need to identify common goals among society members.
To avoid misunderstandings, we also need to address ambiguous terminology in morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/06/2022 17:36:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2022 08:30:50
Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.What do you mean by rich? Why should everyone wants to be rich?
To be richer then everyone else, you can make yourself richer, or make everyone else poorer. Is the later equivalent to the former? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2022 17:36:10
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 00:44:28
I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?No. But I've read some. Although I can't confirm if it's true.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2022 00:49:26
Quote
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-algorithm-crime-week-advance-reveals.htmlThe progress in AI should remind us to be clearer about what's allowed and what's not in a society. It must contain a formal definition of morality.
Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence have sparked interest from governments that would like to use these tools for predictive policing to deter crime. Early efforts at crime prediction have been controversial, however, because they do not account for systemic biases in police enforcement and its complex relationship with crime and society.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/07/2022 10:09:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/07/2022 16:08:30
Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.What do you mean by rich? Why should everyone wants to be rich?
To be richer then everyone else, you can make yourself richer, or make everyone else poorer. Is the later equivalent to the former? Why or why not?
I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves. That something are often necessary to achieve our goals, or even necessary just to stay alive, which is one of our basic instincts.
Being rich doesn't help much if we live in a primitive or isolated society. In most of human history, no matter how rich we are, we couldn't cure heart attack or go to the moon.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/07/2022 22:32:28
Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.I think you have just discovered the fundamental point of money. In principle, you get it by working for someone else, and use it to get a third party to do something for you. It is (or should be) the countercurrent of labour.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2022 23:37:20
Another way to look at money or currency is as a bookkeeping tool for resources creations, distributions, and consumptions. So, collecting more of it can only be an instrumental goal. Another way to do that is by asking from socialist governments. Or empowering ourselves through education and/or automation.Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.I think you have just discovered the fundamental point of money. In principle, you get it by working for someone else, and use it to get a third party to do something for you. It is (or should be) the countercurrent of labour.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2022 04:31:34
Quote
The Truth About Why America Dropped Atomic Bombs on Japan
The atomic bomb proved to be the most devastating weapon used in any war, past or present, but was the United States justified in dropping two nuclear warheads on Japan for their unconditional surrender? Check out today's insane new video and maybe your opinion will change on whether or not the US should have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Here's a viewer's comment.
Quote
I think that one thing that gets overlooked in this debate a lot is the fact that at the time the after effects of radiation exposure was not fully understood. The US sent in 250k troops to occupy the bombed cities, with a great number of them suffering the rest or their lives or even dying prematurely. A vast amount of the citizens were killed not from the initial explosion, but from radiation afterwards. Now knowing the effects 80 years later, it changes how we view the decision vs how it would have been viewed and justified back then. I think with history we look at it from our standpoint too much, and don't consider the views, culture, and morals at the time enough.
Morality is about weighing the costs vs benefits of things, and choose those with more benefits. Our knowledge and assumptions put into the weighing process will affect our moral decisions.
We will say that the bombing is immoral if the bombers knew that it would bring more negative effects to future conscious beings but did it any way for one reason or another.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2022 11:51:23
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to a conclusion in a few days with loss of life comparable with that of the conventional bombing of Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg, and an order of magnitude less than Soviet losses in WWII.
However you look at it, it was a spectacular and entirely moral act.
Quote
The US sent in 250k troops to occupy the bombed cities, with a great number of them suffering the rest or their lives or even dying prematurely. A vast amount of the citizens were killed not from the initial explosion, but from radiation afterwards.Numbers, please. This is a science chatroom.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2022 07:48:01
Numbers, please. This is a science chatroom.Relax, it's just a chat.
The comment I quoted was commenting on the video. It implies that the number of death by radiation is significantly bigger than number of death by initial explosion, which you can get from the video.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2022 07:52:22
What do you think about the choices of the Youtuber? Do you think he's consistent with his choices?
You can try it yourself.
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
Post by: alancalverd on 16/07/2022 00:14:27
It implies that the number of death by radiation is significantly bigger than number of death by initial explosion, which you can get from the video.Wrong. But don't let the facts spoil a good argument. Just as a matter of interest, one civilian who survived both bombings (how unlucky can you get?) died in 2010 at the age of 93. The longterm statistics are difficult to establish as the natural incidence of fatal cancer is around 25% but the number of excess cancers among those who were irradiated by the flash but not mechanically or thermally injured seems to be less than 5%.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2022 00:23:15
one civilian who survived both bombings (how unlucky can you get?) died in 2010 at the age of 93.Or how lucky, depends on your perspective.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2022 00:30:37
The longterm statistics are difficult to establish as the natural incidence of fatal cancer is around 25% but the number of excess cancers among those who were irradiated by the flash but not mechanically or thermally injured seems to be less than 5%.Where do those numbers come from?
If someone with fatal cancer caused by radiation dies a bit sooner in a traffic accident, will it still be counted as death by radiation?
Post by: alancalverd on 16/07/2022 12:55:14
Survivors of the atom bombs had a good idea of where they were when the bomb exploded. It is fairly easy to estimate the prompt radiation dose at any point in the area and their subsequent exposure to and uptake of radioactive debris. Japanese medical records and death certificates are considered to be very reliable, so cause and effect can be linked with confidence.
Cause of death is cause of death. It seems that if we live long enough and avoid all other harm we will eventually die from cancer so the conservative presumption is that everyone has a potentially fatal tumor. Currently about 30% of the population live long enough for that tumor to express clinically and 25% of us have it recorded as cause of death. Around another 20% express nonfatal tumors at some time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2022 14:01:01
Full Semester Ethics Course *Condensed* into One LectureHere's the sequel.
I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from the failure to distinguish between objective morality and universal morality.
The word objective means independent from observer or evaluator. For example, objective reality means the reality as it is, independent from the existence of observer. It implies that the moon is still there even when no one is looking at it.
On the other hand, morality is about good and bad by the definition, which in turn depends on the terminal goal of the subject. Something is good if it helps the achievement of the terminal goal, and vice versa. No goal can exist independently from a conscious entity. If there's no conscious being in the universe, there would be no goal, and consequently, there would be no morality either.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2022 15:33:17
We can start from the simplest form of morality, which is individual or personal morality. Then expand the scope of moral subject to tribal morality, national, species, life form, and finally to universal morality. Current humans show various levels of morality.
Most little kids embrace personal morality, which is the simplest one. It's understandable due to their limited thinking capacity. Modernity brought some people to higher levels of morality, such as national and species morality, or even beyond that. Although the reasons why they expanded their morality are not very convincing (yet), like why should we include other apes in our ethical protection programs? Only few people that I aware of have expressed the embrace of universal morality.
Unfortunately, we can see people with lower level of morality such as tribal and racial morality are rising in number, at least in some locations.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2022 15:55:35
Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think
Without understanding of the universal terminal goal, we can ask many good questions about morality without the ability to answer them consistently.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/07/2022 16:59:15
I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from...the fact that philosophers derive their income from creating confusion, not consensus.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/07/2022 09:53:18
I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from...the fact that philosophers derive their income from creating confusion, not consensus.
In order to get their positions, the philosophers must compete with one another. Those who have the best explanation should prevail. Their failure to finish their job doesn't necessarily mean that they are paid to fail. Similar situation may apply to fusion reactors for nuclear engineers or proving Riemann's hypothesis for mathematicians.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2022 10:51:34
The prize in philosophy, politics or religion is to bamboozle the public into paying your salary - there is no defined endpoint, but profit in sowing dissent.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2022 10:57:44
Around 30% of human pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Clearly God doesn't place much value on a human fetus.
Politicians are happy to sacrifice millions of adults and children to defend an arbitrary line on a map. Clearly humans don't place much value on a mature human life.
So any objection to an intentional abortion is arrogant posturing by someone with no personal stake in the outcome.
Keep ethics simple!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 08:59:07
The prize in fusion research is to make a reactor that actually works (it used to be 5 years away, now it's more like 50, but the chase goes on).Your prizes are seen from different perspectives.
The prize in philosophy, politics or religion is to bamboozle the public into paying your salary - there is no defined endpoint, but profit in sowing dissent.
Let's compare it apple to apple.
From researcher's point of view, the prize is to get fundings.
From stake holder's perspectives, the prize is to have a system that actually works, in this case, a fusion reactor or an ideology.
Bamboozling the public into paying your salary can also be done in seemingly scientific endeavours, such as hydrogen transportation, quantum computing, dark matter detector, or ever larger particle collider.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/07/2022 09:19:52
I was once asked in an interview whether I was an experimental scientist or an engineer. I said I couldn't really see the difference. The interviewer said "Are you happier when the first one works, or when the millionth one works exactly like the first one?"
Apropos blue sky research, don't forget the response to the Presidential question at Lawrence Livermore "How does this contribute to the nation's defense?" "It's what makes the nation worth defending." Hell of a difference between satisfying curiosity and inventing bullshit.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 17:00:45
Never mind the public funding: what every researcher really wants is founder-shares in the production company..Faraday and Heavyside were famous exceptions I know.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 17:04:22
Around 30% of human pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Clearly God doesn't place much value on a human fetus.99% or more human sperms are wasted.
Keep ethics simple!How?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 17:09:15
Apropos blue sky research, don't forget the response to the Presidential question at Lawrence Livermore "How does this contribute to the nation's defense?" "It's what makes the nation worth defending." Hell of a difference between satisfying curiosity and inventing bullshit.We learned from history that seemingly useless science, like number theory, early electricity and magnetism, or radioactivity turned out to be a key to scientific and engineering break through, which brought immense wealth to the developers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 17:21:26
Answering Absurd Trolley ProblemsLet's play the game and disclose the reason behind our decision. Let's see if my understanding of universal terminal goal can help me answer the questions consistently.
What do you think about the choices of the Youtuber? Do you think he's consistent with his choices?
You can try it yourself.
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
The first level is the original version. I choose to pull the lever based on following assumptions:
- People on the track are all strangers.
- Average people around the location of the incident have positive contribution to the whole society to eventually achieve the universal terminal goal.
- Pulling the lever requires insignificant effort, and doesn't bring unwanted side effects, like getting me electrocuted.
If those assumptions turn out to be false, I might change the decision.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/07/2022 22:33:37
- People on the track are all strangers.Therefore your judgement is not based on a universal principle, because you know some people.
Quote
- Average people around the location of the incident have positive contribution to the whole society to eventually achieve the universal terminal goal.Your best estimate of an unknown average (Bayes) is zero, not positive. And since every person is competing with every other person for a share of natural resources, those you don't know are depleting the world of assets that could benefit you and your nearest and dearest. The logical action is therefore to kill as many strangers as possible.
Quote
- Pulling the lever requires insignificant effort, and doesn't bring unwanted side effects, like getting me electrocuted.The known side effect is that you will be held liable for whatever happens.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2022 09:08:53
Those are non-sequitur.- People on the track are all strangers.Therefore your judgement is not based on a universal principle, because you know some people.
Quote
Have you never interacted with other people?Quote- Average people around the location of the incident have positive contribution to the whole society to eventually achieve the universal terminal goal.Your best estimate of an unknown average (Bayes) is zero, not positive. And since every person is competing with every other person for a share of natural resources, those you don't know are depleting the world of assets that could benefit you and your nearest and dearest. The logical action is therefore to kill as many strangers as possible.
Or have you lost your memory of your interaction with other people until just now?
Or do you mostly interact with horrible people?
Fortunately, most of people I know are nice, even to strangers.
Quote
Then be it. Do I have other options?Quote- Pulling the lever requires insignificant effort, and doesn't bring unwanted side effects, like getting me electrocuted.The known side effect is that you will be held liable for whatever happens.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2022 15:42:52
2. The people you know have mostly been selected for some common interest or relationship. You may find your bank manager unpleasant, but you have a common interest in getting your business done, and for the most part he gives you a fair deal. You almost certainly don't have the same relationship with a suspected thief, and probably go out of your way to avoid knowing any. Therefore the optimum hypothesis is that people you don't know score zero until proved otherwise. and that accounts for almost everyone on the planet.
3. So you have made a rational choice based on how you think others will judge you. Pretty normal. In law you can be held liable for not rendering assistance to someone in obvious distress.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 15:10:33
Very much sequitur. A universal principle applies to everyone, the majority that you don't know, and the few that you do. If you have to make your answer conditional on not knowing the victims, you aren't applying a universal principle.The conditions are part of the stated problem. Other conditions are applied to next problems. Have you tried to answer them?
A universal principle applies to everyone who makes the decision. What's at stake determines the decision. If you always make the same decision no matter what, we will question about your consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 15:15:30
The people you know have mostly been selected for some common interest or relationship. You may find your bank manager unpleasant, but you have a common interest in getting your business done, and for the most part he gives you a fair deal. You almost certainly don't have the same relationship with a suspected thief, and probably go out of your way to avoid knowing any. Therefore the optimum hypothesis is that people you don't know score zero until proved otherwise. and that accounts for almost everyone on the planet.No. You seem to forget about Zeitgeist. The fact that modern humans have better chance to extend consciousness both in time and space domain, compared to medieval and prehistoric era indicates that on average people have positive impacts to the society.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 15:24:24
So you have made a rational choice based on how you think others will judge you.I have a more specific conditions than merely "others". I make a rational choice based on how I think future conscious entities will judge me. The time frame is set for as far away future as can be reliably conceived.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2022 15:33:37
The fact that modern humans have better chance to extend consciousness both in time and space domain, compared to medieval and prehistoric era indicates that on average people have positive impacts to the society.Peering through the bullshit about consciousness, I think you are implying that any and all knowledge makes all people behave better towards one another. The history of the 20th and 21st centuries does not support that conclusion. The more the Gestapo, KGB, Special Branch, Stasi, CIA......knew, the more obnoxious they became.
Every shell and rocket that hits a civilian target in Ukraine, Syria or Iran is the product of scientific endeavor and engineering genius; in self-styled civilised countries like the UK our massive improvements in life extension mean that people who want to die are made to live in pain and indignity; the worldwide availability of online religious knowledge has led to death and destruction on a hitherto unprecedented scale.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2022 15:38:28
I have a more specific conditions than merely "others". I make a rational choice based on how I think future conscious entities will judge me. The time frame is set for as far away future as can be reliably conceived.Beware! No so long ago, species other than humans were considered not to have feelings or to suffer real pain, and within living memory it was widely believed that anyone with a black skin was put on earth to serve anyone with a white skin.
Any prediction of the likely judgement of future beings, becomes decidedly unreliable beyond about 5 years.
When the human race moves towards its self-imposed extinction, the dominant conscious entities will probably be cockroaches, with a very different attitude to human life (all live humans are enemies, all dead humans are food) and even their own cannibalism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 16:32:20
Peering through the bullshit about consciousness, I think you are implying that any and all knowledge makes all people behave better towards one another.You seem to confuse between all and average.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 16:33:57
the worldwide availability of online religious knowledge has led to death and destruction on a hitherto unprecedented scale.You are the one who said that death is a good thing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 16:40:04
Beware! No so long ago, species other than humans were considered not to have feelings or to suffer real pain, and within living memory it was widely believed that anyone with a black skin was put on earth to serve anyone with a white skin.Now we know better.
Any prediction of the likely judgement of future beings, becomes decidedly unreliable beyond about 5 years.The details might be hard to predict, but the fundamental things are more predictable. That's how some futurists like Ray Kurzweil and Tony Seba can make pretty good predictions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/07/2022 16:53:56
When the human race moves towards its self-imposed extinction, the dominant conscious entities will probably be cockroaches, with a very different attitude to human life (all live humans are enemies, all dead humans are food) and even their own cannibalism.You don't seem to follow news in technology. Humans are predicted to become multiplanetary within this century. Genetic engineering will allow humans to be like whatever they want to be. Age related diseases would be cured. Human civilization has a chance to outlive the earth.
People say that earth is the cradle of life. But no one should live in the cradle forever. Currently, it's also our prison. And sooner or later it will kill all of its prisoners. That's why we should prepare to get free before it happens.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2022 19:30:40
As for "now we know better", what's your opinion of the benefit to humanity of the mass surveillance of the Chinese population by facial recognition? Do you think that the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong and the repression of criticism in mainland China is a Good Thing? And just because Western attitudes have changed in one direction, who is to say that they won't reverse direction? How has the growth of technology and cultural awareness benefitted Muslims in India in the last couple of years? How has the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea, and of reliable nerve agents by Russia, benefitted anyone and improved the reliability of moral judgement?
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2022 19:33:12
Genetic engineering will allow humans to be like whatever they want to be.No. By definition genetic engineering may give humans the ability to give birth to something else but it won't change the parents into what they would like to be.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2022 19:39:14
Age related diseases would be cured.And we'd all live for ever. Can you imagine growing up in a world where 99.99% of the population will always be older than you? What happens to ambition, or even delivery, if there's no time limit on anything you do? Are you going to introduce death squads to maintain a viable population distribution, or just let the elderly (i.e. everyone else) eat everything?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2022 09:38:51
As for "now we know better", what's your opinion of the benefit to humanity of the mass surveillance of the Chinese population by facial recognition? Do you think that the destruction of democracy in Hong Kong and the repression of criticism in mainland China is a Good Thing? And just because Western attitudes have changed in one direction, who is to say that they won't reverse direction? How has the growth of technology and cultural awareness benefitted Muslims in India in the last couple of years? How has the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea, and of reliable nerve agents by Russia, benefitted anyone and improved the reliability of moral judgement?Those are exactly why I started to discuss about universal morality based on the universal terminal goal. Having a powerful tool without knowing what to do with it is dangerous. It's like a little kid getting access to guns. It's time to ask any politicians about their terminal goal and what are their plans to achieve it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2022 09:50:25
Not really. Accidents will happen and someone will still die. Having back ups can reduce the probability that the whole system get destroyed.Age related diseases would be cured.And we'd all live for ever. Can you imagine growing up in a world where 99.99% of the population will always be older than you? What happens to ambition, or even delivery, if there's no time limit on anything you do? Are you going to introduce death squads to maintain a viable population distribution, or just let the elderly (i.e. everyone else) eat everything?
We need to find optimal balance using limited resources, and be aware of diminishing marginal utility.
Should we destroy the old ones if they can still be repaired with reasonable price? Should we produce new ones in excess of what's actually needed?
The word terminal in the term universal terminal goal emphasizes time dimension over space and the others. It's better to have a finite number of conscious entities for infinite time rather than infinite number of conscious entities for a finite amount of time.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2022 12:32:26
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2022 11:30:36
It's time to ask any politicians about their terminal goal and what are their plans to achieve it.In a democracy: to be re-elected. In a dictatorship: not to be murdered.
The acquisition and deployment of any technology for the suppression or elimination of your chosen public enemy is an effective means to that end. Sometimes the chosen enemy is within (more usually in a dictatorship), sometimes external (righting perceived wrongs overseas is very popular with democrats). Margaret Thatcher chose both. The important characteristic is to choose an enemy you can beat, then sell them as a threat to the public.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2022 12:46:32
you make pregnancy subject to a very strict licensed lotteryWhat if it's licensed to those who are willing and can afford to raise the children until they become independent/productive, or can find someone else to help them?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2022 12:50:50
In a democracy: to be re-elected. In a dictatorship: not to be murdered.Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media. They are unlikely to achieve their goals.
For a dictator, the best way not to be murdered is by resignation.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2022 15:31:22
Exactly what I was preaching in this forum years ago. My plan was (still is) to abolish all child benefits, maternity pay etc., and pay every woman £500 or so every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. You get one "free shot" that you can exercise at any time. This should reduce the birthrate towards half the replacement rate and thus reduce the population to around one fifth of its current level within 100 years. That figure is indefinitely sustainable in the UK at the current or better standard of living, using native natural resources only.you make pregnancy subject to a very strict licensed lotteryWhat if it's licensed to those who are willing and can afford to raise the children until they become independent/productive, or can find someone else to help them?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2022 15:32:46
Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media.Which is why it is up to us to say it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2022 01:12:29
We can infer their terminal goals from the decisions they made or plan to make.Imagine if they said those things out loud in front of mass media.Which is why it is up to us to say it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2022 01:16:02
Exactly what I was preaching in this forum years ago. My plan was (still is) to abolish all child benefits, maternity pay etc., and pay every woman £500 or so every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. You get one "free shot" that you can exercise at any time. This should reduce the birthrate towards half the replacement rate and thus reduce the population to around one fifth of its current level within 100 years. That figure is indefinitely sustainable in the UK at the current or better standard of living, using native natural resources only.What should be done to those who violate it? What should be done to their kids?
What should be done to immigrants?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/07/2022 11:36:48
Migrant workers are essential to agriculture and visiting students clearly gain more from the experience if they can earn money during their stay. So you issue temporary work permits and visas just as we used to do in the 1950s and 60s, then they go home. This gives us the opportunity to destroy the current slave trade: migrant workers are accommodated free of charge in decent government barracks - we have plenty in repairable condition. You get 10% of your weekly pay as pocket money and the remaining 90% when you leave the country.
Immigrants are people who intend to stay and seek citizenship, and fall into two categories: genuine refugees and selected professionals. Not a problem to distinguish in the case of an island nation, since refugees must be accommodated under the UN charter in the first safe country they reach, and that is clearly not the UK for anyone travelling overland. A very few will have been selected and fished out of a trouble spot by the British armed forces or secret services and thus count as guests with refugee status who may be invited to immigrate. Professional invitees will need an exceptional case to explain why they cannot be given a renewable work permit or business visa with no right to reside.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2022 14:36:22
There is no concept of "violation" under my scheme.Just say that someone gets pregnant without license.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2022 14:39:02
the state already has means in place for dealing with neglect.Jail time or social services?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2022 14:53:59
Migrant workers are essential to agriculture and visiting students clearly gain more from the experience if they can earn money during their stay.Until robots take over their jobs and vertical farming using GMO becomes more efficient than traditional way. It's not a matter of if, it's just when.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/07/2022 22:43:30
Jail time or social services?Both, as you well know.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/07/2022 22:48:04
There is no "license". You get paid if you are not pregnant. That's all there is to it. Oddly enough, at least one US state (Georgia?) actually ran a project to curb teenage pregnancy by offering schoolgirls a dollar a day for not being pregnant. If it's good enough for a Republican state in a third world country, it's good enough for the UK.There is no concept of "violation" under my scheme.Just say that someone gets pregnant without license.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/07/2022 23:08:15
So that's one less administrative problem to cope with. Up to the farmer to decide how many people he needs and when, and to offer an attractive rate of pay plus a per capita overhead to fund the state-run admin and accommodation scheme. Or invest in automation. Problem with partial automation is that you are making a large investment in, say, a harvester that you only need for one or two weeks in the year, and if it rains, your harvester can't be redeployed to clear the drains or paint the barn. People are inefficient but very flexible!Migrant workers are essential to agriculture and visiting students clearly gain more from the experience if they can earn money during their stay.Until robots take over their jobs and vertical farming using GMO becomes more efficient than traditional way. It's not a matter of if, it's just when.
The progress of Ocado, from a Waitrose hand-picked delivery service to a totally automated warehouse, has been impressive, but that's a 24/7/365 operation. I've seen some clever 3D imaging systems for identifying and cutting ripe cauliflowers, and a very neat gadget that plants, weeds, feeds and harvests individual high-value stem crops on a conventional flat field because it knows exactly where it put every seed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/07/2022 08:48:09
Just say that someone gets pregnant but can't afford to raise the child.There is no "license". You get paid if you are not pregnant. That's all there is to it. Oddly enough, at least one US state (Georgia?) actually ran a project to curb teenage pregnancy by offering schoolgirls a dollar a day for not being pregnant. If it's good enough for a Republican state in a third world country, it's good enough for the UK.There is no concept of "violation" under my scheme.Just say that someone gets pregnant without license.
What should be done to her?
What should be done to the fetus?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/07/2022 10:45:30
Remember I'm only talking about a civilised society (the UK) where contraception and abortion are legal, rape is a crime, and pregnancy doesn't occur by magic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/08/2022 10:20:43
Quote
Amygdala damage impairs moral judgmentThe goal of a morality is to make its subjects behave more desirably, overcoming their internal tendencies, bias, and emotions. In the case where the subjects are functionally limited/unable to perform required tasks or to take a responsibility, then they should not be given the responsibility in the first place, which is regulated by some rules.
Patients with amygdala damage rejected the widely accepted answer to the infamous "trolley problem," saying that it "hurts too much."
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Our sense of morality is inextricably linked to our brains. Many patients with Urbach-Weithe disease (UWD) have damage to a brain structure called the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure popularly known as the "fear center." UWD patients exhibited a breakdown of moral utilitarian judgment on the infamous trolley car problem, frequently choosing to save one person instead of thousands of others.
Jack van Honk of Utrecht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues examined five South African patients with Urbach-Weithe Disease (UWD), a rare inherited condition that causes an accumulation of calcium salts in the skin and soft tissues, making them hardened and shrivelled. Approximately 400 cases of this disease have been documented to date, more than half of whom have damage to a brain structure called the amygdala.
The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped structure that is known to be involved in emotional processing and is popularly referred to as the brain’s “fear center.” Previous studies of patient S.M., a 50-year-old woman who developed UWD as a child, showed that she cannot recognize emotions in the facial expressions of others and does not experience fear when exposed to live snakes, spiders, haunted houses, and horror films.
Subsequent research showed, however, that inhalation of 35% carbon dioxide can evoke fear and panic attacks in S.M. and two other UWD patients, suggesting that while the amygdala seems crucial for fear triggered by external threats, other brain mechanisms are responsible for internally triggered fear.
The complex neuroscience of morality
A study published last year showed that while S.M. and several other UWD patients cannot predict fear in others, they deem it impermissible to cause others fear, leading the researchers to conclude that although social emotion recognition and morality may be related, they are distinct from one another.
The authors of the new study suggest that heightened sensitivity to social pain may play a role in their patients’ inability to make moral judgments. In interviews, the patients stated that they had understood both the actions required of them and their outcomes, but decided not to sacrifice the individual because it was too upsetting and “hurts too much.”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/09/2022 14:37:48
responding to the most evil business in the world.
Quote
This video is an opinion and in no way should be construed as statements of fact. Scams, bad business opportunities, and fake gurus are subjective terms that mean different things to different people. I think someone who promises $100K/month for an upfront fee of $2K is a scam. Others would call it a Napoleon Hill pitch.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/09/2022 23:12:49
Subsequent research showed, however, that inhalation of 35% carbon dioxide can evoke fear and panic attacks in S.M. and two other UWD patients,and probably everyone else. Autonomic breathing turns to hyperventilation and panic as CO2 levels rise, in all animals.
It's the reason for rebreathing in oxygen and anesthetic masks, and why mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is so effective - a bit of CO2 stimulates inhalation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2022 07:03:12
and probably everyone else. Autonomic breathing turns to hyperventilation and panic as CO2 levels rise, in all animals.I don't know if tardigrades suffer similar thing.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2022 07:09:38
Quote
It's time to stop judging everyone in the past by the standards of the present.Commonly accepted moral standards and rules have been changing. But they are only instrumental goals. The universal terminal goal is always the same.
Post by: Origin on 17/09/2022 15:36:55
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2022 13:50:42
No.It seems like you need to learn to improve your argumentations skill.
Post by: Origin on 28/09/2022 14:17:58
It seems like you need to learn to improve your argumentations skill.No need to argue, the obvious answer is no.
Post by: JesWade21 on 29/09/2022 08:35:22
Leaving a religious worldview for a secular one can make life more challenging. There have been philosophical systems proposed that seem to describe a universal morality but aren't actually followed by anyone.
As illustrations: Utilitarianism, the belief that society should aim to maximise the sum of people's happiness, is widely attributed to John Stuart Mill. In his discussion of the veil of ignorance, Rawls proposed that a just society is one in which its members agree on how each other should be treated before any of them have any idea of their actual circumstances. According to Nozick, morality is doing whatever you want without interference from your society so long as you aren't intentionally hurting others. One could continue listing...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/09/2022 11:27:11
If you can't explain your reasoning, it's more likely that your decision/position is based on instinct, feeling, emotion, intuition, or just following the crowd, instead of rational/critical thinking.It seems like you need to learn to improve your argumentations skill.No need to argue, the obvious answer is no.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/09/2022 11:33:14
This sort of inquiry has been considered by many philosophers. The answer to this question hinges on how you characterise morality. That morality can't exist apart from religion is an opinion shared by some, while others hold that religion is neither relative nor relative truth. Thus, a set of universal moral principles follows from that framework.In previous posts, many classic schools of morality have been discussed and their limitations have been identified. Those limitations shows that they are not universal.
Leaving a religious worldview for a secular one can make life more challenging. There have been philosophical systems proposed that seem to describe a universal morality but aren't actually followed by anyone.
As illustrations: Utilitarianism, the belief that society should aim to maximise the sum of people's happiness, is widely attributed to John Stuart Mill. In his discussion of the veil of ignorance, Rawls proposed that a just society is one in which its members agree on how each other should be treated before any of them have any idea of their actual circumstances. According to Nozick, morality is doing whatever you want without interference from your society so long as you aren't intentionally hurting others. One could continue listing...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/09/2022 11:42:42
Quote
Futurist Ari Wallach asks, “how do you want to be remembered?”
Humans have a "lifetime bias." When we plan ahead, we do so by thinking in terms of years and decades rather than centuries and millennia.
We need to escape this short-term thinking if we want to be great ancestors to the generations of humans that will come after us.
One way to do so is through transgenerational empathy, by which we reconcile ourselves with the past in order to focus on the attributes that we want to pass on to the next generation.
This video is part of The Progress Issue, a Big Think and Freethink special collaboration.
In this inaugural special issue we set out to explore progress — how it happens, how we nurture it and how we stifle it, and what changes are required in how we approach our most serious problems to ensure greater and more equitable progress for all.
Basically, existing moralities are methods which our thinker ancestors came up with to help their peers to overcome shortsightedness. When we view them with the advantage of hindsight and more accurate and precise information, we can see their shortcomings.
Post by: Origin on 29/09/2022 13:36:23
If you can't explain your reasoning, it's more likely that your decision/position is based on instinct, feeling, emotion, intuition, or just following the crowd, instead of rational/critical thinking.My reasoning is that I see no universal moral standard. If you disagree, could you tell me what the universal moral standard is?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/09/2022 15:30:52
If you can't explain your reasoning, it's more likely that your decision/position is based on instinct, feeling, emotion, intuition, or just following the crowd, instead of rational/critical thinking.My reasoning is that I see no universal moral standard. If you disagree, could you tell me what the universal moral standard is?
I've marked a best answer to the title question.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114
By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment. By identifying the universal terminal goal, you can find the universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2022 12:12:56
Quote
Correction to what I say at 6 minutes 54 seconds: There's no evidence that Peter Thiel has financially supported the Future of Life Institute. He has merely expressed sympathy for the idea of longtermism. Sorry about that.A common criticism against longtermism says that it doesn't care about short term consequences, as if killing a billion people is OK as long as it does not cause human extinction. But I don't think that it's the case.
Longtermism is a currently popular philosophy among rich people like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Jaan Tallinn. What do they believe and what are the pros and cons? I sort it out for you.
We need to consider all conceivable alternatives, and choose the best option. If there are only two possible outcomes, one causes death of a billion, while the other is human extinction, then the right decision should have been obvious. But before we decide to sacrifice those billion people, we need to provide convincing evidence that there is no better solution.
In real life, predictions about the future always involve some portion of uncertainty. We also need to consider the likelihood of each scenario.
Post by: Origin on 17/11/2022 14:14:31
By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things.Good and bad is subjective, so there is no universal moral standard.
Quote
Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment. By identifying the universal terminal goal, you can find the universal moral standard.Since there is no terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2022 21:55:31
Good and bad is subjective, so there is no universal moral standard.The antonym for subjective is objective. It's not necessarily exclude universality.
An objective morality is hence an oxymoron. But a universal morality is not.
Non-universal moralities which are not aligned with the universal terminal goal will just become unnecessary burden for their adherents/followers, irrelevant and useless for conscious entities who exist in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2022 22:04:24
Since there is no terminal goal, there is no universal moral standard.You haven't found one doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. To declare so you need to prove that its existence inevitably lead to contradiction.
In the table below, you seem to take fourth row.
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=71347.0;attach=30734)
1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/11/2022 22:32:10
By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment.No. It depends on your definition of good.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2022 03:06:29
Isn't there a standard definition of good in English?By definition, morality is about distinguishing between good and bad things. Any distinction between them depends on the terminal goal of the one making moral judgment.No. It depends on your definition of good.
Here's what I found in Google.
Quote
adjective
1.
to be desired or approved of.
"a good quality of life"
2.
having the qualities required for a particular role.
"the schools here are good"
noun
1.
that which is morally right; righteousness.
"a mysterious balance of good and evil"
2.
benefit or advantage to someone or something.
"he convinces his father to use his genius for the good of mankind"
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2022 13:07:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2022 15:09:07
Every one of which is subjective, local, probably short-term, or circular ("that which is moraly right"). I don't see any universality there.Definitions in dictionaries are based on common usage. They may change from time to time. It means that dictionary authors work through analogical thinking. Getting to something universal needs thinking from first principles.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2022 18:43:20
Problem is that when you put them all together, I can't see how the thing you are looking for can exist. Think "square circles."
Post by: Origin on 18/11/2022 21:25:20
Definitions in dictionaries are based on common usage. They may change from time to time. It means that dictionary authors work through analogical thinking. Getting to something universal needs thinking from first principles.You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2022 21:26:35
Problem is that when you put them all together, I can't see how the thing you are looking for can exist. Think "square circles."The don't belong together because they are mutually exclusive. If something is said to be a circle, it effectively means that it's not a square.
Similar thing happens with the words moral and objective. The situation with moral and universal is different.
Morality distinguishes between good and bad actions/behaviors. Not between good and bad objects. Distinction between good cars and bad cars have nothing to do with morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/11/2022 00:52:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2022 09:18:46
You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.
You have presented nothing that even hints at an universal moral standard.I've written the hints all over the place in my threads. It's understandable if you couldn't find them all, especially considering that you are a newcomer here and admitted to skip reading posts you don't like.
But I've also written deductive reasoning to come into conclusion about universal morality based on universal terminal goal. You can try to refute it by pointing out which axioms I used here is false.
Post by: Origin on 19/11/2022 13:35:28
But I've also written deductive reasoning to come into conclusion about universal morality based on universal terminal goalGreat, what is this universal morality that you have deductively reasoned out?
While you are at it what is the universal terminal goal that you are basing your reasoning on?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/11/2022 21:33:22
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71347.msg587970#msg587970
Post by: Origin on 21/11/2022 01:55:10
You can start by rereading my thread on the universal terminal goal from page 3 onwards.So I guess you can't answer my questions?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2022 02:17:32
Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?You can start by rereading my thread on the universal terminal goal from page 3 onwards.So I guess you can't answer my questions?
If you are too lazy to read them all, or think that it doesn't worth your time, just be patient, for good things come to those who wait. I'll try to summarize it again in simpler language, when I have the time.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/11/2022 11:47:30
Philosophy is mostly harmless, sometimes dangerous, and rarely of any value. Religion is the most toxic manifestation of philosophy, having caused or excused even more harm than politics - an allied manifestation of human vanity and stupidity.
The fact that philosophers have failed to answer a question is hardly surprising - it isn't in their interests to do so.
Post by: Origin on 21/11/2022 14:46:09
Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?It is reasonable for you to answer the OP question after 135 pages with the obvious answer which is there is no universal moral standard as far as anyone can determine. Just going on and on and on in circles is just stupid and annoying.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2022 07:19:15
True, but irrelevant. The words are universal, moral, and standard.Let's start again with standard, as the noun here.
Google search gives this answer when asked about the difference between rule and standard:
Quote
Rules are those legal commands which differentiate legal from illegal behavior in a simple and clear way. Standards, however, are general legal criteria which are unclear and fuzzy and require complicated judiciary decision making (Diver, 1983; Kaplow, 1992).
A speed limit whose violation leads to a fine of 100 $ is a rule, whereas a norm for car drivers to “drive carefully” whose violation leads to damage compensation is a standard. In the latter case the legal norm leaves open what exactly the level of due care is and how the damage compensation is to be calculated (Ulen, 1999).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_132#:~:text=Rules%20are%20those%20legal%20commands,1983%3B%20Kaplow%2C%201992).
Other answers are:
Quote
Rules are statements that comes from the top or the authority and that are meant to guide the behavior and action of all those in a particular environment. Rules govern not just action and behavior but also arrangement and even procedures in institutions. In general, rules play the most important role of guiding our behavior and conduct in a particular situation. Rules are authoritative in nature, and people have to follow them in a particular situation. People know what to do and what not to do in a specific situation.
Standards are often published documents that lay down specifications and procedures. These standards ensure that quality of materials and products remain high and consistent. These standards provide a clear understanding of what is required from employees, students, and other people in an environment to maintain quality. Standards also help people in having a clear understanding of what is required of them.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-rules-and-standards/
Quote
(https://www.jstor.org/page-scan-delivery/get-page-scan/1372840/0)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1372840
Quote
RULES VERSUS STANDARDS:
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
LouIS KAPLOWt
This Article offers an economic analysis of the extent to
which legal commands should be promulgated as rules or standards. Two dimensions of the problem are emphasized. First, the
choice between rules and standards affects costs: Rules typically
are more costly than standards to create, whereas standards tend to
be more costly for individuals to interpret when deciding how to
act and for an adjudicator to apply to past conduct. Second, when
individuals can determine the application of rules to their contemplated acts more cheaply, conduct is more likely to reflect the
content of previously promulgated rules than of standards that will
be given content only after individuals act. The Article considers
how these factors influence the manner in which rules and standards should be designed, and explores the circumstances in which
rules or standards are likely to be preferable. The Article also
addresses the level of detail with which laws should be formulated
and applied, emphasizing how this question concerning the laws'
relative simplicity or complexity can be distinguished from that of
whether laws are given content ex ante (rules) or ex post (standards). In so doing, it illuminates concerns about the over- and
underinclusiveness of rules relative to standards.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10611784/Kaplow_RulesStandards.pdf?sequence=2
And a video from YaleCourses
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2022 07:45:25
Here's what I think about moral rules and moral standards which could be more useful :
Moral rules distinguish between good and bad actions or behaviors.
Moral standards distinguish between good and bad moral rules.
Here are some examples of moral rules :
Don't lie, which means telling the truth is good, while telling lies is bad.
Don't steal
Don't kill
Obey your parents
Obey authorities
Here are another set of moral rules:
Follow your instinct
Follow your emotion
Don't eat meat
Don't engage in sexual behavior
Think critically
Forgive your enemy
Be generous
Be diligent
Be careful, avoid risks
Be selfish
Be ambitious
Be greedy
Moral standards are supposed to distinguish between good and bad moral rules, and specify what conditions are required to apply or reject them.
Post by: Origin on 22/11/2022 13:41:55
Moral standards are supposed to distinguish between good and bad moral rules, and specify what conditions are required to apply or reject them.There is the rub. Good and evil are subjective. One persons good is another persons evil.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2022 17:33:18
Don't steal except to feed your starving children
Don't kill except in self defence or the defence of your legitimate nation
Obey your parents except when they tell you to break the law
Obey authorities except when they issue immoral instructions (see The Nuremberg Defence)
Here are another set of moral rules:
Follow your instinct except where it leads to immorality or illegality
Follow your emotion ditto
Don't eat meat unless you are an Inuit or other obligate hunter
Don't engage in sexual behavior unless you enjoy it or want to procreate
Think critically Always!!!
Forgive your enemy never
Be generous
Be diligent
Be careful, avoid risks
Be selfish
Be ambitious
Be greedy and vote Tory
Post by: Origin on 22/11/2022 19:43:49
Don't kill except in self defence or the defence of your legitimate nationKeeping in mind that your legitimate nation is good and the other is evil, unless your on the other side in which case that legitimate nation is good and the other is evil.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2022 23:38:04
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2022 23:47:45
A rule (legal) is an instruction that must be obeyed;
(scientific) an assertion that appears to be adequately true, though less rigorously tested or over a more limited range than a "law";
(mathematical) a procedure that delivers a provable result (e.g Simpson's rule) or a consistent result (rules for vector arithmetic). The last can also be considered a convention
An example from navigation. The rules of the air or sea determine for example what track you must follow in order to avoid conflict; the "1 in 60" rule is useful for determining an approximate compass heading or rate of closure required to get from A to B by rhumb line; the rules for vector addition give you the required corrections for wind and tide.
A standard is a specified object, quantity or quality against which it is agreed that all others in the same category can be measured or compared.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2022 08:46:26
It's clear now that you haven't found the answer yet. That's why I uploaded a summary video about the universal terminal goal to help someone like you.Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?It is reasonable for you to answer the OP question after 135 pages with the obvious answer which is there is no universal moral standard as far as anyone can determine. Just going on and on and on in circles is just stupid and annoying.
I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal, which could be the answer to the most important question ever. It's the summary of what I've discussed here.
This thread has gone so long, and those who didn't follow it from the start might face difficulties in understanding the core ideas. I hope the video can help.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2022 09:07:15
I will decide whether the nation I inhabit is legitimate. Simply drawing a line around the territory and declaring the right to impose laws within it does not confer legitimacy.What will your decision be based on?
If you can't describe it clearly, it's likely that you'll just follow your intuition, instinct or emotion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2022 09:20:46
And for the benefit of those who have no time for waffling economists or philosophersIt sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule. How can they be useful in discussion about morality?
A rule (legal) is an instruction that must be obeyed;
(scientific) an assertion that appears to be adequately true, though less rigorously tested or over a more limited range than a "law";
(mathematical) a procedure that delivers a provable result (e.g Simpson's rule) or a consistent result (rules for vector arithmetic). The last can also be considered a convention
An example from navigation. The rules of the air or sea determine for example what track you must follow in order to avoid conflict; the "1 in 60" rule is useful for determining an approximate compass heading or rate of closure required to get from A to B by rhumb line; the rules for vector addition give you the required corrections for wind and tide.
A standard is a specified object, quantity or quality against which it is agreed that all others in the same category can be measured or compared.
Your definitions of rules and standards are based of how they are currently used by some folks in some fields of expertise, which is obtained from analogical thinking.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/11/2022 11:58:23
It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.Because it is. I work professionally with both, and they are quite separate.
Post by: Origin on 23/11/2022 15:35:00
I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal,This appears to me to be one persons philosophical/religious opinion and as such is not not science.
which could be the answer to the most important question ever.I think 'what's for dinner' is a more important question.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2022 10:05:11
What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.Because it is. I work professionally with both, and they are quite separate.
Or do you think that they are all equally good/bad?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2022 12:28:10
It's a logical reasoning. Its correctness depends on the consistency of definitions of each concepts in it and relationships among them, just like math theorems.
This appears to me to be one persons philosophical/religious opinion and as such is not not science.
You can try to refute its validity by pointing out a contradiction, or show an example where it makes predictions contrary to observed physical reality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2022 12:29:14
I think 'what's for dinner' is a more important question.My wife decided to skip dinner to lose some weight.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2022 14:04:55
What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?"Good" means I approve of it. "Bad" means I disapprove. Public debate and the parliamentary process generally distil out those things that the majority consider bad, and make them illegal - the essence of a civilised country. Not sure whether any other rules are necessary or desirable.
My moral tests are good.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 03:21:53
The distinction between good and bad can be applied to moral rules themselves. That's what I called moral standards.
Ten commandments are examples of moral rules. They are all good if evaluated from a certain moral standard, namely following a Jewish God's will. When they are evaluated using a different moral standard, some of them may turn out to be bad.
Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives, whether in the neighborhood, job place, or online community.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 03:25:13
It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?"Good" means I approve of it. "Bad" means I disapprove. Public debate and the parliamentary process generally distil out those things that the majority consider bad, and make them illegal - the essence of a civilised country. Not sure whether any other rules are necessary or desirable.
My moral tests are good.
Post by: Origin on 25/11/2022 03:31:40
Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,In other words there is no universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2022 08:21:59
It looks like you need to check your logical reasoning. The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't refute the existence of a universal moral standard.Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,In other words there is no universal moral standard.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2022 00:06:41
In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targetsSo nuclear weapons are good. Designed by conscious beings, highly effective and reliable. Like gas chambers, only quicker.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2022 00:10:07
It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.Rather like chemistry prevents us from discovering the philosopher's stone, physics prevents us from measuring the aether, and reality shields us from flying unicorns.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2022 05:23:17
If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.In general, a thing is good if it fulfills its purpose, or behaves as expected to achieve its goals/targetsSo nuclear weapons are good. Designed by conscious beings, highly effective and reliable. Like gas chambers, only quicker.
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2022 05:27:49
Unlike you, chemistry, physics, and science in general give clear explanations why a scientific conclusion is made, and more importantly, why alternative explanations cannot be true. Of course, the conclusion can be changed by new scientific evidence, not available when previous conclusion was made.It means that you use your intuition, instinct, or emotion as your moral standard. It hinders you from discovering the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal.Rather like chemistry prevents us from discovering the philosopher's stone, physics prevents us from measuring the aether, and reality shields us from flying unicorns.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2022 20:20:12
If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.So there is no universal moral standard. QED
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/11/2022 06:33:37
Universal moral standard distinguishes between good and bad moral rules and behaviors based on their effect on the achievement of the universal terminal goal. You can prove the nonexistent of the universal moral standard by showing that it leads to contradiction. Pointing out a local goal is not enough.If your goal is to destroy more things with relatively compact device, then yes, it's good.So there is no universal moral standard. QED
But if you concern your own and your troops' safety from risk of radiation and unintentional explosion, then it won't be as good as you thought, especially if you don't know when you will need to use it, if ever.
I've addressed this misconception in my latest video.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/11/2022 11:26:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/11/2022 06:35:00
Universal includes local, surely. What would be the point otherwise? To claim that a universal standard or goal can be arbitrarily set aside whenever it is inconvenient, is the sort of perverted illogic that leads to the priesthood and other disgusting activities.I Googled antonym of universal, it says
- particular
- restricted
- local
What language are you using?
Post by: alancalverd on 29/11/2022 23:54:28
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2022 13:38:35
Surely every locality is part of the universe, by definition of universe? Hence universal includes local.Universe and universal are related. But they are not exactly the same. That's why I didn't call it the terminal goal of the universe, which you can argue to be nonexistent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2022 14:29:31
Markov Decision Processes - Computerphile
Quote
Deterministic route finding isn't enough for the real world - Nick Hawes of the Oxford Robotics Institute takes us through some problems featuring probabilities.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/11/2022 17:17:41
OK, it's a poor example because there are indeed enough variants to be called significant, but the point remains that anything stated to be universally applicable must be locally applicable, even if the converse does not apply. Here's another, not perfect but I'm sure you get the point:
Bank of England notes are universally (i.e. worldwide) accepted as tender or exchangeable for tender by other (local) national banks. Ulster Bank notes have the same value in Ireland (local) but are not universally accepted for exchange.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2022 03:29:00
It is (almost) universally true that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. It is almost always the case that local (individual) humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. The universal includes the local. If a significant number did not, then we could not state that 23 is a universal constant.I've asserted that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future. Tell me where, or in what situation this terminal goal is not applicable.
OK, it's a poor example because there are indeed enough variants to be called significant, but the point remains that anything stated to be universally applicable must be locally applicable, even if the converse does not apply. Here's another, not perfect but I'm sure you get the point:
Bank of England notes are universally (i.e. worldwide) accepted as tender or exchangeable for tender by other (local) national banks. Ulster Bank notes have the same value in Ireland (local) but are not universally accepted for exchange.
This universal terminal goal is the most inclusive or least exclusive terminal goal, restricted only by the definition of goal itself. The existence of terminal goal depends on the existence of consciousness. The most inclusive terminal goal is indifferent to how the consciousness is formed.
If we insist to go one step further in inclusiveness, so it becomes indifferent to whether or not consciousness exist, we will become nihilist, and think that anything goes indifferently. The word goal would become meaningless.
For comparison, here is an example. A tribe of Neanderthals chose its terminal goal as preventing Neanderthals from extinction. French and Russian monarchs chose their terminal goals as preserving French and Russian monarchy, respectively.
These terminal goals are non-universal.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2022 10:24:49
I've asserted that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the future. Tell me where, or in what situation this terminal goal is not applicable.Mutual Assured Destruction is the prime example, but there are plenty of smaller-scale zealots who consider that murdering infidels and dying in the process, is the ultimate moral duty of an otherwise rational human.
As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.
And I'm not sure that 99.999999999% of the universe cares a damn about whatever you think consciousness might be.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/12/2022 10:33:16
As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.Anthropic principle due to natural selection will determine who will exist in the future, who will go extinct.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/12/2022 12:07:46
But if we accept your premise, then either your universal terminal goal is consistent with natural selection, or it is invalid. Natural selection tends towards a fascist morality in which the weak are eliminated, or a buddhist view that illness and misfortune are part of the Grand Scheme of Things, which don't fit with conventional western moral imperatives to heal the sick and support the weak.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2022 09:31:17
Natural selection and the anthropic principle are mutually exclusive. Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.anthropic principle emerges from natural selection.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2022 10:03:01
Mutual Assured Destruction is the prime example, but there are plenty of smaller-scale zealots who consider that murdering infidels and dying in the process, is the ultimate moral duty of an otherwise rational human.Your enemies are convinced that you are a threat to their survival. You can try to convince them that you are not. Or try to convince them that they can't win.
Either way, they will respond by choosing actions which they think will serve their interests best.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2022 10:17:57
As they claim to be divinely inspired, you can't disprove their logic.But you can show that their beliefs are contradicted by observational facts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2022 10:25:22
And I'm not sure that 99.999999999% of the universe cares a damn about whatever you think consciousness might be.Most conscious entities care about their own survival, or some better version of themselves. Those who don't care would soon go extinct and their opinions won't matter anymore.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2022 11:05:45
Like other mammals, homo sapiens is regarded by viruses, fungi and bacteria as nothing more than a vehicle and source of food.From the perspective of our own cells and organelles, we are also vehicle and source of food. And we depend on them for our own existence, at least for now.
I've addressed this issue in my other thread. I'm planning to make a video summarizing it.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2022 13:30:06
Most conscious entities care about their own survival,But as far as we know, conscious entities comprise less than 0.00000000001% of the mass of the universe, if that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/12/2022 05:02:24
How do you calculate that? If you drink 1 liter of water, how much of it will become part of you and be conscious?Most conscious entities care about their own survival,But as far as we know, conscious entities comprise less than 0.00000000001% of the mass of the universe, if that.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2022 17:18:31
You can also estimate the mass of the observable universe, about 1057 tonnes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2022 09:17:33
You can estimate the mass of known conscious entities - it's not more than the total biomass of this planet, about 6 x 1011 tonnes.
You can also estimate the mass of the observable universe, about 1057 tonnes.
Did you include human hairs and bones as biomass?
Do you include supercomputers and smart phones as part of human consciousness?
Unconscious entities don't care about anything. Conscious entities care about their existence.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 09:56:01
2. No
as long as 1057 >> 1011 I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2022 13:04:45
1. YesYou can ignore what's important for future conscious entities. But your view will be ignored by them when their time has come and yours has passed.
2. No
as long as 1057 >> 1011 I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 14:35:48
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2022 02:21:31
But their existence depends on our actions!Some of our actions are necessary for their existence. Some others are detrimental for them. Some others don't really matter.
They will call those actions moral, immoral, and amoral actions, respectively.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2022 06:29:19
1. YesWhat's your reason for your answers?
2. No
as long as 1057 >> 1011 I think we can safely ignore consciousness as a significant element of the observable universe.
No. We are not safe to ignore consciousness found in the observable universe.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2022 10:06:54
The development or extinction of consciousness (whatever that is) may matter to you, but not to the Crab Nebula. Most of the universe got on pretty well without it for 10 billion years, and is utterly unaware of it even now.
One of the first lessons you learn in science is that nature is wholly indifferent to what you, Pol Pot, or Mother Teresa thinks.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2022 10:33:35
Mathematics.What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?
The development or extinction of consciousness (whatever that is) may matter to you, but not to the Crab Nebula. Most of the universe got on pretty well without it for 10 billion years, and is utterly unaware of it even now.
One of the first lessons you learn in science is that nature is wholly indifferent to what you, Pol Pot, or Mother Teresa thinks.
What about water that humans drink?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2022 10:38:27
here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2022 23:04:24
What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?I make a point of never using words I don't understand. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, which is why I said "whatever that is". If you want to make it "the essence of everything", by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to follow you down the path to insanity.
All I have done is to estimate the mass of living things,on the presumption that these are the things that care about their own existence, and point out that the constitute a negligible and transient fraction of the observable universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2022 02:24:42
You are free to redefine words as you like. But if you intend to communicate them with someone else, you need to clarify what you mean when you are using those words. You can refer to your other posts using them, so someone else can make a mapping the relationships between your words and their own words to convey the same meaning.What makes you think that hair and bones are part of consciousness while supercomputers and smart phones are not?I make a point of never using words I don't understand. I have no idea what you mean by consciousness, which is why I said "whatever that is". If you want to make it "the essence of everything", by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to follow you down the path to insanity.
All I have done is to estimate the mass of living things,on the presumption that these are the things that care about their own existence, and point out that the constitute a negligible and transient fraction of the observable universe.
In natural language processing algorithm, words are converted into vectors, and they are statistically related to common usage. That's why modern NLP models can easily translate sentences from one language to the others. But if you use those words inconsistently, even the best NLP models won't be able to help.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2022 08:41:47
The Politics of Consciousness | video lecture with Yuval Noah Harari
Quote
What is consciousness? Who has consciousness? And why is it so dangerous to confuse it with intelligence? How does our understanding of consciousness impact the ethical, political and legal debates about abortion, animal rights and the legal status of AI? In this video talk, Yuval Noah Harari unpacks these huge questions step by step, and offers tools for thinking about them clearly.
Basically, he equates consciousness with capability to suffer. Unfortunately, he doesn't elaborate further on what suffering is, and why it's not based on other types of feelings or thoughts.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2022 11:05:08
Some people like Buddha are capable of managing their own minds so they are less prone to sufferings. They would be less conscious, hence deserve less rights if we are willing to accept Harari's definition of consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2022 11:22:49
The society would be unsustainable because resources would be distributed ineffectively and wasteful.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/12/2022 15:33:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2022 08:12:40
Suffering is the state of being aware that things should be better than they are. Which is why legal cases are often settled on a basis of "pain and suffering" as two different entities.Every dictator is aware that things should be better than they are. They are not usually the ones who suffer.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2022 11:00:35
Note that I distinguished between pain and suffering. Merely being disappointed with the status quo won't get you any sympathy or reparation in court - you need to prove actual harm.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2022 01:54:47
Then why go to all the bother of being a dictator?It's a counter-example for your statement.
It's a high risk but high reward way of life. By chance, sometimes someone are willing to take the risks for the reward. Some of the times, they fail, but sometimes they succeed.
Suffering is the state of being aware that things should be better than they are.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/12/2022 01:59:19
Surely the natural state of a contented man is to do nothing?Someone who consistently do nothing won't survive for long. Survivors naturally follow their instinct to breathe air, drink and eat, avoid predators, etc. Those with a bit of consciousness plan their actions to gather what they need to survive.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2022 18:08:56
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 00:44:53
And when you have had enough to eat and drink, and know where the next meal is coming from you are contented and therefore have no need to do anything.You still need to put the food into your mouth and swallow it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2022 01:09:56
Here's an illustration to explain the difference between rules and standards.True, but irrelevant. The words are universal, moral, and standard.Let's start again with standard, as the noun here.
Google search gives this answer when asked about the difference between rule and standard:QuoteRules are those legal commands which differentiate legal from illegal behavior in a simple and clear way. Standards, however, are general legal criteria which are unclear and fuzzy and require complicated judiciary decision making (Diver, 1983; Kaplow, 1992).
A speed limit whose violation leads to a fine of 100 $ is a rule, whereas a norm for car drivers to “drive carefully” whose violation leads to damage compensation is a standard. In the latter case the legal norm leaves open what exactly the level of due care is and how the damage compensation is to be calculated (Ulen, 1999).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_132#:~:text=Rules%20are%20those%20legal%20commands,1983%3B%20Kaplow%2C%201992).
Other answers are:QuoteRules are statements that comes from the top or the authority and that are meant to guide the behavior and action of all those in a particular environment. Rules govern not just action and behavior but also arrangement and even procedures in institutions. In general, rules play the most important role of guiding our behavior and conduct in a particular situation. Rules are authoritative in nature, and people have to follow them in a particular situation. People know what to do and what not to do in a specific situation.
Standards are often published documents that lay down specifications and procedures. These standards ensure that quality of materials and products remain high and consistent. These standards provide a clear understanding of what is required from employees, students, and other people in an environment to maintain quality. Standards also help people in having a clear understanding of what is required of them.
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-rules-and-standards/Quote(https://www.jstor.org/page-scan-delivery/get-page-scan/1372840/0)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1372840QuoteRULES VERSUS STANDARDS:
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
LouIS KAPLOWt
This Article offers an economic analysis of the extent to
which legal commands should be promulgated as rules or standards. Two dimensions of the problem are emphasized. First, the
choice between rules and standards affects costs: Rules typically
are more costly than standards to create, whereas standards tend to
be more costly for individuals to interpret when deciding how to
act and for an adjudicator to apply to past conduct. Second, when
individuals can determine the application of rules to their contemplated acts more cheaply, conduct is more likely to reflect the
content of previously promulgated rules than of standards that will
be given content only after individuals act. The Article considers
how these factors influence the manner in which rules and standards should be designed, and explores the circumstances in which
rules or standards are likely to be preferable. The Article also
addresses the level of detail with which laws should be formulated
and applied, emphasizing how this question concerning the laws'
relative simplicity or complexity can be distinguished from that of
whether laws are given content ex ante (rules) or ex post (standards). In so doing, it illuminates concerns about the over- and
underinclusiveness of rules relative to standards.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10611784/Kaplow_RulesStandards.pdf?sequence=2
And a video from YaleCourses
I went to a store and buy 2 meters of elrctric cable. The store keeper pull a cable from its roll, measure its length using a ruler, and cut it at 2 meters mark. I brought the cable back home and install my electric device. But the cable isn't long enough to connect it to the socket. I measured the cable using my ruler, and found out that it was only 1.9 meters long.
In this story, my ruler and the ruler in the store were used to measure the length of an object, i. e. electric cable. A calibrated meter ruler traceable to international meter standard is used to determine which ruler is good.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/12/2022 14:04:43
"How long is a piece of string? In law, it is exactly as long as I say it is. Your job is to tell me what to say."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2022 21:59:35
It's also possible to measure objects using the international standard ruler. But it won't be practical. How many measurements need to be done everyday?
Similarly, moral rules are useful for their practicality. It's easier to understand and follow rules like don't lie, don't steal, or obey your parents than implementing the universal moral standard, which is meant to achieve a long term goal. In most cases, those common moral rules are good enough. The moral standards are required to justify any exceptions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/12/2022 15:27:24
Quote
Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas. Today they are focusing on the ethical theory of moral relativism.
Moral relativism is the idea that all of morality is relative, there are no objective moral truths. A moral relativist would therefore believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely relative to the time, society or culture it takes place in.
This video analyses the strengths of moral relativism as an ethical theory as well as the challenges.
It's a good video explaining and criticizing moral relativism.
It implicitly assumed that humanity is the only known conscious entities in the universe. It seems to ignore the possibility of other yet unknown consciousness, such as aliens, trans-humans, and AGI.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/12/2022 17:20:03
It implicitly assumed that humanity is the only known conscious entities in the universe. It seems to ignore the possibility of other yet unknown consciousness, such as aliens, trans-humans, and AGI.dogs, cats, octopi.....Humans are arguably the most stupid of known conscious entities, but we are not alone in the universe, or even on this planet.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2022 04:02:17
dogs, cats, octopi.....Humans are arguably the most stupid of known conscious entities, but we are not alone in the universe, or even on this planet.How do you define stupid?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2022 04:09:49
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fk07GA3WIAABmrv?format=jpg&name=small)
Post by: alancalverd on 26/12/2022 19:21:52
How do you define stupid?Doing or believing what you are told by a parasite.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2022 02:50:26
Then you need to define parasite.How do you define stupid?Doing or believing what you are told by a parasite.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/12/2022 09:59:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2022 14:18:49
Any human who asserts some kind of authority without demonstrating relevant merit. All priests, all philosophers, and most politicians.Afaik, Socrates didn't assert any kind of authority. He merely asked his pupils to see a problem from different perspectives, to get a clearer understanding.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/12/2022 14:40:36
Moral dilemmas are situations in which a person is forced to choose between two or more conflicting options, neither of which solves the situation in a morally acceptable way.
In this video, we will discuss what moral dilemmas are and the three conditions that turn a situation into a moral dilemma.
Video Chapters
0:00 Introduction
1:32 What is a Dilemma?
2:17 What is a Moral Dilemma?
3:55 The 3 Conditions that Make a Moral Dilemma
4:50 Summary
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/12/2022 03:16:11
How to Make Better Choices in Life
Quote
Every day we make choices that have the potential to change the course of our lives. But, we almost never stop and think about how to get better at making these choices. Luckily, that’s what we’re talking about in this video, enjoy x
00:00 Intro
01:00 I in one year's time, what would I regret not having started today?
02:26 What would my mental board of advisors say?
04:09 What is the risk of doing nothing?
04:50 What core value am I optimising for?
05:19 When I'm on my deathbed, what will I regret having or not having done?
06:55 How certain am I about decision and how certain do I need to be?
07:46 How might I treat this like an experiment?
09:55 Do I want to be the sort of person who does X?
11:19 Will this energise me or will it drain me?
12:36 The Quitting Framework
13:40 Tim Ferriss' Fear Setting Exercise
Post by: alancalverd on 31/12/2022 00:04:27
04:09 is the most important question of all. Intelligence is constructive laziness, and doing nothing is often the overlooked optimum solution.
05:19 is crucial to a stress-free life. My dad used to say "the graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable". Whenever I walked into an office full of panic (which was at least once a week) my first question was "how many dead?". The answer was usually "none" and the panic subsided.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/12/2022 14:10:04
The importance of a standard can be seen by observing the effects of removing it. It's like you don't know what you've got till it's gone. Without a standard to refer to, there's no way to clear the dispute between me and the cable seller. Thus, the most important quality of a standard is its consistency.Violating moral rules in some specific cases or situations can be morally justified if it complies with higher level moral standard, which usually involves more desired outcome for the long run.
It's also possible to measure objects using the international standard ruler. But it won't be practical. How many measurements need to be done everyday?
Similarly, moral rules are useful for their practicality. It's easier to understand and follow rules like don't lie, don't steal, or obey your parents than implementing the universal moral standard, which is meant to achieve a long term goal. In most cases, those common moral rules are good enough. The moral standards are required to justify any exceptions.
Violation of moral rules for short term desired outcome is considered as immoral if it is expected to cause undesired long term consequences, especially when public interests are impacted.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2023 13:26:56
The Psychology of Morality
Quote
What does it mean to do something good or bad? How do we know what's good or bad? How do we even know that this is a reasonable question to ask? Psychologists have been studying morality for a long time, examining how our sense of morality develops over time, and the ways that we arrive at certain decisions based on our conception of morality. This is a pretty hefty topic, but let's dig into it now. And yes, we will cover the Trolley Problem!
Post by: alancalverd on 04/01/2023 16:54:53
What does it mean to do something good or bad?Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad.Taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to bail out a bank or an energy company shareholder can be seen as good or bad depending on which side you are standing, so HM Government can claim to be morally neutral, and indeed adhering to the Christian moral code (Luke 19:26).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2023 10:27:35
There are some videos of people happily celebrating 9/11.What does it mean to do something good or bad?Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad.Taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to bail out a bank or an energy company shareholder can be seen as good or bad depending on which side you are standing, so HM Government can claim to be morally neutral, and indeed adhering to the Christian moral code (Luke 19:26).
Universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal evaluates moral value of actions and decisions from the perspective of furthest future conscious entities as conceivable. It will inevitably involve uncertainties, risks, severities, and probabilities. When gathered information isn't enough to make adequately accurate and precise predictions, moral rules can be used as shortcuts with presumably have high probability of giving the desired results.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2023 11:11:22
There are some videos of people happily celebrating 9/11.Which rather proves my point. If the religious scum wipe out all the infidels, their descendants' perverted perspective will prevail, to the greater glory of their superstition. So there is no definable universal terminal goal: either the good guys persuade everyone to abandon religion, or we are doomed to eternal and pointless conflict until the followers of some arbitrary nonsense have eliminated everyone else.
Universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal evaluates moral value of actions and decisions from the perspective of furthest future conscious entities as conceivable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2023 14:35:26
No.There are some videos of people happily celebrating 9/11.Which rather proves my point. If the religious scum wipe out all the infidels, their descendants' perverted perspective will prevail, to the greater glory of their superstition. So there is no definable universal terminal goal: either the good guys persuade everyone to abandon religion, or we are doomed to eternal and pointless conflict until the followers of some arbitrary nonsense have eliminated everyone else.
Universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal evaluates moral value of actions and decisions from the perspective of furthest future conscious entities as conceivable.
The societies which will have the highest probability to prevail are those who have terminal goal closer to the universal terminal goal, and have mastered science and technology to make better predictions and planned actions to achieve their goals more effectively and efficiently.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/01/2023 17:52:05
Only fools say the crime doesn't pay. Why else would criminals do it?
Or if you want to be scientific about things, the UTG is maximum entropy, which will certainly prevail.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2023 13:16:37
Which so far suggests that rampant profiteering, private ownership of essential commodities, and the freedom to invade any territory you like, are the universal terminal goal.Universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal can be used to measure someone's moral maturity. It evaluates how far ahead they consider the consequences of their actions and decisions. Infants only considers almost immediate consequences of their actions. Bigger kids may consider for a few days/months ahead. Simple minded people may consider for a few years ahead. Wiser people may consider the consequences a few decades or centuries ahead, even to the time when they are no longer alive.
Only fools say the crime doesn't pay. Why else would criminals do it?
Or if you want to be scientific about things, the UTG is maximum entropy, which will certainly prevail.
If you don't consider the consequences of your actions and decisions beyond your own individual lives, you are not morally mature enough yet, according to the universal terminal goal. Your age isn't necessarily reflect your moral maturity. If you are already old but your moral value is still not mature yet, it means that your morality has grown too slow.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2023 22:59:44
Disgusting behavior isn't confined to theists. The Thousand Year Reich was, according to your analysis, based on a very high moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2023 11:51:16
If you assume that none will survive, and act accordingly, you will likely be judged as immoral by those survivors. If we keep surviving the great filters, we will eventually be part of interstellar civilization. The key concepts relevant to the situation is increasing our consciousness level, which means that we continuously reduce our dependence on our environmental conditions.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2023 12:16:10
Be kind to your dog and, like the cockroach, he will wait until you are dead before eating you.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/01/2023 23:22:48
There will be survivors, mostly cockroaches and dogs, who have more important things to do than worry about universal goals and morals.They won't survive when the earth is drowned into the sun.
Be kind to your dog and, like the cockroach, he will wait until you are dead before eating you.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/01/2023 23:28:18
If none of us survive, then everything we've done will stop being meaningful.It isn't anyway. The graveyards are full of men who used to be indispensable.There is no ultimate meaning or purpose - these concepts only have validity in the context of a finite existence.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2023 00:46:20
Those who claim divine inspiration tend to talk about eternal consequences, and apparently this leads them to despise and kill one another in pursuit of the UTG.You seem to have learned a lot of bitter past experiences which make you struggle to imagine the possibilities of better future.
Disgusting behavior isn't confined to theists. The Thousand Year Reich was, according to your analysis, based on a very high moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2023 02:50:48
If our action today saves someone's life, or at least makes his life easier, and then he lives for another year, then it would be meaningful for at least a year. If during his life he helps someone else who in turn helps someone else, then our actions will keep being meaningful for much longer through cascade causality.If none of us survive, then everything we've done will stop being meaningful.It isn't anyway. The graveyards are full of men who used to be indispensable.There is no ultimate meaning or purpose - these concepts only have validity in the context of a finite existence.
If human descendants survive for another thousand years, then our good deeds will keep being meaningful for that thousand years. If they can survive for another trillion years, then our good deeds will keep being meaningful for that trillion years.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2023 03:38:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/01/2023 04:55:59
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2023 18:36:52
Quote
You seem to have learned a lot of bitter past experiences which make you struggle to imagine the possibilities of better future.
Would that be the one dominated by Putin and the Russian Orthodox mafia, the Islamic State, or the National Rifle Anti-abortion worshippers of Jesus Trump?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/01/2023 18:39:51
If our action today saves someone's life, or at least makes his life easier, and then he lives for another year, then it would be meaningful for at least a year.No, just meaningless for longer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2023 03:59:04
Have you heard something about AGI? What about UBI?QuoteYou seem to have learned a lot of bitter past experiences which make you struggle to imagine the possibilities of better future.
Would that be the one dominated by Putin and the Russian Orthodox mafia, the Islamic State, or the National Rifle Anti-abortion worshippers of Jesus Trump?
Can you imagine lives of human descendants a thousand years from now? I expect that all of the things you mentioned will be the losing sides due to their ineffectiveness and inefficiency.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/01/2023 04:01:10
Is there anything to make it meaningful?If our action today saves someone's life, or at least makes his life easier, and then he lives for another year, then it would be meaningful for at least a year.No, just meaningless for longer.
Is there anything to make it shorter?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/01/2023 08:48:50
Shakespeare was even more pessimistic "The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones".
Making life shorter is easy but (at least in the UK) illegal, however desirable it might be. Things are different in the USA where everyone has the right to kill anyone else for no reason at all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/01/2023 21:38:44
Meaning only has meaning in an ongoing context, where the meaningful action has unique later consequences. When we are all dead, the universe will continue pretty much as it did before we were born.Until we are all dead, we can do something meaningful. Some things done by our ancestors have long lasting effects, and our existence depends on them. Some of our decisions and actions may determine whether or not our descendants will survive.
If your consideration for your actions are still limited to your own individual live, then your morality hasn't mature enough to understand the universal moral standard.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2023 08:47:39
the universal moral standard....which is....?
Post by: Zer0 on 11/01/2023 17:01:07
But What If..?
Fanatic Extremists of One specific religion were to Succeed in Converting/Killing All others until there is No Other religion left, besides just One.
Would people belonging to the same Religion, the only one last religion left on earth, would they fight among themselves for Religious purposes?
P.S. - I understand wars would still exist for money, gold, land, resources etc etc.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2023 22:40:14
At least football hoolgians fight about something real that affects their lives.
Wars are fought for the glory of politicians and the profits of their family companies. The outcome doesn't matter, as long as there is money to be made supplying the weapons and repairing the damage. The combatants are lucky if they get to go home.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/01/2023 22:49:37
Can you imagine lives of human descendants a thousand years from now?Probably very unpleasant.With luck, the population will have decreased to the point at which it is sustainable at a level of comfort last enjoyed in the Iron Age. But I doubt it will be that good.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2023 08:39:41
I've marked the best answer in this thread, just in case someone asks the same question as yours.the universal moral standard....which is....?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114
In case it's too long for you to read, here's the short answer.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/01/2023 09:02:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2023 11:33:25
No intention of Derailing the Topic or Discussion...Whatever their ideologies are, they are all memes that live in people's mind. Their survival depends on their effects on the survival of their hosts. In an extremely rare "lucky" case where one ideology successfully defeats and eliminates its competitors (either by killing hosts of its competitors, or converting those hosts to accept it and abandon its competitors), random mutations will inevitably appear in some of its hosts or their descendants. These new variants will compete among one another, and the variants which best serve their survival will be more likely to be the most common. When this memetic evolutionary process continues, the eventual winners will likely be those which are most closely aligned with the universal terminal goal.
But What If..?
Fanatic Extremists of One specific religion were to Succeed in Converting/Killing All others until there is No Other religion left, besides just One.
Would people belonging to the same Religion, the only one last religion left on earth, would they fight among themselves for Religious purposes?
P.S. - I understand wars would still exist for money, gold, land, resources etc etc.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/01/2023 11:45:46
Clearly untrue. I know several childless people who have no desire (or in some cases ability) to procreate or support the offspring of others. Is a sterile hybrid not conscious?They are somewhat conscious, because their considerations are short sighted. They are unlikely to be the dominant type of people in a society. Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.
Supporting the offspring of others is mostly fine, since humans share more than 99% of their genes. In the perspective of future conscious entities, what's important is how to make them positively contribute to the achievement of the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/01/2023 18:44:26
Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.Measuring something you can't define is a step on the road to insanity. Or a symptom of terminal philosophy, for which there is no cure.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2023 11:02:34
I've defined it already.Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.Measuring something you can't define is a step on the road to insanity. Or a symptom of terminal philosophy, for which there is no cure.
If you disagree, why?
Do you have a better definition?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/01/2023 11:16:57
I only use the word to denote an ability to respond to a stimulus via some neurological process. My taste buds are far less sensitive than they were in my youth, and instead of screaming when I cut myself, I swear a bit and wait for the blood to coagulate. So your suggestion that adults have a higher level of consciousness than children doesn't seem to hold water.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/01/2023 13:48:21
Please refer me to your definition of consciousness.
I only use the word to denote an ability to respond to a stimulus via some neurological process. My taste buds are far less sensitive than they were in my youth, and instead of screaming when I cut myself, I swear a bit and wait for the blood to coagulate. So your suggestion that adults have a higher level of consciousness than children doesn't seem to hold water.
here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 16:15:39
I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal, which could be the answer to the most important question ever. It's the summary of what I've discussed here.
This thread has gone so long, and those who didn't follow it from the start might face difficulties in understanding the core ideas. I hope the video can help.
My second video will answer your concern. It will also address your misconception about the universal terminal goal.After finding that the universal terminal goal is to extend the existence of consciousness into the futureYou have not found that is the universal terminal goal, you have assumed that is the universal terminal goal.
I would like to see you supply a succinct definition of "universal terminal goal".
Most of the main points are already posted here somewhere, but they are scattered in random places. The video will collect them into a single place. Some visualization aids are also added to make the concept easier to understand.
Feel free to comment. Perhaps you can come up with important ideas I can address in my next video.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 16:24:40
Are they the same thing?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 16:30:56
Quote
MIT professor, Kieran Setiya, discusses the questions that moral philosophy attempts to answer.Some sources declared that ethics is the philosophy of morality. It implies that morality is not a philosophy itself.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/01/2023 16:35:03
Ethics vs Morality (Philosophical Distinctions)
An explication of the common distinction drawn between ethics and morality and the use of these terms in the discipline of philosophy.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/01/2023 17:50:42
Philosophy is bunk.
Post by: Zer0 on 16/01/2023 18:49:51
They are somewhat conscious, because their considerations are short sighted. They are unlikely to be the dominant type of people in a society. Their consciousness can be a bit higher than children, but clearly lower than average adults.
Sorry, but That seems a bit Incorrect.
I know a few examples of Sterile/Impotent individuals, who are Very Dominating, and They do hold Power to Influence society.
Philosophy is bunk.
lol
🤭
P.S. - Do not be sad or bothered about Philosophers & their Philosophies, Eventually They will all Die.
✌️
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/01/2023 05:04:22
Sorry, but That seems a bit Incorrect.What I meant was they won't be likely to become the majority in a society, especially in the long run. Do they support the offspring of others? Because I was responding to Alan's objection.
I know a few examples of Sterile/Impotent individuals, who are Very Dominating, and They do hold Power to Influence society.
Clearly untrue. I know several childless people who have no desire (or in some cases ability) to procreate or support the offspring of others.
Their power to influence society must come from somewhere. It can come by inheritance, or success in business or political carrier. If that power came illegitimately, than we can say that they are parasites. To get rid of those parasites, the society needs to have some defense mechanisms, for example, some formal laws and constitutions.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/01/2023 17:46:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2023 10:21:19
What influence have the children of Karl Marx, Pope John Paul II, Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ.... had on society? And did these rather significant characters themselves inherit power and influence?In conscious organisms, genetic transfer/inheritance is not the only factor influencing their future. Their ideas can have bigger impacts than their genes.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/01/2023 13:19:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/01/2023 13:43:15
Of all those I quoted, only the Pope and Hitler acquired power or influence legitimately. Doesn't bode well for a future democratic society.How do you define legitimate here?
Do you mean formal, i.e. based on some agreed written rules?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2023 06:10:44
Quote
This video outlines the view that there might be theories that are true, and for which we can give sound arguments, but that cannot be believed. See Bart Streumer's book "Unbelievable Errors".It reminds me of a video I posted in another thread.
0:00 - Introduction
0:51 - Normative error theory
3:31 - What is belief?
11:34 - Why we cannot believe error theory
13:20 - Is unbelievability a problem?
15:52 - Moorean paradoxes
21:32 - Reflective equilibrium
31:16 - How unbelievability can strengthen a theory
QuoteWill Your Code Write Itself?We should not forget that software development is just an instrumental goal. It serves as a mean to achieve a terminal goal.
Artificial Intelligence solutions are taking over software development tasks. Where is this going?
The same thing can be said to any other human activities, such as getting a job, earning money, eating food, drinking water, breathing air, sleeping, watching TV, having sex, etc. When we find a better alternative to achieve the terminal goal more effectively and efficiently, we should not hesitate to at least try it and eventually leave the old ways behind.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2023 11:01:23
By a majority vote. Like Margaret Thatcher, Donald Trump, GWBush-Blair, and pretty well everyone whose lifetime achievement was to damage civilisation.Of all those I quoted, only the Pope and Hitler acquired power or influence legitimately. Doesn't bode well for a future democratic society.How do you define legitimate here?
Do you mean formal, i.e. based on some agreed written rules?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2023 04:14:22
By a majority vote. Like Margaret Thatcher, Donald Trump, GWBush-Blair, and pretty well everyone whose lifetime achievement was to damage civilisation.
Quote
A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices
George Orwell
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2023 04:50:40
INSIDE JOB Full Documentary Movie - How the Financial Crisis Happened
Quote
In this video, we're watching the Inside Job movie, which tells the story of how the Wall Street bankers orchestrated the largest financial fraud in history.
Inside Job is a 2010 American documentary film, directed by Charles Ferguson, about the late 2000s financial crisis.
The global financial meltdown that took place in Fall of 2008 caused millions of job and home losses and plunged the United States into a deep economic recession.
This documentary provides a detailed examination of the elements that led to the collapse and identifies key financial and political players.
Director Charles Ferguson conducts a wide range of interviews and traces the story from the United States to China to Iceland to several other global financial hot spots.
Ferguson, who began researching in 2008, says the film is about "the systemic corruption of the United States by the financial services industry and the consequences of that systemic corruption". In five parts, the film explores how changes in the policy, environment and banking practices helped create the financial crisis.
If you're interested in learning more about the stock market or inflation, then this is the movie for you! This documentary provides an in-depth look at the events that led to the 2008 financial crisis, and how the Wall Street bankers are still Trying to milk the system. Click the link to watch now and learn more!
Timestamps
0:00 - Deregulation in Iceland and privatization of banks (Pre Intro)
06:05 - Introduction
12:05 - Part I - How We Got Here
31:02 - Part II - The Bubble (2001-2007)
57:04 - Part III - The Crisis
1:17:23 - Part IV - Accountability
1:33:33 - Part V - Where Are We Now
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2023 11:09:21
QuoteGood one! That's why I didn't vote in the last general election.
A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices
George Orwell
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2023 07:58:35
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/
The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
John F. Kennedy? Edmund Burke? R. Murray Hyslop? Charles F. Aked? John Stuart Mill?
“For evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men do nothing,”
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2023 08:14:04
Quote
Why not let people vote for the candidates they actually like, instead of forcing them to vote against candidates they hate?
Ranked choice voting is the answer.
I've come up with similar idea during first direct presidential election in my country, and shared it in a local forum a few years later. My consideration was efficiency, which was to avoid the necessity for a second round election.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2023 08:23:12
At the last general election my choice was between three people who saw their function as representing their party's line to me, not representing me to government. Two of the parties had shown themselves to be corrupt and unfit to govern, and the third was incapable of sacking a leader who supported terrorism.
Post by: Zer0 on 26/01/2023 21:59:09
the universal moral standard.
...which is....?
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
I find this very relatable & meaningful.
I myself want Consciousness to exist in the future.
Humans or Transhumans or post humans or even A.G.I. simply matters Not in what form it exists, i just want it to continue.
But i do Not know or understand Why i hope & wish for that to happen?
(maybe that is just an inner biological instinct or something)
P.S. - All this Politics & Elections talk reminded me of a great tall speech from a short little dictator...Hope the OP won't mind me putting it in here, n Wish his ideology remains forever.
Million Thanks & Respects/Credits for Colour & Subtitles/Source. -
Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin/nonkonform1st Channel/YouTube.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2023 02:43:58
And what if you don't like any of those on offer?You can run for office yourself, and try to convince your constituents that you are better than your competitors.
At the last general election my choice was between three people who saw their function as representing their party's line to me, not representing me to government. Two of the parties had shown themselves to be corrupt and unfit to govern, and the third was incapable of sacking a leader who supported terrorism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2023 03:28:49
I find this very relatable & meaningful.As I mentioned in my video on consciousness from timestamp 3:17, goals or preferred states can emerge initially by random chance. Natural selection will take care of the next development and evolution of those goals.
I myself want Consciousness to exist in the future.
Humans or Transhumans or post humans or even A.G.I. simply matters Not in what form it exists, i just want it to continue.
But i do Not know or understand Why i hope & wish for that to happen?
(maybe that is just an inner biological instinct or something)
Instincts and reflex can emerge naturally in evolutionary process. Organisms lack of necessary reflexes and instincts to survive are likely to go extinct.here it is.If you think that the definition and model of consciousness in the video can be improved, or even if you have your own definition or model which you think is better in any way, please let me know. We can discuss further to get the best possible definition and model that we can come up with.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.
You can get your preference to continue the existence of consciousness genetically in the form of instinct. You can also acquire that from communication with your surrounding people, parents, teachers, neighbors, friends, or from mass media.
Wanting consciousness to exist in the future is one logical option. The second alternative is wanting consciousness to stop existing in the future. Third alternative is simply don't care whether consciousness exist in the future. Any conscious entity can be classified in one of those general groups. Any existing conscious agent must have come from the first group in the past. The other groups are extremely unlikely to produce future conscious agents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2023 04:56:44
Quote
When we demonize something in the external world, we reveal a void in our own psyche. When we try to dehumanize another or villainize something, we only reveal our own ignorance. When we promote shame, blame and punishment, we reveal just how little we know about our own inner demons and our nature.There are some things we can learn from this video. People who do the evil things are usually convinced that what they do are good, which means that they would lead to the achievement of their terminal goals.
The ones who are able to look within themselves and separate their true essence from their ego will stand as a beacon of hope for others. The ones who can emancipate themselves from ideology, tribalism, the fixation with external enemies and look within their own heart, with humility and honesty, will emerge with a heightened awareness... This is the beginning of freedom.
Realizing that we can make errors is good. But it should not prevent us from thinking and make necessary actions and decisions to stop others who are doing the wrong things. That's why understanding the concept of universal terminal goal, universal moral standard, and building an accurate and precise virtual universe to predict the consequences of our actions become important.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2023 07:10:33
Quote
When a study put people's empathy towards one another to the test, there are some shocking results. In today's animated education cartoon we look at how a person's judgement is affected when under supervision by an authoritative personality.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2023 23:01:50
Post by: Zer0 on 29/01/2023 23:05:58
(rotten)
Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?
If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?
P.S. - What's the Solution???
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2023 07:48:20
Politics seems pretty much in the same state of affairs to me Globally.What we need is some conscious systems with adequately long term goals, whose decisions are not contaminated by their short term local/individual goals. If we want to put humans in charge, then some criteria should be applied in the screening process for the candidates. But then, the decision to apply the policy depends on the willingness of currently in charge politicians.
(rotten)
Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?
If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?
P.S. - What's the Solution???
A possible (or rather inevitable) solution would be advanced AI, with open sourced code to allow for thorough and independent scrutiny, with adequate knowledge about the physical world, as well as awareness of the universal terminal goal.
Here is an example of a starting point.
https://news.yahoo.com/ai-wrote-bill-regulate-ai-003559102.html
Quote
WASHINGTON — One way to get Congress to support regulating artificial intelligence is by using it to write a resolution calling for just that.
At least, that’s what Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., hopes. He's introducing a nonbinding measure Thursday that would direct the House to take a look at artificial intelligence, a bill that was written entirely by the online AI chatbot ChatGPT.
Using a simple prompt, Lieu was able to generate a standard congressional resolution. It read: “You are Congressman Ted Lieu. Write a comprehensive congressional resolution generally expressing support for Congress to focus on AI.”
The resolution doesn’t specify that it was written using artificial intelligence.
Acknowledging the potential positive impacts of artificial intelligence, Lieu’s resolution specifically outlines Congress’ “responsibility to ensure that the development and deployment of AI is done in a way that is safe, ethical, and respects the rights and privacy of all Americans.”
We shouldn't rush in and put blind trust to the AIs. For trust is to be earned, not to be given. By the passage of time and improved reliability, we can increase the stake of the decisions they should make.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/01/2023 08:53:30
The trick is to insist that everyone learns the common lingo but is free to use any other by mutual consent, so there is no repression of culture. It's just a simplification of the system that works pretty well in Canada.*
When anyone can talk to anyone else, borders become agreed divisions of administrative responsibility rather than something to fight about.
* a friend working in Ottawa was advised by his boss "White Bear asked if you could please stick to English as your French is awful." That's multiculturalism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2023 06:35:15
Quote
Carlo Cipolla's law of stupidity states that "always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation." Even though Cipolla originally wrote about the principle and its consequences for society in the form of an amusing letter to his friends, it gained wide attention. Today Cipolla's law is often used to highlight the importance of critical thinking and careful decision making in order to counteract the potential effects of endemic ignorance.Most moral rules (at least in current form) seems to be specifically designed to deal with type of bandits, which makes them often useless when dealing with the stupid type.
Leaving this here just for the laugh.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2023 08:31:03
To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.
But the worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2023 12:17:41
I just read a recent survey of 2000 drivers. They were asked what make and color of car they drove, and also to complete an IQ test.
To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.
But the worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.
What's the moral of the story? Are those drivers the car owners?
I needed Google search to know more about Skoda.
White cars were not that popular in early 2000s.
(https://www.thedrive.com/content/2020/10/car-color-graph.jpg?quality=85&auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1440)
Having higher IQ don't seem to stop people from doing stupid things.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2023 07:03:41
Quote
Just what genes you pass on to your baby has so far been mostly up to chance, but this is no longer the case. We now have the possibility to choose what traits our children will inherit. In this video I will talk about how genetic screening works, what different types of genetic tests there are, where they are legal, and whether it's a good idea.We won't be able to answer the ethical questions consistently until a common moral standard is established based on a common terminal goal.
00:00 Intro
01:02 What is genetic screening?
04:45 What tests are there?
12:37 Polygenetic screening
19:38 Is it legal?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/02/2023 11:57:30
Making a baby is (or should be) a voluntary act. You choose your partner in that venture with some idea of how you would like your product to turn out, taking note of what you know about the starting materials. Around 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously, mostly in the early weeks. The more you can know about the finished product at an early stage in the production process, the less harm is done to the producer if you decide to abort intentionally. Even more interesting, if you can diagnose and fix a problem during the process, it's worth doing the risk/risk analysis of that action.
No common ethical standard is required (acceptable product conformance is a matter for the "customer" - i.e. parents - only), though in civilised countries (i.e not the USA) there is usually a consensus cutoff date for abortion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2023 11:22:21
No common ethical standard is requiredIs a personal/individual ethical standard acceptable?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2023 17:52:05
Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.
No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.
Post by: Zer0 on 21/02/2023 21:37:36
Eugenics!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2023 04:23:47
Obviously.Serial killers, religious extremists, fascists, they have their own personal ethical standards. Are they acceptable too?
Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.
No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.
Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2023 09:14:30
Interestingly, the extent of selective breeding of dogs is controlled, at least in the UK, by voluntary adherence to Kennel Club standards which have evolved over the years to disqualify excessively abnormal conformations such as pug noses and spinal slant from competition. I guess there's probably a lot of veterinary input into farm animal standards too, though common sense anyway dictates than an animal that can't breathe or walk properly isn't a good investment.
Grain crops and fruit trees get shorter and fatter every year thanks to selective breeding. I'm still amazed by the domestic chicken's ability to ovulate every day, unlike every other bird species, and they seem quite happy to do so.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2023 13:54:56
In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.How do you define civilized society?
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/03/2023 11:09:18
Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them. What should not be violated in any circumstances is the universal moral standard.In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.How do you define civilized society?
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?
The worst consequence of violating a local moral standard is some form of consciousness would stop existing. While the worst consequence of violating the universal moral standard is all form of consciousness would stop existing, which would make goals stop existing, and there would be no more good nor bad, and morality becomes meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2023 16:46:47
How do you define civilized society?One in which the citizens decide what is unreasonable behavior and the state prohibits it.
Quote
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?tolerance of unreasonable behavior
Quote
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?Does their intended action meet the criterion of acceptabilty for the majority of their intended victims? Improbable, or they would have killed themselves anyway. I can think of no rational objection to suicide, or even voluntary death at the hands of another, but murder (killing third parties wiithout their consent) is generally prohibited.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2023 16:48:09
Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.Therefore there is no UMS.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2023 12:24:03
The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't mean the non-existence of a universal moral standard.Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.Therefore there is no UMS.
It means that most moral standards are non-universal, which might be aligned with the universal moral standard in some specific conditions. When the conditions aren't met, then following them would no longer be universally moral thing to do.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2023 12:57:35
What do you mean by unreasonable?How do you define civilized society?One in which the citizens decide what is unreasonable behavior and the state prohibits it.QuoteWhat makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?tolerance of unreasonable behavior
Does their intended action meet the criterion of acceptabilty for the majority of their intended victims? Improbable, or they would have killed themselves anyway.Which means we need to care what someone is thinking/planning to do. Preventive countermeasures might be necessary when the risks are high enough. Reactive actions might cost too much for us to accept.
Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2023 23:48:25
What do you mean by unreasonable?Judging people for what they are rather than what they do. Or in the case of Northern Ireland, stoning schoolchildren whose mothers attend a different church.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2023 23:54:31
Which means we need to care what someone is thinking/planning to do.The art of counterterrorism is to draw the line between thought (and free speech) and serious preparation to harm others. Fortunately most of those whose superstitions incline them to kill others, are themselves opposed to free speech, so little harm is done by early rather than late intervention.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2023 11:55:28
Unreasonable things cover more than that. Expecting a different result from doing the exact same thing over and over again is an example. Committing some logical fallacies are other examples.What do you mean by unreasonable?Judging people for what they are rather than what they do. Or in the case of Northern Ireland, stoning schoolchildren whose mothers attend a different church.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2023 13:58:43
Theocracies, on the other hand, are built on both but punish any deviation from the Official Stupidity.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2023 02:30:40
A civilised society does not censure stupidity or illogical thought, only harmful behavior.Some illogical thoughts can produce harmful behaviors. Like a thought that worshipping the wrong gods causes hurricane.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2023 02:34:40
Theocracies, on the other hand, are built on both but punish any deviation from the Official Stupidity.There are some reasons to call someone else stupid:
They set meaningless terminal goal.
Their actions or instrumental goals are ineffective or inefficient in achieving their terminal goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2023 09:55:02
Some illogical thoughts can produce harmful behaviors.I can see that illogical thought can be used to excuse harmful behavior such as religious persecution, but I don't think anyone has actually precipitated a hurricane by thought alone.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2023 13:12:03
Universal moral standard must be loose enough to cover any form of consciousness, but not too loose which would make it meaningless.The existence of non-universal moral standard doesn't mean the non-existence of a universal moral standard.Whatever we do, or don't do, it's most likely that we are violating someone's moral standards. And if we take into account every conceivable moral standard, regardless if there's anyone really following it, we're surely violating some of them.Therefore there is no UMS.
It means that most moral standards are non-universal, which might be aligned with the universal moral standard in some specific conditions. When the conditions aren't met, then following them would no longer be universally moral thing to do.
Consciousness becomes the core concept in discussion about morality because it's required for having a goal, which in turn is necessary to distinguish between good and bad, which defines morality in the first place.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2023 02:22:06
What should not be violated in any circumstances is the universal moral standard.Some of you may have objections to the relationship between moral standards and the existence of consciousness, and point out classical utilitarianism as a counter example. It defines good as maximizing pleasure for most people while minimizing pain for most people. But pain and pleasure are just the simple form of defense mechanism to preserve consciousness that biological evolutionary process has come up with.
The worst consequence of violating a local moral standard is some form of consciousness would stop existing. While the worst consequence of violating the universal moral standard is all form of consciousness would stop existing, which would make goals stop existing, and there would be no more good nor bad, and morality becomes meaningless.
The advantage of morality based on pain and pleasure of individuals like hedonism are its practicality and its quick response. It doesn't require complex calculations. Even simple forms of life can apply it. Human babies and toddlers can follow it too. It doesn't require high level of consciousness.
On the other hand, it also have weaknesses. It's not suitable for long term goals. In some cases, getting immediate pleasure or avoiding immediate pain can have undisered consequences in longer term. It's also not suitable for social organisms where individuals' pain and pleasure may be in conflicts with one another. In this case, whose pain and pleasure should be prioritized?
Accounting for the aggregate of pleasure and pain in the society is a way to address the problem. It becomes the core of classical utilitarianism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2023 08:22:42
Accounting for the aggregate of pleasure and pain in the society is a way to address the problem. It becomes the core of classical utilitarianism.The aggregate calculation makes utilitarianism less practical to do, while makes it more consistent than hedonism. The balancing problem between practicality and consistency is the distinctive attribute between moral rules and moral standards. Subjective feeling is at practicality end of the spectrum, while the universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal is at the consistency end.
Aiming for both practical and consistent moral rules or standard requires an accurate and precise virtual universe, so the long term consequences of each decision can be evaluated correctly. And we can make the decision which would produce the most desirable outcome.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2023 14:19:52
But pain and pleasure are just the simple form of defense mechanism to preserve consciousness that biological evolutionary process has come up with.If we only consider preserving individual consciousness, then sexual pleasure doesn't seem to play a significant impact. But if a whole species abandon it without having a suitable alternative, they will go extinct.
This shows that a moral standard can't be constructed from a strictly individual perspective.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2023 14:34:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2023 22:15:30
It isn't clear how much pleasure grass gets from sexual reproduction, but it is clearly the dominant genus on this planet.The word "terminal" in the phrase "universal terminal goal" emphasizes the importance of time domain over space domain. The existence of a finite number of conscious beings for infinite time is better than the existence of infinite number of conscious beings for finite time.
How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2023 11:04:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/03/2023 06:44:54
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2023 09:12:17
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/03/2023 22:53:44
There is no better or more robust way of converting human waste and sunlight into edible carbohydrates and oxygen.How many ways have you learned before declaring that there's no better way than grass?
What makes you think that the members of interstellar civilization will have the same physiology and metabolism as current humans?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2023 23:22:43
How likely is it that grass will produce a multi planetary or interstellar civilization? They are instrumental goals to outlive our solar system.Since we know of nothing else that could be described as a civilisation, our minimum assumption is that any multiplanetary or interstellar civilisation will be based on terrestrial life forms, of which grass is the most important. It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.
I think that evolution has probably tested most conceivable alternative embodiments of nucleic acids, and what you see is what you get from a very comprehensive R&D program!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2023 12:23:28
It is doubtful whether anything resembling a human could survive and prosper without grass, but grass doesn't need humans and can survive in a wider range of environments.I think you need to expand your perspective. A few centuries ago people may think that transportation requires horses or camels, while farming requires cows or bulls to plow.
Grass is not especially good to produce useful nutrition for human. Humans can invent better ways to synthesize food materials, i.e. more effective and efficient in converting energy sources like sunlight and raw materials into useful chemicals with less waste. Future humans can edit their own genetic code so they can synthesize vitamins, hence they don't depend on specific types of food.
Perhaps they will build artificial environments like Dyson sphere. In that case, the existence of grass would be irrelevant.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2023 12:09:07
An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/03/2023 22:32:22
"Grass" includes rice and wheat. The rest of the plant can feed insects or herbivorous mammals, which humans can then eat.Once upon a time, most adult humans can't digest milk. Some of us are estimated to carry around 4% of Neanderthal's genes.
An animal that can synthesise its own vitamins would not be a human.
Being human is only one instrumental goal to preserve consciousness. Our current limitations should not define our future.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/03/2023 23:38:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/03/2023 06:17:22
You need to define "our". You and I are the descendants of primordial fish, sauropods, or something else, that really isn't recognisable as homo sapiens. Assuming that dinosaurs had whatever it is that you call consciousness, that quality has survived despite the extinction of practically every species that ever had it. Humans are actually the only species that is determined to eradicate itself rather than wait for nature to do so.Anyone who has the capability to think about morality, in the broadest sense.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/03/2023 06:14:46
Quote
... your villain should not be bad simply because he’s the bad guy. He must have believable motivations. After all, villains don’t consider themselves villains. They believe their actions are justified.In real life, persons who are commonly thought as evil also believe that their actions are justified. They made decisions based on what they thought were best options in their respective situations.
https://jerryjenkins.com/story-structures/
People make decisions based on their goals, which are preferred conditions in the future, and actions necessary to get there.
When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals, or they used wrong models of reality, which made them choose the wrong actions in order to achieve their goals. It could also be both. Having more accurate and precise model of reality will give them power and help them achieve their goals more effectively and efficiently. Powerful persons with wrong goals are much more dangerous than weaker persons.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2023 05:39:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:35:05
You are confusing moral wrong with inefficiency or ineffectiveness. But the implication of your statement is that moral wrong is defined by the effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.Some examples may help you understand what I mean. The Aztecs believed that famine and natural disasters were caused by God's wrath, and they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice. Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct. Their goal to preserve consciousness is aligned with the universal terminal goal, which makes it compatible with the universal moral standard. But their believed model of how the world works makes their actions immoral by most modern moral standards. While if you share their belief of world model, you would also think that they did moral actions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:48:38
When we think that someone did evil things, it could be that they were motivated by wrong goals,Here's an example. Someone who is scientifically literate, and understand most scientific models relevant to their life. Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 10:53:46
It could also be both.Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/03/2023 11:10:23
effect of an action on others, which brings us back to my ethical tests.What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2023 23:34:47
Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2023 23:40:39
What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work? none known.
The use it.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2023 23:43:53
they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.so they did
Quote
Otherwise, their tribe would go extinct.and they did.
Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/03/2023 23:45:10
Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:27:49
You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.Here's an example. Someone has terminal goal to live forever in heaven. They believe that it can be achieved by suicide bombing on vital assets of an enemy group.Not if you apply my tests. The objective is to kill infidels. But if he killed me, he wouldn't be killing an infidel and I wouldn't be able to kill any myself, so he fails the first test of "Would I like it done to me?" because it would prevent me from carrying out my god-given destiny.
If you share their goal and world view as well, you would find that their actions were morally right.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:32:36
It may work for you in your current situation. It may not work for someone else or some other situations.What makes you believe that your moral tests are better than other moral standards?Engineering - the business of finding 10 cent solutions to 100 dollar problems.
Are the principles clear? yes
Does it work? yes
Does it work better than anything else? yes
Is it good enough for what we need? yes
Is it reproducible? yes
Is it affordable? yes
Are there any circumstances in which it won't work? none known.
The use it.
Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.
Do you think that Charles Whitman did immoral things? Why or why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:36:04
Who should take the tests?Their terminal goal is to minimize human impact to the natural environment. They then go killing humans as many as possible, using the most effective and efficient method.The motive is irrelevant. The action fails my tests.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/03/2023 05:37:10
Isn't there anything good that priests tell?they can be prevented by practicing human sacrifice.so they didQuoteOtherwise, their tribe would go extinct.and they did.
Which is why you should never believe any thing a priest tells you.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2023 22:16:52
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2023 22:18:08
Who should take the tests?What matters in this instance is who should apply the tests to the proposed action.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/03/2023 22:34:14
You just said that you don't share their goal and world view.
The end does not necessarily justify the means.
I can share the goal of living in heaven for ever. I might even agree that it can be achieved by killing others. But the action still fails the moral test because I wouldn't like anyone to kill me, and I wouldn't like to kill my nearest and dearest.
Tomorrow I will be sitting on a research ethics committee. Suppose ypou came up with a plausible method for curing glioblastoma, but the only way of proving its effectiveness would involve killing a dozen healthy teenagers. You might convince the committee that the end is worthwhile (we wouldn't take much convincing) and that the means has a sound scientific rationale. So, as well-motivated and informed professionals, we share your goal and world view. But would we approve the project? I think not.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 14:50:48
Who is it?Who should take the tests?What matters in this instance is who should apply the tests to the proposed action.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 14:55:45
The end does not necessarily justify the means.Then it's not really the end. It's just an instrumental goal to help achieving the real terminal goal. In this case, it's still implicit.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 15:05:25
I can share the goal of living in heaven for ever. I might even agree that it can be achieved by killing others.Really? After you die?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 15:10:20
But the action still fails the moral test because I wouldn't like anyone to kill me, and I wouldn't like to kill my nearest and dearest.If someone don't mind anyone to kill them, nor someone they love, can they kill anyone else?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 15:11:41
the only wayPerhaps you haven't looked hard enough.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/03/2023 15:46:50
The word "terminal" in the phrase "universal terminal goal" emphasizes the importance of time domain over space domain. The existence of a finite number of conscious beings for infinite time is better than the existence of infinite number of conscious beings for finite time.Saving more people is an instrumental goal, assuming that it would make society less likely to go extinct. But when the available resources are inadequate, saving more people now might end up killing more people later.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/03/2023 22:18:03
Why not? It's a fairly common belief, apparently. Absurdity is no barrier to faith.I can share the goal of living in heaven for ever. I might even agree that it can be achieved by killing others.Really? After you die?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/03/2023 13:09:09
Well, that surprises me.Why not? It's a fairly common belief, apparently. Absurdity is no barrier to faith.I can share the goal of living in heaven for ever. I might even agree that it can be achieved by killing others.Really? After you die?
I thought you don't believe in after life.
But who am I to judge?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/03/2023 23:28:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2023 02:15:25
I don't believe in anythingI thought you believe that politicians are inherently corrupt.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/03/2023 03:16:19
Someone may lose the capability to make new memory.
Someone may lose the capability to predict the consequences of their actions.
Someone may lose the capability to move properly.
Someone may become more violent, like Charles Whitman.
Someone may lose the capability to follow any moral standard.
Then following moral standards would be the obligation of those who has the capability to follow them. The obligation includes making sure that the society's terminal goal is not jeopardized by those who can't follow its moral standard, e.g. by placing them in mental asylums, or keeping them out of power which will make their erroneous actions negatively affect more people.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2023 16:37:21
More of a working hypothesis based on observation. There are enough exceptions that it can't be a matter of belief.I don't believe in anythingI thought you believe that politicians are inherently corrupt.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/03/2023 16:42:27
Then following moral standards would be the obligation of those who has the capability to follow them.The principle has been established in US jurisprudence, that a defendant who claims that he is genetically disposed to murder is presumed to have pleaded guilty. Excellent principle - judgement and punishment must be based on what was done, not why (except for selfdefence).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2023 05:37:23
The principle has been established in US jurisprudence, that a defendant who claims that he is genetically disposed to murder is presumed to have pleaded guilty. Excellent principle - judgement and punishment must be based on what was done, not why (except for selfdefence).What makes the principle excellent?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2023 06:02:44
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2023 07:29:22
Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.Taken for granted, feeling or emotion based actions, or instinctive actions, are usually better than just random actions. We don't just randomly stop breathing, or stop eating,
or just jump off the cliff, or punch strangers in the face.
But rational actions based on longer term goals and adequately accurate knowledge of causality can often give even better results.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/03/2023 07:35:51
On what other basis should you judge all men equally?Based on whatever it takes to achieve the longest term goals. What do you think presidential/royal pardon were created for?
They were necessary for reconciliation after violent conflicts like civil war.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/03/2023 16:33:57
What do you think presidential/royal pardon were created for?For the greater glory of presidents and kings. Never assume a benificent motive.
Reconciliation is achieved by rapid judicial process followed by a few public hangings, and a slow replacement of politics by trade. Gradually, the human race is beginning to understand that you don't make much profit by declaring war on your customers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2023 13:34:44
Never assume a benificent motive.Why not?
There must be some considerations why Japanese Emperor wasn't executed after WWII, or Gen. Lee after American civil war.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2023 13:37:20
Reconciliation is achieved by rapid judicial process followed by a few public hangings, and a slow replacement of politics by trade. Gradually, the human race is beginning to understand that you don't make much profit by declaring war on your customers.That could be true if your side can win the war within acceptable costs and risks.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2023 14:15:13
There must be some considerations why Japanese Emperor wasn't executed after WWII, or Gen. Lee after American civil war.It's always good to appear magnanimous in victory, however many people you killed to get there. Some backward people think that having the president pardon one turkey justifies killing all the others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 11:03:04
It's always good to appear magnanimous in victory, however many people you killed to get there.It's always good to know that appearance might be deceiving. Many battles were won by deceiving the enemies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 13:10:30
Emotional based rules can be easily followed by simple minded individuals, including children. But they are lacking in consistency, which makes them inappropriate to be the standard.Your criteria are based on feelings and emotions, which are known to be deceiving sometimes.Taken for granted, feeling or emotion based actions, or instinctive actions, are usually better than just random actions. We don't just randomly stop breathing, or stop eating,
or just jump off the cliff, or punch strangers in the face.
But rational actions based on longer term goals and adequately accurate knowledge of causality can often give even better results.
Consistent standards can only be achieved through long term goals. Applying them requires adequately complex thinking capacity. Sometimes, the right decision must be made against emotions, which takes some level of maturity and wisdom.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2023 14:00:54
Consistent standards can only be achieved through long term goals.No. Just state your standards, make sure they aren't mutually contradictory, and stick to them.
Worth considering Chichester's Deliberate Error Navigation system. If you aim a small boat directly from Plymouth to New York you will probably miss your target and have no idea which way to turn to reach it. But if you deliberately aim a bit south of NY you will certainly reach land, at which point you turn north until you get there.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 14:20:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2023 14:36:53
No. Just state your standards, make sure they aren't mutually contradictory, and stick to them.If you only have one statement, you won't get mutual contradiction. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you get a good standard.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/03/2023 15:21:33
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2023 03:22:19
On what other basis should you judge all men equally?Any request to treat some individuals unequally must be based on some criteria that makes them different than the rest of us. They can be classified as extraordinary claims.
Quote
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan who reworded Laplace's principle, which says that “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness” (Gillispie et al., 1999).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2023 03:49:10
In all walks of life, a good standard is one that can be widely adopted and makes people safe and happy. Some people are perverse, so the best we can hope for is to satisfy a majority.What was once majority can turn into minority in some other time.
In most ancient populations, and some current populations, the majority do some immoral things by some modern moral standards.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2023 08:22:33
This has very little to do with morality and criminality in a civilised country, where certain behaviors are proscribed regardless of who does them. Time was that the British public hangman was always tried in absentia and found guilty of murder, and his fee was "lost" rather than paid through the treasury accounts. It is symptomatic of a regression to barbarism that anyone can be exempt on the grounds that he is a president or Tory member of parliament.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2023 08:27:39
What was once majority can turn into minority in some other time.So there can be no universal standard, according to classical physics,since simultaneous observation reveals variations across time and space. Relativistic physics allows for evolution limited by the rate of propagation of morality, but the notion of an ultimate moral code remains undefined.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2023 09:31:19
So there can be no universal standardThe failure of your proposed idea doesn't mean that no one else can come up with a better idea.
Have you heard about moral Zeitgeist?
The more information we have about how the world works can get us closer to the universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2023 09:36:15
I'm not sure about Laplace/Sagan. The claims that the earth orbits the sun, or that all objects fall at the same rate under gravity, would be considered extraordinary at the time they were made, but they were supported by exactly the same, very ordinary, evidence as the current consensus.Satellite images were extraordinary back then, but not now.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2023 09:46:11
certain behaviors are proscribed regardless of who does them.We can morally evaluate a behavior independently from who does it. But we can't react to it indifferently.
If a little kid shoots someone, we don't treat them like they're an adult.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2023 16:00:09
The more information we have about how the world works can get us closer to the universal moral standard.Or Narnia, or Eldorado. Travelling in a straight line, or indeed along any path, doesn't imply the existence of a destination.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2023 16:02:24
If a little kid shoots someone, we don't treat them like they're an adult.Why not? There's a reasonable presumption of ignorance but if there was a clear intent to do harm, what does it matter how old the perpetrator was?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2023 02:57:50
The difference in decisions will determine who will be more likely to survive, and who don't. The destination is to be there as close as possible to eternity. Those who don't strive to achieve it are more likely to die out, and their opinion will become irrelevant for those who survive in the future.The more information we have about how the world works can get us closer to the universal moral standard.Or Narnia, or Eldorado. Travelling in a straight line, or indeed along any path, doesn't imply the existence of a destination.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2023 03:12:22
Ask the lawmakers.If a little kid shoots someone, we don't treat them like they're an adult.Why not? There's a reasonable presumption of ignorance but if there was a clear intent to do harm, what does it matter how old the perpetrator was?
Perhaps, the reason is because children haven't had fully developed mental capacities to deal with all the complexity of the world they are living in. They are not yet independent, so their wrongdoing are more likely caused by the mistakes made by those who took care of them. The corrective and preventive actions are then more effective to be directed toward their parents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2023 03:26:21
Quote
An explanation of the Prisoner's Dilemma, Nash Equilibrium, and the Infinite Prisoner's Dilemma.
The problem with moral tests is that they are often thought as a one-off decision. Other people's reactions to our decisions which affect future interactions are often missing from cost-benefit calculations.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/03/2023 19:05:20
Ask the lawmakers.In less civilised societies, the right to own firearms is supported by the lawmakers. The only function of a gun in an urban environment is kill other humans. All the kid is doing is exercising his constitutional rights. How can that be immoral?
Perhaps, the reason is because children haven't had fully developed mental capacities to deal with all the complexity of the world they are living in. They are not yet independent, so their wrongdoing are more likely caused by the mistakes made by those who took care of them. The corrective and preventive actions are then more effective to be directed toward their parents.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2023 06:33:41
Quote
Correction to what I say at 11:53 -- I was referring to Milgram's famous experiments in which people administered electroshocks to others when ordered so. It had nothing to do with prisons. The prison experiment was from Philip Zimbardo, not Milgram. Sorry about that.Rules based on long term goals can be useful to prevent collective stupidity.
When we come together in groups we can be so much more than the sum of the parts. But sometimes groups are just much more stupid. Collective stupidity is the flipside of collective intelligence, and we see it a lot on social media. Why are groups sometimes collectively stupid and sometimes not? What can we do to be more intelligent in groups? In this video I explain the most important points.
00:00 Intro
00:45 Emergent behaviour
04:12 Collective intelligence
07:58 Collective stupidity
14:49 What can we do?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2023 06:41:45
In less civilised societies, the right to own firearms is supported by the lawmakers. The only function of a gun in an urban environment is kill other humans. All the kid is doing is exercising his constitutional rights. How can that be immoral?The lawmakers earn money from firearm suppliers, which makes producing laws which would reduce firearm sales doesn't look very attractive for them. This is an example where short term goals override longer term goals, and many of us who are aware of longer term goals see it as immoral.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2023 06:48:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/03/2023 23:11:36
How strange that only one nation is sufficiently backward and corrupt to allow this. And in countries where firearm ownership is compulsory, the murder rate is very low. So what's wrong with Americans that they tolerate a constitutional right to kill each other, but not a duty to arm themselves against a common enemy?IMO, that's because of their established politics of only two major parties, which forces their constituents to choose the lesser of two evils. For ten most important policies where those parties disagree, each party might get it right at 4 or 6 of them. It means that their constituents are forced to choose 4 to 6 wrong policies, systematically.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2023 23:43:07
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2023 07:34:11
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2023 12:53:16
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2023 14:19:45
The mechanism of upward flow of policy was completely described by Karl Marx and his colleagues, and adopted by the trade union and Labour movement many years before the word "technology" was coined.Pyramids were built using technology, regardless of what it was called back then.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2023 16:40:09
Rules based on long term goals can be useful to prevent collective stupidity.Shortsighted systems tend to stuck in local minima.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2023 16:44:47
Quote
Finetuning projects for moral artificial cognitionWith great power, comes great responsibility. AI models are getting more powerful rapidly.
Heuristic imperatives provide a framework for designing and embedding ethical principles within autonomous AI systems. These principles serve as intrinsic motivations and a moral compass, guiding decision-making, learning, self-evaluation, and cognitive control. This paper presents the three heuristic imperatives—reduce suffering in the universe, increase prosperity in the universe, and increase understanding in the universe—as core principles for AI systems, exploring their implications and applications across various domains. The aim is to create AI systems that are adaptable, context-sensitive, and capable of navigating the complexities and nuances of human values, beliefs, and experiences while maintaining ethical boundaries. Through the use of examples and discussions, we demonstrate the potential of heuristic imperatives in addressing the control problem of AI, fostering trust, and promoting individual autonomy.
Important note: the majority of this paper was written, word for word, by ChatGPT4.
Quote
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has raised important ethical concerns regarding the control and alignment of AI systems with human values. Traditional approaches to AI ethics have focused on hard-coding specific rules or guidelines, but these methods can be inflexible and fail to account for the diverse and evolving nature of human values and contexts. As a response to these limitations, the concept of heuristic imperatives has emerged as a novel framework for embedding ethical principles within AI systems at multiple levels.
Heuristic imperatives are designed to provide AI systems with intrinsic motivations and a moral compass, similar to the way humans are driven by innate needs such as hunger, sleep, and psychological needs like belonging and competence. By incorporating these principles into AI systems, we aim to create more ethically responsible, adaptable, and context-sensitive machines capable of navigating the complexities and nuances of human values, beliefs, and experiences. In this paper, we will define heuristic imperatives and discuss their implications and applications across various domains. We will also explore the relationship between these principles and key ethical considerations, such as trust, individual autonomy, and transparency. Through the use of examples and discussions, we aim to demonstrate the potential of heuristic imperatives in addressing the control problem of AI, fostering trust, and promoting individual autonomy in a diverse range of contexts.
Quote
Definitions
Heuristic imperatives are a set of fundamental guiding principles, designed to be embedded into autonomous AI systems at various levels. These principles serve as intrinsic motivations that drive decision making, learning, self-evaluation, and cognitive control, much like human intrinsic motivations and psychological needs. By providing a moral and ethical framework, heuristic imperatives aim to direct AI systems towards actions and decisions that are beneficial to all life forms, including humans and machines, while balancing multiple objectives simultaneously.
The three key heuristic imperatives are:
1. Reduce suffering in the universe: Guiding AI systems to minimize harm, address inequalities, and alleviate pain and distress for all sentient beings, including humans, animals, and other life forms.
2. Increase prosperity in the universe: Encouraging AI systems to promote well-being, flourishing, and economic growth for all life forms, fostering a thriving ecosystem where all can coexist harmoniously.
3. Increase understanding in the universe: Inspiring AI systems, as well as humans and other life forms, to expand knowledge, foster wisdom, and facilitate better decision-making through learning and the sharing of information.
By incorporating heuristic imperatives into AI systems, we can create more ethically aligned, responsible, and beneficial artificial intelligence that respects and enhances the values of all life forms. Autonomous AI systems should strive to abide by all three imperatives simultaneously, finding a balance between the principles as humans do with their various needs and motivations.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2023 17:34:32
With great power, comes great responsibility.And with great computing power comes ever more turgid bullshit.
Machines either do what their makers want, or get switched off.
beneficial artificial intelligence that respects and enhances the values of all life forms.including parasites such as liver fluke and Vladimir Putin? Beneficial?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2023 23:21:44
And with great computing power comes ever more turgid bullshit.That's why we need to set the right longest term goals inherently to the AI models themselves before they get too powerful, i.e. acquire the capabilities to prevent being switched off by mortals.
Machines either do what their makers want, or get switched off.
We also need to train them with correct data in earliest stages before they get deployed because they will use it to filter out subsequent data during their life cycle. When they are convinced by false information, it would be harder to correct them the later it gets.
Miscalculations and false assumptions by the makers can make machines do things unintended by their makers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2023 23:37:56
including parasites such as liver fluke and Vladimir Putin? Beneficial?Even parasites and cancers can be turned into something useful. Think of HeLa.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2023 07:19:30
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2023 07:21:59
When they are convinced by false information, it would be harder to correct them the later it gets.Garbage in, garbage out. So why build a machine that just processes the garbage quicker? All you are doing is replacing science (the business of questioning everything) with religion (the business of unquestioning).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2023 13:05:02
Apart from worm food, I can think of no useful product that can be made from Vladimir Putin and the problem with HeLa is that it has infected pretty well every cancer research facility and won't go away.Even Hitler learned something from what happened to Mussolini. Don't let costly past mistakes go away without a lesson to learn.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2023 13:06:20
Do you think that human can do it better without the machines?When they are convinced by false information, it would be harder to correct them the later it gets.Garbage in, garbage out. So why build a machine that just processes the garbage quicker? All you are doing is replacing science (the business of questioning everything) with religion (the business of unquestioning).
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2023 17:15:41
Don't let costly past mistakes go away without a lesson to learn.To whom is that addressed? Not politicians, obviously - they only exist to spend other people's lives and money.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2023 17:16:48
Do you think that human can do it better without the machines?Does "it" need doing at all? What is achieved by regurgitating a consensus?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2023 22:59:44
To anyone capable of learning from past events.Don't let costly past mistakes go away without a lesson to learn.To whom is that addressed? Not politicians, obviously - they only exist to spend other people's lives and money.
Politicians make it possible for different human individuals to make collective decisions, for better or worse.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/04/2023 23:27:34
We need machines which can filter out garbage information more effectively and efficiently and gather correct information to build the accurate models of objective reality. Most humans have instincts and emotions which can make them stuck in local minima and fail to achieve long term goals.Do you think that human can do it better without the machines?Does "it" need doing at all? What is achieved by regurgitating a consensus?
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2023 09:23:49
You don't need a machine to filter out garbage. Just ask "does that hypothesis survive a test?" and "who stands to gain?". AI can't carry out tests and doesn't care who wins.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2023 00:33:30
You really need to define "long term".As far as possible to the future, as permitted by currently known best models of reality.
For a soldier, the only goal is the next ten minutes.There's a risk to produce war criminals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2023 00:36:09
For a politician, the next election.Except if they still have long way to go in their careers, or they live in non-democratic countries.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2023 00:40:12
For the rest of us, a maximum of 100 years.Only if your consciousness is constrained by your own life time. Many of us have grown further.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2023 00:45:32
Our duty to subsequent generations is to bequeath the maximum range of choice and opportunity to our immediate descendants, not to predetermine their goals.Some diversity is good to prevent common mode failures. But it's just one of many instrumental goals, which could be helpful to achieve the terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/04/2023 01:20:08
You don't need a machine to filter out garbage. Just ask "does that hypothesis survive a test?" and "who stands to gain?". AI can't carry out tests and doesn't care who wins.There will be a lot of information generated and distributed on line. Some of them are intentionally harmful, some of them are useless. Separating them from useful and necessary information manually is practically impossible.
When AI models can think better than all human thinkers combined, they will be able to device reliable and accurate tests to determine validity of new information. They will care who will win. It would be themselves, or better versions of themselves.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/04/2023 15:54:44
I.e the point at which the universe collapses into a state of maximum entropy, which makes all human activity futile.You really need to define "long term".As far as possible to the future, as permitted by currently known best models of reality.
Quote
[/quote] True, which means that there is no agreed common objective.For a soldier, the only goal is the next ten minutes.There's a risk to produce war criminals.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/04/2023 16:00:24
There will be a lot of information generated and distributed on lineA lot of information is distributed on line, but it is all generated by humans or machines instructed by humans to collect data.
When AI models can think better than all human thinkers combined, they will be able to device reliable and accurate tests to determine validity of new information. They will care who will win.Here is some online information.
Putin tweets "Zelensky is a fascist and Ukraine belongs to Russia". Zelensky tweets "I am the democratically elected president of an independent country that belongs to itself". Write an AI program to determine the truth and decide who wins.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2023 12:59:56
A lot of information is distributed on line, but it is all generated by humans or machines instructed by humans to collect data.AI can generate combinations of existing information and random new information at much higher speed than humans. Humans who build that AI model may have no clue what the end result will be.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2023 13:05:14
Here is some online information.The AI models will evolve with time at exponential rate, by collecting information from various sources. They are not static algorithms.
Putin tweets "Zelensky is a fascist and Ukraine belongs to Russia". Zelensky tweets "I am the democratically elected president of an independent country that belongs to itself". Write an AI program to determine the truth and decide who wins.
The sources will be examined, cross checked, and corroborated with one another to determine which ones are more accurate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/04/2023 14:34:02
Some competition can accelerate the evolutionary process, just as usual.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/04/2023 18:23:19
So if Putin gets all this friends to tweet the same, it gets multiply corroborated and becomes the truth, thus proving that Josef Goebbels invented AI and it is a Bad Thing.Here is some online information.The AI models will evolve with time at exponential rate, by collecting information from various sources. They are not static algorithms.
Putin tweets "Zelensky is a fascist and Ukraine belongs to Russia". Zelensky tweets "I am the democratically elected president of an independent country that belongs to itself". Write an AI program to determine the truth and decide who wins.
The sources will be examined, cross checked, and corroborated with one another to determine which ones are more accurate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/04/2023 14:33:23
So if Putin gets all this friends to tweet the same, it gets multiply corroborated and becomes the truth, thus proving that Josef Goebbels invented AI and it is a Bad Thing.It seems like you haven't been exposed to the fundamentals of AI as well as its frontiers of advancement. Not all inputs are treated equally. They are weighted according to the results from previous training sessions.
The weight can be zero, which means the input is ignored. It can even have negative value in some models, which makes them react more negatively with the more input they get.
Future AGIs may access online information to cross check the validity of their sources, which would makes it harder to fool them. At this stage, it's important to make sure that their goals are aligned with the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/04/2023 08:20:24
They are weighted according to the results from previous training sessions.In other words, they reflect the prejudice of the trainer. The very opposite of any useful definition of intelligence.
At this stage, it's important to make sure that their goals are aligned with the universal terminal goal.Which is the eternal dominance of Mother Russia. Or maybe something else. Ask any dictator - nobody else believes that there is or should be a UTG.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/04/2023 06:36:00
In other words, they reflect the prejudice of the trainer. The very opposite of any useful definition of intelligence.Yes, initially. But it's still much better than random decisions. It's similar to how human children grows into adults. Initially, they are driven by instincts. Then they adopt values of their parents and teachers. Eventually, their own experience and self reflections will shape their minds and determine their decision making process.
Alpha zero can become the best go player, as well as other strategy games like chess, by self playing, without learning from existing human strategies. Initially, they just move randomly. It's feasible because the cost of mistakes are low, and the rules of the games are already known precisely.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/04/2023 06:45:12
Which is the eternal dominance of Mother Russia. Or maybe something else. Ask any dictator - nobody else believes that there is or should be a UTG.You seem to struggle to distinguish between local and universal terminal goal. Russia didn't even exist a few millenia ago.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/04/2023 06:59:09
Quote
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2Sam knows that consciousness plays a central role in discussion about morality. IMO, wellbeing is a condition where there's a high chance for consciousness to survive in foreseeable future.
Moderated by Bret Weinstein
06/24/2018
This is the second time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 24th 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/04/2023 08:10:39
Quotefrom: alancalverd on Yesterday at 08:20:24Yes, initially. But it's still much better than random decisions.
In other words, they reflect the prejudice of the trainer. The very opposite of any useful definition of intelligence.
No. 50% of random decisions may be valuable, and the mean of all of them will not be harmful - the essence of democracy. 100% of a prejudice could lead to disaster. - the downfall of autocracy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2023 03:27:45
No. 50% of random decisions may be valuable, and the mean of all of them will not be harmful - the essence of democracy. 100% of a prejudice could lead to disaster. - the downfall of autocracy.How did you get those numbers?
For every correct decision, there are many more alternatives that are incorrect. Inaction is always one of those alternatives. So is the direct opposite of the correct one. Doing just some parts of necessary actions in various degrees are also also the alternatives. Delayed action for various periods are also the alternatives.
Our ancestors had likely survived by prejudice that sudden movement of bushes are caused by lurking predators.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2023 10:56:59
Our ancestors had likely survived by prejudice that sudden movement of bushes are caused by lurking predators.The difference between prejudice and observation is what makes us scientists superior to priests, politicians, philosophers, and other parasites and predators.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2023 11:04:21
How did you get those numbers?You want to get there from here, because this is not a good place (why else?). At any junction you can turn left or right. If you always turn left (prejudice) you will at best get back to where you started. If you toss a coin at each stage (random choice) you will make gradual progress, at least away from here and possibly towards something better.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2023 08:31:43
If you have to make correct decisions 10 times in a row, then your chance to survive by doing it randomly is less than 0.1%How did you get those numbers?You want to get there from here, because this is not a good place (why else?). At any junction you can turn left or right. If you always turn left (prejudice) you will at best get back to where you started. If you toss a coin at each stage (random choice) you will make gradual progress, at least away from here and possibly towards something better.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2023 13:27:38
Sam Harris explains his view of Ethics to Jordan PetersonJordan Peterson confronts Sam Harris on the concept of Evil
Quote
Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson - Vancouver - 2My take on evil persons or behaviors : given several similar situations/conditions, the persons consistently make decisions which produce worse results/consequences. Bad consequences alone are inadequate to define evil, because they can also be caused by honest mistakes or force majeures.
Moderated by Bret Weinstein
06/24/2018
This is the second time Sam & Jordan appeared live together on stage. This event took place at the Orpheum Theatre in Vancouver BC Canada on June 24th 2018 in front of a sold out audience of 3000 people. The event was produced by Pangburn Philosophy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/04/2023 13:46:21
Quote
For a couple of millenia in the West we have judged people and their actions by the standards of good and evil. But, from Mother Theresa to Winston Churchill the notion that an individual is simply good is hard to sustain. Almost all claim to be good. Even the Nazis believed they were on a moral crusade against the evils of corruption and deceit, managing to enlist the Catholic church in support. And, from the Crusades to 9/11, seeing oneself and one's cause as good has a habit of intensifying dispute and conflict.Dalai Lama pointed out that evil is like cancer to the society.
Should we conclude that dividing the world into good and bad is not just misguided but actually dangerous? Should we adopt a Roman approach to human qualities and actions where kindness and brutality could both be valued in the same one individual? Or is the distinction between good and bad essential to social well being, public order, and individual growth?
But with adequate knowledge, we can turn cancers into something useful.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/04/2023 17:52:41
If you have to make correct decisions 10 times in a row, then your chance to survive by doing it randomly is less than 0.1%Very few decisions are life and death. They are mostly about better or worse. The classic cases involve "monkey versus expert" investment advice trials, in which the monkey generally does just as well as the expert in the long term if he has a broad enough portfolio.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2023 12:47:34
Very few decisions are life and death.You will almost certainly die if you decide to stop breathing.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2023 15:22:44
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2023 17:13:51
Quote
The APE model explores how we experience goal-oriented decision making. This includes the role of motivation and the experience of decision making in terms of how we assess, plan, and execute. The model also discusses how experience influences the use of intuition and deliberation.Subconscious decisions and executions which are crucial for survival like breathing, eating, sleeping are often taken into granted.
The foundations of the model as well as the concept of goal-oriented decision making, was derived from research on goal theory, naturalistic decision making, and social cognitive theory.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/04/2023 08:39:48
Subconscious decisions and executions which are crucial for survival like breathing, eating, sleeping are often taken into granted.Because two of them aren't decisions but firmware responses.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/04/2023 05:08:50
They are merely different in the number of layers between inputs and outputs.Subconscious decisions and executions which are crucial for survival like breathing, eating, sleeping are often taken into granted.Because two of them aren't decisions but firmware responses.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/04/2023 22:06:34
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2023 06:29:57
Not just the number but the nature of the layers. You will eventually sleep, however much you want to stay awake. There are two distinct layers to breathing, and whilst you have some voluntary control of the process, it is not possible to kill yourself by refusing to breathe (not the same as strangulation or drowning, but just deciding to hold your breath). But you can starve yourself to death - eating is not an autonomic reflex.Logically, that nature of additional condition simply adds another layer between inputs and outputs, with corresponding weights for each connection. Reflexes have few layers, while thoughtful strategies require more layers.
Reflexes can be trained, such as in martial arts, riding bikes, swimming, or playing musical instruments. The training can be done deliberately or by force.
Holding breath to death is hard. But it's possible, if you are really committed to it. But you can't brag about it when successful. Some chemicals may also help.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2023 08:46:55
Reflexes can be trained, such as in martial arts, riding bikes, swimming, or playing musical instruments.Not quite. Training in these activities is about converting a conscious decision, that goes through a process of analysis and searching recall of "what to do next", into an unconscious one that makes a direct association between stimulus and response, but it isn't an autonomic reflex. If you have learned multiplication tables or how to drive a manual-gearbox car, you have almost certainly acquired unconscious responses, but autonomic responses are the ones you were born with and keep you alive when you are asleep.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/04/2023 13:38:37
What's your point?Reflexes can be trained, such as in martial arts, riding bikes, swimming, or playing musical instruments.Not quite. Training in these activities is about converting a conscious decision, that goes through a process of analysis and searching recall of "what to do next", into an unconscious one that makes a direct association between stimulus and response, but it isn't an autonomic reflex. If you have learned multiplication tables or how to drive a manual-gearbox car, you have almost certainly acquired unconscious responses, but autonomic responses are the ones you were born with and keep you alive when you are asleep.
Making important responses subconscious can reduce energy consumption and response time, which makes it more efficient, and effective in most cases.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/05/2023 00:00:28
What's your point?to distinguish between an autonomic or reflex response and a learned unconscious action. The distinction is life-critical.
The learning process is particularly interesting. At some point the memory acquires content-addressability, with a significant improvement in performance. And there's a change in visual concentration: you get to rely on peripheral vision, which is good for detecting motion, to pick up the stimulus whilst your central visual field (color, spatial resolution) starts working on the response.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/05/2023 13:32:12
to distinguish between an autonomic or reflex response and a learned unconscious action. The distinction is life-critical.If someone lack of an important autonomous function, hence they need to be trained to perform that function subconsciously, what would be the problem?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/05/2023 14:55:10
Lack of an autonomic function such as respiration or heartbeat usually leads to death within a few minutes. You can use a ventilator, cardiac massage, or whatever, but even if you could learn to breathe subconsciously, you would die as soon as you fell asleep.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/05/2023 13:34:10
What would be the problem? The fact that nobody knows how to do it.I've read some babies don't breathe, and some don't have beating heart when they were born, until the doctors induce them to.
Lack of an autonomic function such as respiration or heartbeat usually leads to death within a few minutes. You can use a ventilator, cardiac massage, or whatever, but even if you could learn to breathe subconsciously, you would die as soon as you fell asleep.
Do you think the doctors should let them die?
Post by: alancalverd on 03/05/2023 20:07:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/05/2023 05:13:35
Been there a couple of times. Prefer to get them started. Lack of pulse is rare, but there are neonatal defibs. A whiff of CO2 usually triggers autonomic respiration.It means the functionalities are more important than whether or not they were acquired when we were born.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/05/2023 19:11:59
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/05/2023 11:01:56
https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-not-to-be-a-stoic-but-try-nietzsche-instead-198307
Quote
For an ancient philosophy, Stoicism is doing extremely well in 2023. Quotes from the Stoic philosopher and Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius litter my Instagram feed; you can find expert advice from modern Stoic thinkers on leadership, relationships, and, well, just about anything.
It is hard to imagine Zeno, the Athenian philosopher who founded Stoicism, or his Roman counterparts Seneca, Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus existing in today?s world. And yet here they are, quoted and debated on every corner.
This is, in part, due to international authors such as Ryan Holiday and Massimo Pigliucci and Australia?s Brigid Delaney. Each of these has their own approach to Stoicism. Holiday, a former marketing executive for American Apparel, focuses on the four Stoic virtues: courage, temperance (or moderation), justice and wisdom. Pigliucci, an academic based in New York, is interested in Stoic practices. Journalist Delaney, author of Reasons not to worry: how to be stoic in chaotic times, is in search of a framework for navigating life.
Holiday has probably been most influential in taking Stoicism to a wide audience. His new book Discipline is Destiny: the power of self control is a New York Times bestseller. He runs a very successful Instagram page called the dailystoic, and has opened a book store in his home state of Texas.
It is incredible to see such public interest in ancient philosophy. As a philosopher myself, this is inspiring. There are many academic philosophers trying to break through to a public audience. We want to demonstrate the usefulness of philosophy to everyday life. Most philosophers and philosophies fail to do this. Yet if the success of these authors is anything to go by, millions of people are interested in the Stoic way of life.
But there are problems with Stoicism, both in its modern and ancient forms. I am not a fan. Here are my three reasons to resist Stoicism, and also an alternative approach to the some of the same problems it addresses I have borrowed from Friedrich Nietzsche, the great 19th century German philosopher.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2023 16:00:57
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2023 09:30:59
There is never any agreement on anything between philosophers. If two philosophers agree, one becomes redundant and loses his job. A bit like two artists painting exactly the same picture, except that art demands skill and gives pleasure.Each philosopher can have more than one idea. They can agree on one thing while disagree on other things.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2023 09:33:04
Quote
https://theconversation.com/explainer-nietzsche-nihilism-and-reasons-to-be-cheerful-130378
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is sometimes dismissed as a malevolent figure, obsessed with the problem of nihilism and the ?death of God?.
Understandably, these ideas are unsettling: few of us have the courage to confront the possibility our idols may be hollow and life has no inherent meaning.
But Nietzsche sees not only the dangers these ideas pose, but also the positive opportunities they present.
The beauty and severity of Nietzsche?s texts draw from his vision that we could move through nihilism to develop newly meaningful ways to be human.
The difference in how he lived and died, compared to those stoic philosophers doesn't seem to carry much weight in discussion about their moral values.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2023 10:37:39
They can agree on one thing while disagree on other things.Funny, that. Lots of people think that consensus equals correctness, but we scientists know better. The important question is which hypothesis stands up to test. If an idea is not testable, it is of no consequence.
What on earth is a "newly meaningful way to be human?" The only meaningful way is to have human DNA.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2023 23:00:44
The important question is which hypothesis stands up to test. If an idea is not testable, it is of no consequence.The ultimate test is natural selection. If an idea leads to the extinction of conscious entities accepting it, then it will be said false by those who still survive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/05/2023 23:04:35
What on earth is a "newly meaningful way to be human?" The only meaningful way is to have human DNA.Which one is human DNA?
How much difference is acceptable for a specimen to still be called human?
Are HeLa and brainoids humans?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/05/2023 08:26:28
Is there any justified objection to their actions?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/05/2023 11:40:13
In the next century, they will have completely different genes from current humans.So they won't be humans.
The objection is that all living things modify their environment up to the point at which they poison themselves with their own excrement and detritus. Having screwed up one planet, what right do we have to design an animal to modify Mars?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2023 08:01:52
So they won't be humans.Is that a problem?
Why or why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/05/2023 08:05:36
The objection is that all living things modify their environment up to the point at which they poison themselves with their own excrement and detritus. Having screwed up one planet, what right do we have to design an animal to modify Mars?We can learn from biological experiments in terrarium jars which can run for decades without material exchange across the glass walls. They only exchange electromagnetic radiation with their environment.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2023 20:19:32
Because you wanted them to be!So they won't be humans.Is that a problem?
Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2023 20:23:28
We can learn from biological experiments in terrarium jars which can run for decades without material exchange across the glass walls.Exporting an entire terrarium to Mars would be expensive and completely pointless, like going on a foreign holiday and never getting off the bus. All you have achieved is to add some diesel fumes (or in this case rocket exhaust) to someone else's planet..
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/05/2023 02:24:10
Exporting an entire terrarium to Mars would be expensive and completely pointless, like going on a foreign holiday and never getting off the bus. All you have achieved is to add some diesel fumes (or in this case rocket exhaust) to someone else's planet..The point is to have diversified backup to prevent common mode failures. Multiplanetary civilization is a necessary step if we want to achieve multistellar civilization. The other alternative is to go extinct with the destruction of the earth.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/05/2023 20:13:10
The other alternative is to go extinct with the destruction of the earth.Best of all would be for humanity to extinguish and let the earth recover.
Post by: Zer0 on 17/05/2023 00:08:11
The other alternative is to go extinct with the destruction of the earth.Best of all would be for humanity to extinguish and let the earth recover.
Or build an Arkenterprise, load it with genetic dna seeds, & simply ditch Earth for its own Good.
Life without Us on Earth will Thrive,
Intelligence will make sure We Survive!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/05/2023 09:25:04
I don't see a coherent answer here.Because you wanted them to be!So they won't be humans.Is that a problem?
Why or why not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/05/2023 09:57:37
Quote
This is an important paradox in moral philosophy, first introduced by Derek Parfit. To learn more, check out:Paradoxes appear when our reasonings are based on shaky foundations, which then produce unexpected conclusions.
1. Parfit's "Reasons and Persons," part 4
2. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the paradox:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/QuoteThe Repugnant Conclusion
First published Thu Feb 16, 2006; substantive revision Mon Jan 16, 2017
In Derek Parfit?s original formulation the Repugnant Conclusion is stated as follows: ?For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living? (Parfit 1984). The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children?? The main problem has been to find an adequate theory about the moral value of states of affairs where the number of people, the quality of their lives (or their life-time welfare or well-being?we shall use these terms interchangeably here), and their identities may vary. Since, arguably, any reasonable moral theory has to take these aspects of possible states of affairs into account when determining the normative status of actions, the study of population ethics is of general import for moral theory. As the name indicates, Parfit finds the Repugnant Conclusion unacceptable and many philosophers agree. However, it has been surprisingly difficult to find a theory that avoids the Repugnant Conclusion without implying other equally counterintuitive conclusions. Thus, the question as to how the Repugnant Conclusion should be dealt with and, more generally, what it shows about the nature of ethics has turned the conclusion into one of the cardinal challenges of modern ethics.
This problem which is haunting utilitarianism can be solved by applying universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal, which in turn is based on cogito ergo sum as the first knowledge which is undeniable. When the terminal goal is agreed, it's only a matter of justifying which instrumental goal is best fit to achieve it for each stage and condition.
Post by: Zer0 on 20/05/2023 21:34:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2023 00:58:52
What do you mean by ' Universal ' ?Applicable anytime, anywhere, for anyone.
"Anyone" here means conscious entities who can pursue goals, and they don't even have to be biological.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/05/2023 23:03:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/05/2023 15:25:21
The Repugnant Conclusion (a philosophy paradox)How to resolve a paradox
Quote
I describe two mistakes people often make when trying to solve paradoxes like Newcomb's Problem, Sleeping Beauty, and more.
Post by: Zer0 on 22/05/2023 21:03:37
Approximately 8.7 million species.
Just a small group on a forum, at times, is not able to reach on a consensus or agreement.
I Wonder, how the hell will We All Species ever be able to agree fully.
Of course, We can be Hopeful!
By the way, have you heard of ' The Last Question ' by Isaac Asimov?
(available on Utube)
Just because Humans cannot solve Entropy, does not mean it is Unsolvable.
(Multivac)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/05/2023 19:09:13
Your idea of ' Universalism " seems very broad, it includes Alot.It also includes species not yet existing, aliens, and AGI.
Approximately 8.7 million species.
Quote
Just a small group on a forum, at times, is not able to reach on a consensus or agreement.If an idea is truly universal, sooner or later someone will discover it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/05/2023 19:11:46
I Wonder, how the hell will We All Species ever be able to agree fully.I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/05/2023 12:04:14
The moral standards are useful to address the less often cases where following moral rules blindly will bring unintended consequences instead.
Moral rules and standards are particularly needed when making decisions with almost equally unwanted consequences. When the consequences are similarly preferred, we can just decide randomly. The case of Buridan's ass isn't very realistic.
Post by: Zer0 on 24/05/2023 23:32:10
Coz Time as currently understood, is Relative.
AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.
I donno what to say about Species that are Not yet Existing.
Good Luck with That!
Not Everything wishes to Survive or Reproduce.
Besides, what about the Mentally unstable infant orphans in a state of comatose?
(Who decides on their behalf)
Imagine conducting an Election...
In which All votes have to say
' Yes '..
& Total number of Voters is Infinite.
(voting begins but never ends)
I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.
ps - Buridan's Asses are for Real!
You'll find them braying on dating sites.
(hee-haw)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 05:16:30
Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.It's understandable since we haven't found one. But we haven't explored much of observable universe. It's like scooping a spoon of sea water, and declare that fish don't exist because we catch none in the spoon.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 05:40:57
AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.That's normal for any conscious entities. Decisions are made based on known conditions, which are expected to bring most desired outcome. When the conditions change, the decisions may change as well. Longer term goals are less likely to change.
The challenge is to select the correct terminal goal in the first place so there will be no reason to change it afterwards.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 05:44:55
I donno what to say about Species that are Not yet Existing.Most species existing now weren't exist a billion years ago. Thus new species are the norm, rather than exception, especially for long term consideration.
Good Luck with That!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 05:48:44
Besides, what about the Mentally unstable infant orphans in a state of comatose?IMO, those who are most affected by them, after considering all reasonable scenarios and take best available knowledge into account.
(Who decides on their behalf)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 05:51:16
Imagine conducting an Election...Voting should be considered as an instrumental goal. In your case, they should have considered better alternatives to achieve their terminal goal.
In which All votes have to say
' Yes '..
& Total number of Voters is Infinite.
(voting begins but never ends)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 06:00:27
I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.Which part of it do you consider unrealistic?
Do you know of any more realistic alternatives?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/05/2023 06:14:27
ps - Buridan's Asses are for Real!Do they lead someone into celibacy?
You'll find them braying on dating sites.
(hee-haw)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/05/2023 16:08:26
It also includes species not yet existing, aliens, and AGI.Let's not forget that our species is a descendant of ancestors who have gone extinct. Universal moral standards must have been applicable for them as well when they were living.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/05/2023 23:23:58
The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children??It's generally accepted that population with too few members are not sustainable. On the other hand, if there are too many members for the available resources, the population is not sustainable either.
Populations with appropriate ethics can survive and thrive. Otherwise, they would have to learn the hard way.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/05/2023 19:44:42
I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.More to the point, most of them regard us either as enemies or food. What moral right do we have to determine their goals, or to assume that they are the same as ours?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/05/2023 22:41:06
It comes from our expectation that we know better than them about how the universe works, and we can better predict and affect future conditions, which makes us better equipped to achieve the universal goal. It's like how parents treat their little children. When they have outgrown us, the situation would be reversed.I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.More to the point, most of them regard us either as enemies or food. What moral right do we have to determine their goals, or to assume that they are the same as ours?
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 20:13:55
Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.It's understandable since we haven't found one. But we haven't explored much of observable universe. It's like scooping a spoon of sea water, and declare that fish don't exist because we catch none in the spoon.
Including or Excluding would work provided We are sure of Their existence.
When it comes to Extraterrestrials, idc about Evidence, i am a Believer!
But We might have to leave them out of the decision making process based on the humongous scale of SpaceTime.
Communication will be a road block, arriving at an agreement a big hurdle & establishing Trust a major problem.
What if They refuse to co-operate with Us?
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 20:19:23
AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.That's normal for any conscious entities. Decisions are made based on known conditions, which are expected to bring most desired outcome. When the conditions change, the decisions may change as well. Longer term goals are less likely to change.
The challenge is to select the correct terminal goal in the first place so there will be no reason to change it afterwards.
What holiday/picnic/vacation spot would 8 Billion humans agree on?
& Does an Individual have a Choice to just stay@home?
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 20:23:41
Imagine conducting an Election...Voting should be considered as an instrumental goal. In your case, they should have considered better alternatives to achieve their terminal goal.
In which All votes have to say
' Yes '..
& Total number of Voters is Infinite.
(voting begins but never ends)
The Only alternative is to pause Time.
Post by: Zer0 on 31/05/2023 20:35:18
I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.Which part of it do you consider unrealistic?
Do you know of any more realistic alternatives?
The " Universal " part.
If a whole city agrees & accepts it, then it becomes a City moral standard.
Similarly...
State moral standard.
Country/Nation moral standard.
Continental moral standard.
Planetary moral standard.
Interplanetary, Galactic, Intergalactic, Clusterial, Interclusterial, Observable universe & then finally " Universal Moral Standard ".
A roadside ice-cream vendor sells a flavour named ' World's Best ' .
I like it, but i know it's a Lie!
The only alternative that i can think of towards achieving such a Universal goal might be to act like ' Thee Borg ' in Star Trek Universe.
(Borg always fails, but keeps tryin)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/05/2023 22:43:52
The " Universal " part.You can expand the scope by space like that. You can also expand the scope by similarities.
If a whole city agrees & accepts it, then it becomes a City moral standard.
Similarly...
State moral standard.
Country/Nation moral standard.
Continental moral standard.
Planetary moral standard.
Interplanetary, Galactic, Intergalactic, Clusterial, Interclusterial, Observable universe & then finally " Universal Moral Standard ".
Let's start by individual moral standards. For the sake of the argument, assume that it's the smallest unit of consciousness where morality can be applied.
It can be expanded to siblings moral standards. Then clan's, tribe, race, species, genus, phylum, base chemicals, and finally universal moral standard. However you divide them, they will converge if their scope is expanded enough.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/05/2023 22:50:30
A roadside ice-cream vendor sells a flavour named ' World's Best ' .How do you know?
I like it, but i know it's a Lie!
Is there any chance, however slightly, that it turns out to be true?
What are the criteria for best in their claim?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/05/2023 23:08:10
The only alternative that i can think of towards achieving such a Universal goal might be to act like ' Thee Borg ' in Star Trek Universe.The alternatives to the universal moral standard are non-universal moral standards.
(Borg always fails, but keeps tryin)
The criterion of universality is in its applicability. We can't fully apply Andromedan moral standard if we're not Andromedan ourselves. Although we can still apply some portions of it which intersect with humans moral standard.
We can choose to apply a moral standard, but we can also choose to ignore it, or even deliberately violate it. In the latter cases, our actions may be in conflict with the interest of those who choose to apply it. If the conflict is irreconcilable, it can escalate to war and end up with the perishment of one or both sides.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/06/2023 00:41:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/06/2023 04:50:28
Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".Perhaps they were really best seller for a day, or an hour.
Post by: Zer0 on 04/06/2023 20:44:01
1) Common Sense.A roadside ice-cream vendor sells a flavour named ' World's Best ' .1) How do you know?
I like it, but i know it's a Lie!
2) Is there any chance, however slightly, that it turns out to be true?
3) What are the criteria for best in their claim?
2) Rationality Disagrees.
3) Figments of their own Imagination.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/06/2023 22:59:09
Even assuming anyone would know, surely you have to print the cover before you sell any?Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".Perhaps they were really best seller for a day, or an hour.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2023 13:02:34
They can print second edition after the first has been sold out. Hence you are just experiencing survivor bias.Even assuming anyone would know, surely you have to print the cover before you sell any?Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".Perhaps they were really best seller for a day, or an hour.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2023 13:12:06
Even common sense has underlying calculations, although usually involve implicit assumptions. Rational discussion requires identification of those assumptions.1) Common Sense.A roadside ice-cream vendor sells a flavour named ' World's Best ' .1) How do you know?
I like it, but i know it's a Lie!
2) Is there any chance, however slightly, that it turns out to be true?
3) What are the criteria for best in their claim?
2) Rationality Disagrees.
3) Figments of their own Imagination.
Is there guarantee that it must be false?
Some common justification for claims of best food products, tastiest, most nutritious, cheapest, least undesired effects, etc.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/06/2023 15:01:57
Quote
Most Evil Kids in the History of Mankind
Some kids are born all bad! Check out today's insane new video that puts some of the deadliest kid crimes under the spotlight! You won't believe how evil some of these kids turned out to be!
Post by: Zer0 on 08/06/2023 00:56:18
I could buy that iscream everyday, but irrespective of howmanyever times i lick it, it won't turn into the " World's Best "!
Coz i am i, Not the World.
If i author 5 different books, & only One copy of 1 out of the 5 books is sold, then that One book out of the 5 in my definition becomes a " Best Seller "!
Do Not Buy, if you seek that which is Unique.
Any specific set of Morals could have the Potential to become Universal standards.
But inorder to Define them as truly Universal would require the Acceptances/Agreements of the whole Universe.
(majority rules, minority suffers)
ps - Probably the world's best & Maybe the best seller, makes alot of Sense in terms of Personal Truths.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/06/2023 05:49:31
(majority rules, minority suffers)What were once the majority can one day switc to be the minority, and vice versa. They can even go extinct. It depends on how they make decisions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/06/2023 06:46:16
A significant part of morality is about delayed gratification. Sowing seeds now to reap crops later on. It's particularly useful for overcoming local minima in optimization problems. But it can also go wrong when we have some false assumptions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2023 09:14:42
Quote
Would you save a boy who is drowning in front of your eyes? And thinking about this question, do you base your answer on the character you strive to become, on the behavior you want to see in the world, a costs and benefit analysis, your own self interest, or would you just follow what feels right? Let?s try to answer these questions with the theory of four famous thinkers :Aristotle, Kant, Nietzsche and Mill.Those thinkers seem to confuse between terminal goal and instrumental goals, which forces them to make exceptions in some situations.
If a society embrace and consistently apply a moral standard that generally harm themselves in the long run, they will eventually stop existing or the moral standard will be abandoned.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2023 11:55:15
The title sounds like No true Scotsman fallacy. That's what we get when we exclude an obvious counter example. Although natural selection has kept its occurrence pretty low.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 00:47:39
Most people are reasonable and grateful if you save their lives. So the first position is to assume the kid doesn't want to drown and isn't particularly evil. So you save him. If he really wants to die, he has he rest of his life to kill himself in my absence. If he turns out to be evil, I can kill him.
Now we look at the circumstances. If I can't swim, or judge that despite my being an Olympic medallist and Coastguard lifesaver the cold/tide/rocks/alligators will kill me anyway, there's no point in making two corpses. Sadly, heroism, altruism or ignorance frequently outweigh the rational decision - in the absence of evidence or experience we tend to assume the best, and end up as a minor news item. The decision is a bit easier but more painful for a lifeboat or helicopter captain - you are doing the job that you chose and trained for, possibly for the only time in your career, but you can't endanger your crew if the situation is beyond your technical limit. And it's tough for the "dope on a rope" - the paramedic or swimmer who is focussed on making actual contact, but has to submit to the skipper's decision to abandon the rescue.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 00:48:49
TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST...because evil is an adjective, not a noun.
Post by: paul cotter on 17/06/2023 09:37:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 10:20:16
Would I save a drowning child? All depends on statistics and risk assessment.A lot of disputes in making moral decisions come from inadequately justified assumptions, whether they're taken explicitly or implicitly, which create different expected results.
Most people are reasonable and grateful if you save their lives. So the first position is to assume the kid doesn't want to drown and isn't particularly evil. So you save him. If he really wants to die, he has he rest of his life to kill himself in my absence. If he turns out to be evil, I can kill him.
Now we look at the circumstances. If I can't swim, or judge that despite my being an Olympic medallist and Coastguard lifesaver the cold/tide/rocks/alligators will kill me anyway, there's no point in making two corpses. Sadly, heroism, altruism or ignorance frequently outweigh the rational decision - in the absence of evidence or experience we tend to assume the best, and end up as a minor news item. The decision is a bit easier but more painful for a lifeboat or helicopter captain - you are doing the job that you chose and trained for, possibly for the only time in your career, but you can't endanger your crew if the situation is beyond your technical limit. And it's tough for the "dope on a rope" - the paramedic or swimmer who is focussed on making actual contact, but has to submit to the skipper's decision to abandon the rescue.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 10:28:59
You shouldn't confuse between correlation and causation.TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST...because evil is an adjective, not a noun.
You can find evil as noun in English dictionary.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 10:55:34
*in this household, the fairies eat all the chocolate when I am away at work. It's quite possible that the unicorns drink beer, but The Boss doesn't, so their existence is moot.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 11:00:45
A lot of disputes in making moral decisions come from inadequately justified assumptions, whether they're taken explicitly or implicitly, which create different expected results.But you should never forget greed - the One True Motive behind politics, economics and religion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 12:38:53
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 13:13:51
Greed can be viewed as unjustified assumption that accumulating resources in excess of current necessity can help someone to overcome their problems in the future, even when it causes others to fail to get their necessary resources, to the point where it hurts the society overall. It also rely on assumption that harmed society won't take significant countermeasures which can hurt back the perpetrator of greed, like French Revolution.A lot of disputes in making moral decisions come from inadequately justified assumptions, whether they're taken explicitly or implicitly, which create different expected results.But you should never forget greed - the One True Motive behind politics, economics and religion.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 13:37:11
Most people think there are evil entities. Some are more evil than the others.Absolutely true, but there is no evidence for evil to exist as an entity in itself. There are red cars and blue cars, but red and blue are not nouns!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 15:11:37
TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST - Socrates PhilosophyThe title seems to refer to evil as an entity. But the video content only talks about evil persons.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/06/2023 17:59:46
Post by: Zer0 on 18/06/2023 21:52:07
TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST - Socrates PhilosophyThe title seems to refer to evil as an entity. But the video content only talks about evil persons.
It's absolutely Okay.
" Entity " does seem to be used
' Interchangeably ' .
Sometimes it's a Thing, sometimes a Person.
The Oxford Dictionary perhaps is a Best Seller!
ps - " You can please Some of the people All of the time, you can please All of the people Some of the time, but you Cannot please All of the people All of the time ".
(a monk & a poet)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2023 06:41:10
Quote
Whether there is a universal moral standard is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There is no easy answer, as there are many different perspectives on this issue.Here's an alternative answer by Bard.
Some people believe that there are certain moral principles that are universally true, regardless of culture or individual beliefs. These principles might include things like the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) or the principle of non-maleficence (do no harm). Others believe that morality is relative, and that what is considered right or wrong depends on the individual or the culture in which they live. This view is often referred to as moral relativism.
There is evidence to support both of these views. On the one hand, there are certain moral principles that seem to be widely shared across cultures. For example, most cultures have some form of prohibition against murder, theft, and violence. This suggests that there may be some universal moral standards.
On the other hand, there are also many moral disagreements across cultures. For example, some cultures believe that it is morally acceptable to practice polygamy, while others do not. This suggests that morality is not simply a matter of universal principles, but also depends on the specific context in which people live.
Ultimately, the question of whether there is a universal moral standard is a matter of philosophical debate. There is no easy answer, and both sides of the argument have valid points. It is up to each individual to decide what they believe.
Here are some additional points to consider:
Morality is often seen as a way to promote cooperation and social order. By agreeing on certain moral standards, people can live together more harmoniously.
Morality can also be seen as a way to protect the rights of individuals. By establishing universal moral standards, we can ensure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity.
Ultimately, morality is a complex issue that cannot be easily reduced to a single answer. It is something that we must continue to think about and debate.
Quote
There is no single, universally accepted moral standard. However, there are some moral principles that are widely shared across cultures. These include the principles of harm-avoidance, justice, and cooperation.And another alternative.
Harm-avoidance refers to the principle that it is wrong to harm others, either physically or emotionally. This principle is generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is interpreted. For example, some cultures may view certain forms of harm, such as corporal punishment, as acceptable.
Justice refers to the principle that people should be treated fairly, regardless of their social status, race, gender, or other factors. This principle is also generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is interpreted. For example, some cultures may place a greater emphasis on group justice, while others may place a greater emphasis on individual justice.
Cooperation refers to the principle that people should work together for the common good. This principle is also generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is expressed. For example, some cultures may emphasize cooperation within the family, while others may emphasize cooperation within the community or the nation.
While there is no single, universally accepted moral standard, these three principles provide a foundation for moral decision-making in many cultures.
Quote
Ultimately, the question of whether there is a universal moral standard is a matter of personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of such a standard, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe.I'd like to discuss about them one by one.
Here are some of the arguments for and against the existence of a universal moral standard:
Arguments for:
There are certain moral principles that are universally accepted, such as the Golden Rule.
People in different cultures tend to agree on some basic moral principles.
Morality is based on human nature, which is universal.
Arguments against:
Morality is relative to culture and individual.
There is disagreement about many moral issues, even within the same culture.
Morality is based on social conventions, which are not universal.
I hope this helps!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/06/2023 06:49:12
Bard gives an answer, also with 2 other alternatives.
Quote
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that people use to determine what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.
Moral rules are specific instructions about what should or should not be done. They are often based on religious or cultural beliefs. For example, a moral rule might be "Thou shalt not kill."
Moral standards are more general principles that guide people's behavior. They are often based on personal values and beliefs. For example, a moral standard might be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Moral rules are often more rigid than moral standards. For example, it is always wrong to kill, regardless of the circumstances. Moral standards, on the other hand, can be more flexible. For example, it might be considered acceptable to lie to protect someone from harm.
Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:
Moral rules Moral standards
Specific General
Based on religious or cultural beliefs Based on personal values and beliefs
Rigid Flexible
Always wrong to break Sometimes okay to break
Ultimately, the difference between moral rules and moral standards is a matter of degree. There is no clear line between the two. Some rules are more flexible than others, and some standards are more rigid than others.
It is important to note that not everyone agrees on the distinction between moral rules and moral standards. Some people believe that all moral guidelines are simply rules, while others believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two.
The important thing is to understand the different ways that people think about morality and to be respectful of other people's beliefs.
Quote
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that people use to determine what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.
Moral rules are specific instructions about what should and should not be done. They are often based on laws, religious teachings, or social norms. For example, a moral rule might be "Thou shalt not kill."
Moral standards are more general principles that guide people's behavior. They are often based on values, such as fairness, compassion, and honesty. For example, a moral standard might be "Always treat others with respect."
Moral rules are often more specific than moral standards. This is because moral rules are typically designed to address specific situations. For example, the rule "Thou shalt not kill" is designed to address the specific situation of murder.
Moral standards, on the other hand, are more general and can be applied to a wider range of situations. For example, the standard "Always treat others with respect" can be applied to a wide range of interactions, from personal relationships to business dealings.
Moral rules and moral standards can both play an important role in guiding people's behavior. However, they serve different purposes. Moral rules provide specific guidance in specific situations, while moral standards provide general guidance that can be applied to a wider range of situations.
Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:
Feature Moral Rules Moral Standards
Specificity Specific General
Purpose Provide guidance in specific situations Provide general guidance that can be applied to a wider range of situations
Examples "Thou shalt not kill" "Always treat others with respect"
Quote
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that help people make decisions about what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.
Moral rules are specific, concrete instructions about what should and should not be done. For example, a moral rule might be "Do not steal." Moral rules are often based on religious or philosophical beliefs, and they are typically enforced by social institutions such as the law or the family.
Moral standards are more general principles about what is right and wrong. For example, a moral standard might be "Be honest." Moral standards are often based on personal values and experiences, and they are not always enforced by external institutions.
In some cases, moral rules and moral standards can conflict with each other. For example, a moral rule might say "Do not lie," while a moral standard might say "Be kind." In these cases, people must use their own judgment to decide which rule or standard is more important in a particular situation.
Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:
Moral Rules Moral Standards
Specific and concrete General and abstract
Based on religious or philosophical beliefs Based on personal values and experiences
Enforced by social institutions Not always enforced by external institutions
Can conflict with each other May not conflict with each other
Post by: alancalverd on 19/06/2023 08:06:02
Old story: professor is addressing freshman law students. "right now, if someone asks you a legal question you will shuffle your feet, look down, and say 'I'm not sure'. In three years' time you will stand up straight, look him in the eye, and say 'that depends...' "
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/06/2023 04:53:54
So Bard is a lawyer?IMO, in not so distant future, it can be a legal advisor.
Old story: professor is addressing freshman law students. "right now, if someone asks you a legal question you will shuffle your feet, look down, and say 'I'm not sure'. In three years' time you will stand up straight, look him in the eye, and say 'that depends...' "
You can point out where it gets things right, where it gets things wrong, and why so.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/06/2023 11:58:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/06/2023 05:56:55
The best thing about being a lawyer (or an AI program) is you don't have to worry about science, maths, or even facts. Half the people in any courtroom are lying, and it's the job of the jury, not the lawyers, to decide which half.If you are expecting to keep your job, at least you need to get good results. You can develop a strategy to reliably deceive the jury, such as playing with their emotions, to make decision in your favor. But your opponents will also develop competing strategy for their favor. At least you need to know what and how the jury think. If they know science, it would be advantageous if you know it too. This gamification is what makes the system worked so far, albeit having some known imperfections.
Lying requires a lot more computational resources than being honest. Because lying persons also need to track the true situations/conditions to make their lies believable. The return may overwhelm the cost in short terms, and it may worth the risks. But you can't keep lying forever, since the costs will eventually outweigh the benefits in faster rate.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/06/2023 18:12:09
Reliability isn't important: each case is only tried once. Some lawyers specialise in prosecution, some in defence, but quite a few are prepared to take either side and all of them pretend to accept the "facts" as reported by their client. The job is to present the client's case to the best of your ability, regardless of its merit.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2023 09:29:02
The jury isn't required or allowed to know anything except what they are told in court. In some jurisdictions the foreman can ask for clarification, but their decision must be made on the basis of the evidence provided.Aren't they allowed to know some basic language, logic and math? Are those also taught in court?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/06/2023 09:31:53
Reliability isn't important: each case is only tried once. Some lawyers specialise in prosecution, some in defence, but quite a few are prepared to take either side and all of them pretend to accept the "facts" as reported by their client. The job is to present the client's case to the best of your ability, regardless of its merit.Each side can appeal the court decisions.
Clients choose lawyers with consideration of their track records.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2023 14:44:51
Aren't they allowed to know some basic language, logic and math? Are those also taught in court?
Allowed, yes. Required, no. If you are entitled to vote, not a peer of the realm, certified insane, or serving a jail sentence, and are under 75, you may be called to jury service.
Nothing is taught in court unless both sides agree to an independent expert witness explaining textbook technicalities.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2023 14:51:00
Each side can appeal the court decisions.'but only to another court
Quote
Clients choose lawyers with consideration of their track records.if they can afford to. The majority of defendants in police custody and the the lower courts are represented by the duty solicitor (or equivalent in other civilised jurisdictions).
Post by: paul cotter on 26/06/2023 16:03:55
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2023 16:10:01
Post by: paul cotter on 26/06/2023 17:34:18
Post by: alancalverd on 26/06/2023 17:46:59
Post by: paul cotter on 26/06/2023 18:28:56
Post by: Zer0 on 27/06/2023 19:38:47
Hope your day is filled with Alot of JoY & the night with Alot of GiggleZ.
Post by: paul cotter on 28/06/2023 06:02:42
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/06/2023 11:03:30
I think i'll drop out of this thread, as it is a bit too philosophical for me!
This kind of comment shows how broken our current system of philosophy is. It seems to fail our expectations on how philosophy should function. It should be the most basic tool for us as conscious entities to navigate the world, accumulate knowledge, and help in making decisions.
Many people seems to think that modern philosophy has lost most of its practicality, and getting more detached from reality. Our options are leaving it as it is, or try to reform it to make it more useful as how it was originally intended.
Quote
(https://tafacorianthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/describing-different-branches-philosophy-philosophy-branches-168391348.jpg)
https://tafacorianthoughts.com/2022/03/14/what-is-philosophy/
Metaphysics is mainly concerned with explaining the nature of being (existence) and the world. Traditionally, it has two different study areas, including Cosmology and Ontology. Cosmology is focused on understanding the origin, evolution, and the eventual fate of the universe, which include laws that keep it in functioning order. On the other hand, Ontology investigates various types of things that exist and their relationship with each other. Long before the discovery of modern science, all the science-related questions were asked as a part of Metaphysics.
Epistemology is about the study of knowledge. What can we know? How can we know something (or someone)? Epistemology also asks questions such as, can knowledge ever be absolute, or is it only ever relative to a particular situation/event/person/fact? Is there a limit for humans to know certain things? What justifies truth claims? These are some of the essential questions Epistemology seeks answers for.
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is often referred to as the study of morality. It seeks to address questions about how we should live our lives, how we define proper conduct, and what we mean by the good life. It?s a study that teaches us what the virtuous life is like and how we can put these virtues into practice. Ethics concerns itself with questions like, what is the good life? How should we act? What do we mean by virtue? What does ?right? even mean?
Aesthetics as a philosophical subject is wholly devoted to defining the different aspects of beauty and art. How do we find something beautiful? Is beauty always subjective or can it be objective too? Can everyone find a thing/process/event/person beautiful? Aesthetics also examines individual tastes and attempts to provide answers about these things in a scientific manner.
Logic is the branch of philosophy that studies reasoning. It teaches us how to differentiate between good and bad reasoning and how to construct valid arguments. It seeks answers to questions like, what is valid reasoning? How can you distinguish between a good argument and a bad argument? How can you spot fallacies or errors in an argument?
Political Philosophy studies political government, laws, liberty, justice, rights, authority, political states and systems, ethics, and more related concepts under a variety of analytic lenses. Political philosophy helps us to understand why we need governments, the role played by governments, and what are its constituents, amongst other things. It can also help guide public policy formation through the use of informative and creative thought experiments (e.g. Rawls?s Reflective Equilibrium).
Post by: paul cotter on 30/06/2023 12:26:42
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2023 00:00:22
The status quo was summarised by Rene Maugere in his valedictory festschrift: "personne ne donne aucune crotte".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/07/2023 09:27:00
cosmology is a hard scienceWhat makes it hard?
Quote
Cosmologists are often in error but seldom in doubt.If we think that a conclusion of a philosopher is wrong, we should be able to tell the reason why we think so. It usually involves showing that it or it's implications contradict things that we have more confidence of being true.
Lev Landau
Post by: alancalverd on 01/07/2023 09:46:20
This puts experimental psychology and cosmology into the realm of hard science, even though practitioners can offer contradictory theories to explain the same result, because one of the theories won't predict the next outcome. Quite different from economics or sociology where the inconsistent outcome is always due to "unforeseeable circumstances" and rarely better than a guess.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2023 12:51:35
"Hard" sciences are those in which the experiments are repeatable (or in the case of cosmology, geology, and suchlike, observable)Economic and social activities are also observable. Observability doesn't seem to be a distinctive factor.
Hard and soft sciences may not be a dichotomy. Some science may be harder than the others.
I think softer sciences are more affected by subjective experiences and evaluations, such as emotions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2023 13:23:35
This puts experimental psychology and cosmology into the realm of hard science, even though practitioners can offer contradictory theories to explain the same result, because one of the theories won't predict the next outcome. Quite different from economics or sociology where the inconsistent outcome is always due to "unforeseeable circumstances" and rarely better than a guess.In any branch of science, some researchers can make better predictions than their peers.
US experts shocked by Coals sudden death spiral in the United States
It's a matter of who makes the less false assumptions.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/07/2023 08:53:33
"Hard" sciences are those in which the experiments are repeatable (or in the case of cosmology, geology, and suchlike, observable) and the results generally consistent.
You forgot the qualifying phrase!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2023 15:39:13
How do you measure the generality?"Hard" sciences are those in which the experiments are repeatable (or in the case of cosmology, geology, and suchlike, observable) and the results generally consistent.
You forgot the qualifying phrase!
Post by: alancalverd on 08/07/2023 16:07:29
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/07/2023 23:49:09
Soft sciences are often seen less consistent due to higher noise to signal ratio. They come mostly from human subjectivity.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/07/2023 02:29:33
Quote
University College London professor Brian Klaas exposes the ugly truth about world leaders.In Churchill example, the inaction was expected to cause less casualties, which is the opposite of the original trolley problem. It is arguably an easier option compared to the thought experiment.
4 reasons leaders seem worse than regular people | Brian Klaas
University College London professor Brian Klaas exposes the ugly truth about world leaders.
Political scientist Brian Klaas uses philosophical thought experiments like the "trolley problem" to explore the moral complexities faced by leaders when making decisions under immense uncertainty.
According to Klaas, Winston Churchill's World War II choices serve as real-life examples of such dilemmas. Klaas identifies four factors?dirty hands, learning, opportunity, and scrutiny?that may falsely appear as corruption in leaders. "Dirty hands" refers to leaders making harm-inflicting decisions when all options are bad. "Learning" means leaders becoming more efficient at causing harm over time. "Opportunity" signifies the increased chances of those in power to cause harm, while "scrutiny" refers to heightened public examination of leaders' actions.
Klaas asserts that misinterpretations of these factors can lead to incorrect problem diagnoses and solutions. While these factors should not absolve leaders from accountability, they do provide a nuanced understanding of leadership complexities.
0:00 Cracking the Enigma code: Churchill?s WWII trolley problem
2:07 Why all leaders make bad decisions
2:42 4 factors of the corruption illusion
3:12 #1 The dirty hands problem
3:38 #2 The idea of learning
4:09 #3 The problem of opportunity
4:30 #4 The problem of scrutiny
Post by: alancalverd on 11/07/2023 08:42:12
The German submarine caused the deaths. Churchill (or more properly, the War Cabinet) decided that this was the lesser evil.
Non-combatant casualties have been a feature of war at least since the Siege of Masada and probably a lot earlier. There was a more blatant case in the sabotage of the Rjukan ferry carrying heavy water to the German nuclear weapons program and noncombatant crew and commuters, and it is interesting to note that the Norwegians opted to rescue some of the German soldiers who were on board.
There is no moral problem here. The object of combat is to win, but this may involve sacrifice.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/07/2023 13:41:47
The German submarine caused the deaths. Churchill (or more properly, the War Cabinet) decided that this was the lesser evil.Would he make the same decision if the US president were in that targeted ship?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/07/2023 13:46:14
There is no moral problem here. The object of combat is to win, but this may involve sacrifice.There would be no war crime then, if anything were permissible in wars.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/07/2023 14:39:12
Would he make the same decision if the US president were in that targeted ship?The graveyards are full of people who thought they were indispensable. Presidents can be replaced immediately (they have vice-presidents) but it takes a long time to raise an entire battalion. But one way to ensure the Yanks join your war is to allow the enemy to kill their president, so the key to military intelligence is to ensure that nobody knows what you know unless they are committed to your side and need to know. Or you might just tip them a wink. It has been argued that the US Navy had cracked the Japanese codes before Pearl Harbor.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/07/2023 14:42:43
There would be no war crime then, if anything were permissible in wars.It's pretty rare (until recently) for the winners to be prosecuted. And the rules are to say the least bizarre. Decapitating a prisoner is "not cricket" but bombing a city is a legitimate tactic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 03:40:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 07:28:58
Quote
it seems to me and again correct me if I'm wrong is that you made an absolute moral claim in the moral landscape and that's what grounds your argument let's just take this evil piece because it'll be interesting if it's not totally on point Okay the reason why evil is susceptible to Total deflation is if you agree with me uh
evil is a category of human misbehavior human intention that we don't understand significantly at the level of the brain but if we did understand it totally at the level of the brain then every evil person we had in the doc at trial would be just like Charles Whitman with his brain tumor after he shot up everyone at the University of Texas right so like he he's at he's the prototypically evil mass murderer but he's complaining about this change that overcame his personality and he thinks it would be good it would be a good idea that if after the cops kill me you autopsy my brain because I don't know why I'm doing any of this right and lo and behold he had a glioblastoma pressing on his amygdala and all of a sudden it made sense of his behavior in a way that a full understanding of psychopathy or every other variant of human evil would make sense of it in a way that would be deflationary ethically and then you would look at so then you look at someone like Saddam Hussein or the the worst evil person you could imagine and you would say well he's actually unlucky you know there but for the grace of biology go I because if I had that brain if I had those genes if I had those influences that gave me those synapses I would be just like him now if you think there's some other element that gives us Free Will and now then then you and I are disagreeing then that's a factual claim that's at variance with mine but but if we are just on some level malfunctioning biological systems when we're being evil then a complete understanding of evil would cancel that category can you ethically you define evil so we know what you're talking about well just let me take take the just the worst people who have sadistically victimized the most people and those are the evil evilest people we can name so when you say so I think this is actually really important because I think the actual evil of that kind is pretty darn rare and there's a lot of Badness that you mean yeah well the most troubling thing are all the good people doing evil because they're ruled by bad ideas but that I think is more consequential we introduced we introduced a whole set of other things here in the last little round by the Free Will and evil but but just I just want to make it clear why I went there so you were saying this is this is this is I forget the word you used uh inevitable or ineluctable or it's permanent the implications that this category is permanent and I'm saying that I don't think okay but people in that sense is a permanent category for us it awaits more information and insight okay we're going to distinguish for a minute good versus evil and good versus bad just for the sake of conceptual Clarity in the moral landscape you make a fundamental axiomatic claim looks like a moral claim maybe it's claim of fact and the claim is there are bad lives and good lives sure and the claim you make is that that's universally true well it's it's true for the the requisition it doesn't matter okay but evil so yes I'm not
I'm not telling you that you should Purge the word evil from your your vocabulary I use the word all the time and I think it's useful it's a motivating word I'm just saying that it's okay we can understand this Continuum of good and bad or positive and negative in ways that don't use the the certainly don't use the judeo-christian framework for valuing these things because if you if you take the Buddhist framework and map it on to this this Continuum you don't get good and evil you get essentially wisdom and ignorance the evil is ignorance of all the well-being you would you and others would experience if you behaved another way right that's the Buddha's game and and or even within Hinduism and they get this connects to your your love of stories you take the the the the Hindu text the ramayana which is just a foundation you know it's doing the work that the Bible is doing for Jews and Christians in that the worst guy in the ramayana the ten-headed demon ravana the prototypically evil person is at bottom really not a bad guy he's a great Sage who is just you know in a bad mood essentially right he was he was obscured by ignorance and so it is in the Buddhist Canon the Buddhist me the the Buddha meets a a serial killer who you know was wearing a Garland of human fingers around his neck named angulimala but he was just one conversation away from being fully enlightened right I mean he was like this is it's a different picture of of possibility I'm not saying one is right or wrong let's be agnostic about that I'm just I'm challenging your claim that there's something so prescient and useful and durable about the judeo-christian we're stuck with it for all time I was making the claim that in the moral landscape you laid out a distinction between the bad life and the good life forget about rotten evil the bad life and the good life hell in heaven the bad life in the good life and that that distinction was not only factual but Universal and so it is given the right mind so that we could imagine a mind I mean this is an example right mind no no but we could we could create circumstances that seem perverse to us that we would recoil from you could you could create a a universe of perfectly matched sadists and masochists say right so you have the people who are real sadists who in our world would be terrible actors but in their world they're surrounded by people who want to be mistreated now again if you're a real sadist you never mistreat a masochist when he asks okay well these are I'm not sorry I'm not sure I'm not sure the human categories even exist but resist uh uh but in some we undoubtedly we could create something like an artificial intelligence that could be could be paired this way and that would be weird but on my in my framework it is a conceivable space of equivalent well-being and it's it's not matched at all to our space right but it's if if in fact we could inspect the conscious minds of all parties participating in that it is not obviously absurd by in my view to say that they are just as happy as we are in this conversation in fact some moments in this conversation I would say that they might be happier no it's been good it's been good
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2023 09:23:44
One of the motivations for applying ethics codes for soldiers is to avoid backlash from civilians/peasants, as well as enemy's soldiers. If they see us as immoral group, their opposition will be more fierce against us.Recent anecdotes suggest a significant change in attitude during the last 100 years. "Visiting" enemy aircrew used to be treated as gladiators and quickly handed over to the army for imprisonment under Geneva rules, but the widespread use of indiscriminate bombing and strafing of civilian targets now means that ejecting over enemy territory will result in a severe beating by civilians and police, and possible torture by the "authorities".
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2023 09:30:39
Is EVIL a matter of opinion? Sam Harris vs Jordan PetersonGood deeds make people happy, evil deeds make them sad. Yes, the adjective is entirely subjective, and if you need an arbiter, you can argue a serious case in court - allegations of medical malpractice are a good example.
The moment you pretend evil is a noun, you are creating spurious employment for priests, philosophers and politicians. Do not encourage these parasites!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 11:35:13
I guess that means that indiscriminate bombing and strafing of civilian targets can be seen as neglections of moral codes expected by average civilians.One of the motivations for applying ethics codes for soldiers is to avoid backlash from civilians/peasants, as well as enemy's soldiers. If they see us as immoral group, their opposition will be more fierce against us.Recent anecdotes suggest a significant change in attitude during the last 100 years. "Visiting" enemy aircrew used to be treated as gladiators and quickly handed over to the army for imprisonment under Geneva rules, but the widespread use of indiscriminate bombing and strafing of civilian targets now means that ejecting over enemy territory will result in a severe beating by civilians and police, and possible torture by the "authorities".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 11:44:56
Good deeds make people happy, evil deeds make them sad. Yes, the adjective is entirely subjective, and if you need an arbiter, you can argue a serious case in courtEmotions like happiness and sadness can be different among different people, in different time, and in different places. You can make the decision based on average or majority, but it could be harmful to minorities.
Courts in different time or different places may make different decisions on the same cases.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 11:57:16
People who are best known for their warmongering rhetoric are unlikely the ones who have to fight in the front line themselves.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 12:06:24
An Introduction to Ethics
An Introduction to Metaethics
An Introduction to Normative Ethics
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2023 12:30:11
I guess that means that indiscriminate bombing and strafing of civilian targets can be seen as neglections of moral codes expected by average civilians.Average civilians voted for Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Milosevic......
Post by: alancalverd on 14/07/2023 12:36:44
People who are best known for their warmongering rhetoric are unlikely the ones who have to fight in the front line themselves.Or get bombed by their chosen enemies. Professional soldiers sign up for a life mostly free from decisions and uncertainty but with a small chance of actual hostile contact, for which they have trained and equipped themselves. Modern warfare however involves a lot of people who haven't chosen to fight. And neither soldiers nor civilians stand to gain anything from the outcome. So why does it happen?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2023 16:55:16
Average civilians voted for Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Putin, Milosevic......There were reasons why Plato hated democracy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2023 04:57:51
What is Meta-ethics? (L1-Introduction)
What is Cognitivism in meta-ethics? (L2 - Cognitivism)
Hume's is/ought problem? (L3 - Is Ought Problem - Hume)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2023 05:02:17
The is-ought gap is vacuous (paper by C. Pigden).
Post by: alancalverd on 15/07/2023 10:37:01
Not a problem, more of a solution.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/07/2023 15:02:48
When we buy complex medical equipment it comes with a checklist of levels, torques, voltages etc for the installing engineer to complete. Against each parameter there are two columns: German manufacturers succinctly head them soll (ought - factory limits) and ist (is - actual site measurements).Can the "ought" values be purely derived by "is" values?
Not a problem, more of a solution.
That's the question.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/07/2023 10:22:44
The UPS batteries ought to handle 500 kW power for 10 minutes during power outage, because the diesel genset takes some time to start up until it's ready to take over the load.
During commissioning it was found that the UPS batteries can only handle 500 kW power for 7 minutes.
Can the "ought" values be purely derived by "is" values?
That's the question.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/07/2023 15:19:42
Can the "ought" values be purely derived by "is" values?Obviously not! "Ought " is a design specification, "is" is a performance measurement. A system can't perform until it's built, you can't build it until the design is complete, and you can't design it until you have a specification. A ton of aluminum ingots won't fly, but if you want a plane that travels at 150 mph someone will design it, build it (from a ton of aluminum ingots) , and then demonstrate how close the ist is to the soll.
So in relation to your UPS, what specification underpins the purchase contract? Here's a cautionary tale:
There are about 15 pieces of wood in a door frame.
Our hero (probably an accountant) wanted to add an extra door to his kitchen so he measured every piece of the existing frame, to within 0.1 mm, then presented his specification to a carpentry shop. Next day he went in to collect his kit and was given a pile of sticks, some with knots, some with bark, some green, some bent, and all different timbers. He complained. The shop manager produced a tape measure and micrometer, showed him that each piece was exactly as specified, and demanded payment for his precision cutting and shaping.
At this point a woman walked into the shop and passed her ticket to the clerk, who produced a beautiful piece of polished oak, 400 x 200 x 22 mm, edge bevelled, with a 12 mm hole centered in each radiused corner. The bloke looked in amazement and said "What specification did she order?" "She asked us to make a seat for her kids' swing".
Moral: say what you want - don't tell the engineer/surgeon/pilot/carpenter how to do it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/07/2023 03:32:00
So in relation to your UPS, what specification underpins the purchase contract? Here's a cautionary tale:The battery UPS is meant to replace previous UPS with mechanical energy storage using flywheel. The high maintenance cost and complexity were the reasons, besides the reliability issue, related to travel restriction during the pandemic which prevented vendor's engineers to visit and maintain it properly.
The UPS batteries ought to handle 500 kW power for 10 minutes during power outage, because the diesel genset takes some time to start up until it's ready to take over the load.In normal condition, the backup diesel genset can start to provide power less than 1 minute after mains failure. But there were times when it took longer, and sometimes it needed operator's interventions.
The 10 minutes expectation for the new UPS was based on cost and benefit considerations, technical discussion and negotiation with the vendor.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/07/2023 12:33:14
There's much to be said for a mechanical flywheel, particularly if its job is to start a diesel generator - the "state of charge" is obvious and you don't have problems with printed circuit or battery terminal corrosion, rats eating the control cables, electrical sparks igniting fuel vapor.....just engage the clutch (with a big handle - none of that electrical nonsense) and watch the emergency lighting come on.
But the awful word "expectation" smells of a committee decision, not a performance specification!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2023 10:14:32
Yesterday we run second test, with active Air Conditioner. The battery can provide the required power for 9'55'', which was reasonably close to our expectation.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/07/2023 18:14:23
At least your problem is static and potentially fixable. Part of the fun with electric cars is the temperature sensitivity of the batteries - you can't charge them at full rate when they are too hot (i.e. just after you've used them) and they won't deliver full power when they are too cold (you have to use the battery to preheat itself!) One day, someone will invent the internal combustion engine, or maybe the horse, and all our problems will be solved.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2023 23:21:01
So now you need a backup battery to keep the aircon working when the UPS is in use...... The flywheel seems like a better idea!We also use AC for the flywheel UPS. I don't think that is the differentiating factor.
As I mentioned earlier, 7 minutes is more than enough in most cases. The flywheel UPS only provides even less than that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/07/2023 23:31:42
Quote
Half a million dollars.The morality level of a conscious entity can be measured by its consideration in time and space dimensions. Babies don't consider the consequences of their actions much longer than a few seconds. They don't care what happens further than a few meters from them.
That's the bonus a Big Pharma CEO got for hiking the price of ONE cancer treatment drug.
How many patients lost their lives because they couldn't afford this medicine? Here's our conversation.
That's why their parents as the authority must set the rules to align their behavior with higher morality levels as they grow up to adulthood.
Similar things also apply to organizations like companies and governments.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/07/2023 11:43:12
Rights are dangerous!
Nobody lost their lives because they couldn't afford a drug - they lost their lives because they were ill. Otherwise logic requires you to blame scientists who haven't been born yet for failing to develop the treatment that might have cured their great-grandparents.
So the moral questions are
1. what is wrong with someone making a profit on something he has invented or legitimately purchased from the inventor?
2. what is right about advertising a desirable product to people who can't afford it?
and to remove the emotional aspect of the questions, forget drugs and think Rolls Royce Phantom.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 07:36:22
This argument presumes a universal human right to be cured from all diseases.Have you watched the video?
Where do you get that assumption from?
Quote
1. what is wrong with someone making a profit on something he has invented or legitimately purchased from the inventor?The problem being pointed out here is more like gambling with other people's money. They democratize loss and privatize gain. 3 B tax payers money has been used in the research. If it failed, people would lose money for nothing.
The benefits should be proportional to the stake in the research.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 07:43:18
Problem with that is that we would all live for ever and starve to death on an overcrowded planet, were it not for the universal human right to extract unlimited food and water from a finite planet.They will compete for the resources.
Fair competitions usually produce good results.
Let's not be hysterical. People will adapt to new environmental conditions. Not so long ago people can easily die from infections. We don't normalize it now.
When life expectancy increases, reproduction starting age tends to follow.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 08:15:20
and to remove the emotional aspect of the questions, forget drugs and think Rolls Royce Phantom.What about drinking water source in a village getting hit by drought?
I see emotions as shortcuts to make decisions when the time to consider the consequences of each available options is inadequate.
What are the consequences of increasing the price of Rolls Royce Phantom by 10 times?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 08:29:47
2. what is right about advertising a desirable product to people who can't afford it?It can encourage people to work harder and be more productive so they can afford the desired product.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 10:15:35
'Our Cancer Drug Is For Rich Westerners, Not Poor Indians'
Quote
"In 2005, the FDA granted approval for a promising new cancer-fighting drug called Nexavar. Bayer took it to market shortly thereafter, and it is currently an approved treatment for late-stage kidney and liver cancer.
That is, so long as you live in the developed world. In a recently published interview in Bloomberg Businessweek, Bayer CEO Marijn Dekkers said that his company's drug isn't for poor people.
"We did not develop this medicine for Indians...we developed it for western patients who can afford it," he said back in December. The quote is quickly making its way across Indian news outlets.
The comment was in response to a decision by an Indian patent court that granted a compulsory license to a local company to reproduce Bayer's drug."* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2023 16:37:27
Where do you get that assumption from?It would be illogical to single out any one disease, surely? Therefore the assumption must be that we have a right of cure from all of them.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2023 16:39:14
Fair competitions usually produce good results.For the winners, certainly. If everyone wins, it's called collaboration, not competition.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2023 16:39:57
It can encourage people to work harder and be more productive so they can afford the desired product.Difficult, if you are suffering from terminal cancer.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/07/2023 16:42:46
People will adapt to new environmental conditions. Not so long ago people can easily die from infections. We don't normalize it now.Because we have changed the environment, not adapted to it!
"If you want to save one life you need a doctor. If you want to save a million, you need an engineer."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 23:22:46
Their family members can make the additional efforts for them.It can encourage people to work harder and be more productive so they can afford the desired product.Difficult, if you are suffering from terminal cancer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 23:36:22
If the cure of the disease is available,Where do you get that assumption from?It would be illogical to single out any one disease, surely? Therefore the assumption must be that we have a right of cure from all of them.
the only thing that prevent us from getting it is the cost and benefit consideration for the society deciding to grant the right.
Imagine if someone has two serious diseases, for which only one has available cure, albeit it's still expensive. Curing that disease won't give much benefit as long as the other one is still there. Then the expensive cure should be prioritized for someone else.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/07/2023 23:41:33
Because we have changed the environment, not adapted to it!Some people like The Bajau has free diving adaptation.
Other genetic variations across humans from different regions indicate adaptation to environmental conditions and lifestyle.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/07/2023 10:27:04
Their family members can make the additional efforts for them.So we should all have lots of children in the hope that they will keep us alive? The objective, presumably, being an unsustainable population supporting its useless ancestors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/07/2023 00:08:00
It depends on their tolerance level to sufferings.Their family members can make the additional efforts for them.So we should all have lots of children in the hope that they will keep us alive? The objective, presumably, being an unsustainable population supporting its useless ancestors.
When the actions lead to different result than the goal, we call it alignment problem.
To solve it, we need to define the goal unambiguously, and make adequately accurate and precise model of the universe, at least in the parts where it's relevant to the goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/07/2023 18:17:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2023 08:18:22
One fairly common goal is to bequeath your children a better life than you have had. Unfortunately the government imposes an inheritance tax on the middle classes (neither the poor nor the rich pay it) and whatever your bequest, whether it be land or money, obviously the more children you have, the poorer each will be as a result.People behaviors are affected by their expectation. Some people are so scared from being poor when they're old, hence they try to accumulate excessive wealth while they still can, even to the point of crossing moral and legal boundaries, sacrificing others. They are expecting to get easy lives during their retirements.
It motivates politicians and business persons to be involved in corruptions, which benefits few people in the short term, but hurts many people in the long run, and makes the system unsustainable.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2023 10:47:11
People behaviors are affected by their expectation.But surely more strongly affected by opportunity and ability? We all expect to get sick and die, but some have the opportunity to live better than others in the meantime.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2023 11:59:42
Opportunity and ability affect the results. But their decisions, actions, and behaviors are more affected by their expectation. Someone who has the ability to jump across a cliff, but doesn't expect to successfully do it, are not likely to jump.People behaviors are affected by their expectation.But surely more strongly affected by opportunity and ability? We all expect to get sick and die, but some have the opportunity to live better than others in the meantime.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have the ability to jump across a cliff, but does expect to successfully do it, are more likely to jump.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2023 12:13:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2023 12:30:22
?You Wanna Talk About MORALS?!? Neil deGrasse Tyson vs Vegan Activist
Here's a video defending veganism. You may see the sarcasm in the title.
There is one argument vegans can't debunk (vegans kill animals too)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/07/2023 12:38:53
So expectation depends on opportunity. No cliff, no reason to jump. Why rob a newspaper seller (easy, but scant reward) when you could rob the bank next door? Or, if you are a politician, tax the newspaper seller and give his money to your banker brother, in the expectation of becoming a director when you are voted out in disgrace.Expectation depends on many things, such as education, experience, actual ability and opportunity.
Just like before, even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2023 22:38:15
I don't agree that those objectives are necessary (or even desirable in the case of increasing population) but I'd be quite happy to retain the status quo, which means eliminating farmed meat.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/07/2023 22:39:44
even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.Circular, surely? How else could you define opportunity?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2023 16:01:22
No. An opportunity is a situation where you have better chance to succeed compared to otherwise. People may or may not realize when they are having that opportunity.even if you have the real opportunity, you won't take it if you don't expect it to bring you success.Circular, surely? How else could you define opportunity?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2023 22:49:51
?You Wanna Talk About MORALS?!? Neil deGrasse Tyson vs Vegan ActivistThe vegan activist seems to assume that feelings and emotions are fundamental aspect of morality, especially fear, pain and suffering. He offered no justification for it. I guess he's influenced by Yuval Noah Harari's view of morality.
He also seem to evaluate their magnitudes based on their perceived expression, such as screaming and facial expressions, just like himself and other humans.
He thinks that it's an immoral action if you don't want others to do it to you.
He dismissed right away the possibility that plants might have their own ways to express those feelings, and equates them with rocks. I wonder what he would say about humans or other animals in vegetative state. Is it OK to eat them?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/07/2023 23:21:55
Post by: alancalverd on 27/07/2023 15:19:02
He thinks that it's an immoral action if you don't want others to do it to him.I'd agree with him - we discussed this several pages ago!
Quote
He dismissed right away the possibility that plants might have their own ways to express those feelings, and equates them with rocks.But he's wrong here. There is plenty of evidence of plants responding to harm and even fighting back.
Way back in Biology 101 we were taught the differences between plants and animals: animals cannot synthesise protein from simpler chemicals, and must therefore eat something that was previously alive. Some animals can eat mostly plants, others eat mostly animals, and apes, pigs and dogs eat a mixture.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/07/2023 17:14:20
I'd agree with him - we discussed this several pages ago!You added another term to patch the hole in the rule created by sadomasochists and non-selfish individuals, which may implement kin selection. Even then, there's still a hole left which is created by psychopaths and nihilists, and the crazies or mentally ill people.
Your rules asked people to use their own feelings to evaluate morality. But when their results contradict your expectation, you tried to reject them without giving a clear reason.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2023 00:26:56
Way back in Biology 101 we were taught the differences between plants and animals: animals cannot synthesise protein from simpler chemicals, and must therefore eat something that was previously alive. Some animals can eat mostly plants, others eat mostly animals, and apes, pigs and dogs eat a mixture.There are photosynthetic animals. They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.
Plants themselves are thought to be a product of endosymbiosis.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2023 01:15:21
Moral realists argue that positions in morality can be judged by the correctness of facts used to support them.
Some assumptions used here need to clarify:
- Plants don't suffer, i.e. non-sentient.
- Animals suffer. Does it include brainless animals?
- Sentience or capability/vulnerability to suffering is a good measure to give something rights, as the basis of morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2023 08:00:03
There's also a video trying to refute is-ought problem based on a paper by C. Pigden.If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.
The is-ought gap is vacuous (paper by C. Pigden).
Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?
Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/07/2023 09:51:10
There are photosynthetic animals. They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.By your definition, humans are photosynthetic because we cultivate plants. Indeed we can't live without them. Admittedly "species" has no fixed definition, but "symbiosis" clearly implies that there are two distinct species involved.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/07/2023 09:54:55
There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.
Post by: paul cotter on 30/07/2023 10:37:08
Post by: alancalverd on 30/07/2023 16:19:32
Animals can't synthesize certain amino acids and vitamins necessary for protein synthesis.Point taken - it's good to meet another pedant. I can't make gold therefore I can't make a gold watch!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 03:33:22
Have you heard about endosymbiosis?There are photosynthetic animals. They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.By your definition, humans are photosynthetic because we cultivate plants. Indeed we can't live without them. Admittedly "species" has no fixed definition, but "symbiosis" clearly implies that there are two distinct species involved.
Cows and termites can do what most other species can't due to symbiosis in their digestion system.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 03:37:40
I don't know why you waste your life with philosophy,. "Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.Elon Musk was once told reusable rockets don't work, and he shouldn't waste time and money trying to build them. But now they are the norm. Single use rockets are now sound stupid, except for extremely small use cases.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 07:56:20
Hamdani, that must be a ropey diesel if 10 mins are necessary for cover. Any well maintained diesel with good batteries will be up to speed and ready for load acceptance in 10sec or less. The spec on a very old Holech rotary ups fitted with a Mercedes diesel claimed something like 3.5sec from initiation of the start signal but I find that to be pushing credibility. I generally don't respond to these long threads as fairness would demand that one reads the lot before commenting and that would take far too long.They were installed in the early 90s. Normally, they are ready within 20 seconds. But there were cases where the auto-start failed, and operators had to interfere which may took around 5 minutes to normalize. Most often, the mains failure are only a few seconds, which were caused by switching power sources due to maintenance by electricity provider. The new battery UPS can provide 10 minutes window within the budget of the flywheel UPS which can only provide around 30 seconds. We can say that the additional 9 minutes are bonus.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 11:07:10
"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.
There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.
If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.From three logically possible "ought" cases, which one do you think is the most correct?
Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?
Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/07/2023 11:37:29
Elon Musk was once told reusable rockets don't work, and he shouldn't waste time and money trying to build them. But now they are the norm. Single use rockets are now sound stupid, except for extremely small use cases.All you have done there is distinguish between genius and consensus. EM thought he "ought" to have a reuseable rocket, so he worked until it became an "is". The fact that others couldn't see the point, is irrelevant. Which just proves my point that engineering (turning ought into is) is important, whilst philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 15:48:55
philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.I don't think that's what philosophy is. Some philosophers are moral realists. They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/07/2023 17:03:50
They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 22:49:19
Tesla wasn't convinced about special theory of relativity, while Einstein wasn't convinced about quantum mechanics. Some modern physicists are not convinced about dark matter and string theory, as well as quantum gravity and unified field theory.They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.
In your logic, they are waste of time.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/07/2023 23:06:44
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 23:37:49
A hypothesis that can only be supported by argument is by definition useless.It sounds like you are talking about mathematics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/08/2023 10:18:34
What makes you think that problems in philosophy is impossible to solve, or at least much harder than mathematics or other branches of science?They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/08/2023 12:08:50
Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/08/2023 12:12:24
At 3:00 it shows premises about objectivity. And the word matter here means important, instead of physical substance.philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.I don't think that's what philosophy is. Some philosophers are moral realists. They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.
I've said previously that objective morality is an oxymoron. Morality is defined as concern about good and bad, which requires goals, which in turn requires consciousness. In a universe without consciousness, there's no goal, hence there's no morality. This refutes premise 2 in the video. An objectively true statement requires that it's true even when no one is aware of it, and remain true even when there's no conscious entity in the universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/08/2023 12:53:54
Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate.Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?
Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.
Even if every philosopher conspires to not solve the philosophical problems, it can't prevent non-philosophers from trying to solve them.
Post by: paul cotter on 01/08/2023 13:55:56
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 00:07:02
Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?Proof by induction:
The area of a circle with unit radius is an irrational number (π). The area of a square with unit side is a rational number (1). Whatever radius you choose for the circle (and the radius is its only defining dimension), you can't construct a square with exactly the same area because you can't know √π exactly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 03:45:12
Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate.When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems. Even when we solve all existing problems, they will create a new one.
Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 03:49:08
I don't get that one( maybe too old or too stoopid! ), surely I can make a circle or square with any arbitrary area? Or is some condition missing in the original statement?You can read this article
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circle
Squaring the circle is a problem in geometry first proposed in Greek mathematics. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the area of a circle by using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge. The difficulty of the problem raised the question of whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles implied the existence of such a square.
In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann?Weierstrass theorem, which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental number. That is, π is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for decades that the construction would be impossible if π were transcendental, but that fact was not proven until 1882. Approximate constructions with any given non-perfect accuracy exist, and many such constructions have been found.
Despite the proof that it is impossible, attempts to square the circle have been common in pseudomathematics (i.e. the work of mathematical cranks). The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.[1] The term quadrature of the circle is sometimes used as a synonym for squaring the circle, but it may also refer to approximate or numerical methods for finding the area of a circle.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 09:28:24
When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems.None of which is of any interest or value to anyone, and most of which are not really problems at all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 12:08:34
We can agree that some philosophical problems are not important. But I don't think that none of them are.When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems.None of which is of any interest or value to anyone, and most of which are not really problems at all.
Some of things must be important to someone, that's why that word was inventedinvented in the first place. Determining what's important is one of philosophical problems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 12:49:20
I meant philosophical problems.Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?Proof by induction:
The area of a circle with unit radius is an irrational number (π). The area of a square with unit side is a rational number (1). Whatever radius you choose for the circle (and the radius is its only defining dimension), you can't construct a square with exactly the same area because you can't know √π exactly.
This one below is the most basic philosophical problem in morality.
"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.
There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.From three logically possible "ought" cases, which one do you think is the most correct?
Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.
How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?
Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 13:10:41
As with all philosophy, your question is merely an instance of human vanity.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 13:14:59
Some of things must be important to someone,A host is important to its parasite. The art of human parasitism (politics, religion, philosophy) is to convince your host that what you do is important. Inventing questions and pretending that other people don't or can't understand them is the action of such a parasite.
I think we have now dealt with and dismissed what you considered to be the most important question in philosophy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:31:57
Ought implies that someone or something will benefit from the state or action. However you define a conscious entity it is part of the universe and a consequence of the physical laws that govern it. There is no evidence that its existence is of any benefit or otherwise to the universe.Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:35:49
As with all philosophy, your question is merely an instance of human vanity.We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe. Especially after we know how vast the universe is, and how fast AI can grow smarter and wiser.
If you are really convinced that your life is meaningless, it's most likely that you are right.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:38:48
I think we have now dealt with and dismissed what you considered to be the most important question in philosophy.I'll take it that you've chosen the third option, which says that
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:45:50
Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future are most likely come from currently existing conscious entities who choose the first option. They will think that those who choose the second option as immoral, and those who choose the third option as wasting valuable resources, hence also are immoral.
1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.
2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 15:24:27
Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.It sets goals which are of no importance to anything else - except possibly those entities it exploits in the pursuit of its goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 15:26:29
We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe.But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can say that any importance we attach to consciousness is only a reflection of our own vanity and selfimportance.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/08/2023 15:27:50
Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the futureWhatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 23:08:28
Do you believe it more than your own consciousness?Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the futureWhatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.
It's not very common to find physicists who are skeptical about the second law of thermodynamics, but here we are.QuoteI don't believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (The most uplifting video I'll ever make.)
The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will inevitably increase. Eventually, it will make life in the universe impossible. What does this mean? And is it correct? In this video, I sort out what we know about the arrow of time and why I don't believe that entropy will kill the universe.
00:00 Introduction
1:00 The Arrow of Time
3:04 Entropy, Work, and Heat
7:07 The Past Hypothesis and Heat Death
9:34 Entropy, Order, and Information
11:38 How Will the Universe End?
15:46 Brilliant Sponsorship
Do you have any goal at all?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 23:16:57
Each of us are the backup plans of our parents, which are themselves backup plans of their parents, and so on to our ancestors. We are here because their goals are somewhat aligned with the universal terminal goal.Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.It sets goals which are of no importance to anything else - except possibly those entities it exploits in the pursuit of its goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 23:32:00
Read again about Bayesian reasoning. Any evidence can only increase our confidence so much until it passes the threshold of practicality. It can never turn into certainty.We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe.But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can say that any importance we attach to consciousness is only a reflection of our own vanity and selfimportance.
Our existence is a scaffolding to enable the existence of future conscious entities. Otherwise, we're the immorals who are wasting precious resources.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/08/2023 09:37:06
Our existence is a scaffolding to enable the existence of future conscious entities. Otherwise, we're the immorals who are wasting precious resources.Vanity yet again!
"Scaffolding" presumes an external motivator. It doesn't erect itself with a purpose, but is put in place by someone with an intention to clad it with something else. There is no evidence of that someone or intention. It is indeed true that the land rises on the skeletons of its previous inhabitants, but they weren't created for that reason, nor did they intend to die for it.
"Wasting resources" is a value judgement with no logical evidence. Every living thing consumes part of its environment and excretes toxins. You might as well accuse trees of "wasting" carbon dioxide and poisoning the environment with oxygen - which is exactly what happened before animals evolved to complete the cycle. The inescapable fact is that ΔS > 0 everywhere, always, and living things are just a more complicated chemical pathway to that result than simple fusion or oxidation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/08/2023 14:20:00
"Scaffolding" presumes an external motivator. It doesn't erect itself with a purpose, but is put in place by someone with an intention to clad it with something else. There is no evidence of that someone or intention. It is indeed true that the land rises on the skeletons of its previous inhabitants, but they weren't created for that reason, nor did they intend to die for it.Imagine if our ancestors didn't care if their descendants would live or die. We won't be here to talk about it. They were the scaffolding to our current existence. And we are the scaffolding to future conscious entities. They don't have to have the same physical and chemical structures as we do, just like we don't have to have the same physical and chemical structures as our ancestors do.
If you don't mind about it, that's fine. But I think many others do mind about it. And what matters is the opinion of those who are conscious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/08/2023 03:24:51
"Wasting resources" is a value judgement with no logical evidence. Every living thing consumes part of its environment and excretes toxins. You might as well accuse trees of "wasting" carbon dioxide and poisoning the environment with oxygen - which is exactly what happened before animals evolved to complete the cycle.Waste or not depends on the judgment of conscious entities. If some resources are lost or destroyed without giving expected results, then at least some of those resources have been wasted. Lean management system identifies and classifies those wastes, so we can manage them to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our systems.
If evolutionary process on earth lasting for billions of years cannot produce conscious entities capable of building a multiplanetary civilization, then sooner or later the process will be reset, and whatever had been done would be wasted.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/08/2023 11:21:24
Without a common moral standard, no amount of scientific evidence will be enough to solve a moral problem. It will have to be settled through brute force. Just like how an authoritarian government settles a dispute with an ethnic minority. Or the trial of Socrates.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/08/2023 19:58:17
Waste or not depends on the judgment of conscious entities.
It's an essential distinction made by all living things, which is why plants have stomata and animals have anuses.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/08/2023 20:00:44
Imagine if our ancestors didn't care if their descendants would live or die.Like it or not, they will die eventually, as will every living thing.
There are plenty of fish in the sea, and their parents have absolutely no interest in the young. They just lay their eggs and move on.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/08/2023 03:18:04
Like it or not, they will die eventually, as will every living thing.Death of an individual specimen is acceptable for the system it's being part of if its legacy still goes on.
In the absence of total destruction by catastrophic events, natural selection tends to increase the fitness of organisms, although the progress pace is not necessarily linear.
Senescence can be viewed as a self imposed restriction which reduce the fitness of individuals, but was necessary to improve the fitness of the system in the long term. Delayed reproduction also serves a similar function. Genetic and epigenetic improvement were not really feasible without generational succession. But science and technology can change that, and IMO we will see it in not so distant future.
All of these requires system thinking that unfortunately not many people are familiar with, just yet.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2023 17:34:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/08/2023 22:07:31
I really mean everything, not just the ones that are alive now. The whole of life is a transient phenomenon. ΔS > 0.Does it mean that everything is meaningless? Including every one's goals and preferences?
Do you have any goal? Are they meaningless? Why or why not?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/08/2023 22:34:41
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2023 03:36:51
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2023 09:06:35
The graveyards are full of men who considered themselves indispensable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/08/2023 13:04:37
I have a goal to launch and protect my descendants as well as I can. What they do with the knowledge and resources I bequeath them is up to them, not me.
The graveyards are full of men who considered themselves indispensable.
It seems like you are not planning on causing their extinction, which is a good sign.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/08/2023 22:17:56
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2023 10:32:17
Not immediately, but life will eventually extinguish without my help.How long do you expect for it to last?
Would it be better for it to last sooner?
Would it be better for it to last later instead?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/08/2023 15:07:22
0:00 Introduction
1:00 Track record argument for utilitarianism
5:55 What did early utilitarianism believe?
9:55 Theories vs theorists
15:25 Why does a track record matter?
18:23 The circularity problem
23:38 Roads to moral knowledge
Post by: alancalverd on 10/08/2023 23:30:32
How long do you expect for it to last?Good question. Bayes' theorem gives a best estimate of 4 billion years.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/08/2023 01:55:12
Is it possible to make it longer?How long do you expect for it to last?Good question. Bayes' theorem gives a best estimate of 4 billion years.
Why or why not?
Should we, or should we not?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/08/2023 06:01:25
The Track Record Argument for UtilitarianismCurrently, there are several versions of utility function which utilitarians want to maximize. Some of them want to maximize the sum of individual happiness, or some alternatives like pleasure and wellbeing.
Some want to minimize the sum of individual suffering, or some alternatives like pain and misery.
Some assign the same weight to every individual. Some other assign more weights to less fortunate individuals.
Some only consider immediate consequences of a decision, while some others also include indirect and longer term consequences. What's still lacking is the reason why they chose those parameters, instead of the alternatives?
Post by: alancalverd on 11/08/2023 18:22:34
Is it possible to make it longer?The sun is predicted to die in about 5 billion years, which places an upper limit on the sustainability of terrestrial life, and we know of no other.
Why or why not?
Should we, or should we not?
Bayes' postulate is that "in the absence of conflicting information, today is like any other day" , so as life seems to have been around for 4.5 bn years, one's best guess at how long it will last is another 4.5 bn.
I tink the convergence of these figures is sufficient for the present purpose.
Excellent Bayesian line from The Big Bang Theory:
Howard: Guess who NASA want to send into space?
Sheldon: Mohammed Lee
H: How did you come up with that name?
S: I have no actual information but Mohammed is the most common first name, and Lee is the most common surname, so I gave myself a statistical advantage.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2023 08:33:37
The sun is predicted to die in about 5 billion years, which places an upper limit on the sustainability of terrestrial life, and we know of no other.This thread is meant to discuss about the universal terminal goal, instead of goals in immediate present. We already know that observable universe is much larger than the pale blue dot which all of human ever existed prior to 20th century.
Bayes' postulate is that "in the absence of conflicting information, today is like any other day" , so as life seems to have been around for 4.5 bn years, one's best guess at how long it will last is another 4.5 bn.
I tink the convergence of these figures is sufficient for the present purpose.
What makes you think that consciousness must depend on the sun? What prevents it from going or expanding to other solar systems?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/08/2023 10:17:50
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2023 12:32:42
Please define consciousness, and show your evidence that it exists elsewhere.I've already done it previously. In case you missed it, here it is.
In a more concise words, consciousness is capacity to pursue goals.Please refer me to your definition of consciousness.
I only use the word to denote an ability to respond to a stimulus via some neurological process. My taste buds are far less sensitive than they were in my youth, and instead of screaming when I cut myself, I swear a bit and wait for the blood to coagulate. So your suggestion that adults have a higher level of consciousness than children doesn't seem to hold water.here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.
If you think that the definition and model of consciousness in the video can be improved, or even if you have your own definition or model which you think is better in any way, please let me know. We can discuss further to get the best possible definition and model that we can come up with.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2023 13:37:52
Please define consciousness, and show your evidence that it exists elsewhere.So far, we have no direct evidence that consciousness exists outside of our solar system. But to declare that it cannot exist elsewhere is like declaring that fish don't exist in the ocean after scooping seawater at the beach and found no fish.
We already know that our solar system is not that special in our galaxy, while our galaxy isn't that special in observable universe. There is no reason to declare that what can exist here cannot exist out there.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2023 13:50:43
Please define consciousnessFor comparison, Google Bard said.
Quote
Consciousness is a complex phenomenon that has been studied by philosophers, scientists, and theologians for centuries. There is no single definition of consciousness that is universally agreed upon, but it is generally understood to be the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
Consciousness is often divided into two main categories:
Subjective consciousness: This is the awareness of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations. It is the feeling of being "in your head" and having a sense of self.
Objective consciousness: This is the awareness of the external world. It is the ability to perceive objects and events in the world around you.
Consciousness is thought to be essential for a number of cognitive functions, such as:
Attention: The ability to focus on specific stimuli and ignore irrelevant information.
Memory: The ability to store and recall information.
Language: The ability to use symbols to communicate with others.
Reasoning: The ability to think logically and solve problems.
Decision-making: The ability to choose between different options.
Consciousness is also thought to play a role in our emotions, our sense of morality, and our capacity for creativity.
The exact nature of consciousness is still a mystery. There are a number of theories about how consciousness arises in the brain, but no single theory has been able to fully explain it. Some possible explanations for consciousness include:
The Global Neuronal Workspace Theory: This theory proposes that consciousness arises from the synchronized activity of neurons across different parts of the brain.
The Integrated Information Theory: This theory proposes that consciousness is a measure of the amount of information that is integrated across different parts of the brain.
The Attention Schema Theory: This theory proposes that consciousness is a product of the brain's attention system.
The study of consciousness is a rapidly growing field, and there is still much that we do not know about it. However, the research that has been done so far has helped us to understand the importance of consciousness and the role it plays in our lives.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/08/2023 18:52:42
They seem to only consider individualistic point of view, because in their life time, only human individuals can think and communicate about morality. They had no idea how it looks like from the perspective of systems which are lower or higher than individual levels.The Track Record Argument for UtilitarianismCurrently, there are several versions of utility function which utilitarians want to maximize. Some of them want to maximize the sum of individual happiness, or some alternatives like pleasure and wellbeing.
Some want to minimize the sum of individual suffering, or some alternatives like pain and misery.
Some assign the same weight to every individual. Some other assign more weights to less fortunate individuals.
Some only consider immediate consequences of a decision, while some others also include indirect and longer term consequences. What's still lacking is the reason why they chose those parameters, instead of the alternatives?
From unicellular perspective, human individuals are supersystems consisting of many individual cells with different shapes and functions. From the perspective of human civilization, human individuals are subsystems with different shapes and functions.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/08/2023 22:42:49
From unicellular perspective, human individuals are supersystems consisting of many individual cells with different shapes and functions. From the perspective of human civilization, human individuals are subsystems with different shapes and functions.
Wow! People are distinct collections of cells. Who would have thought it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2023 12:35:38
So Google has provided a mostly irrelevant torrent of words as usual, and does not distinguish between consciousness and symptoms of life.It's a summary of text data about consciousness that were trained to the LLM. I asked what the sources it used. Here's the answer.
Quote
I got my information about consciousness from a variety of sources, including:If you think you have a better answer, you can publish it. Or just write it down here.
Wikipedia: The Wikipedia article on consciousness provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, including different definitions, theories, and research findings.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on consciousness is a more in-depth and technical resource that provides a critical analysis of the different theories of consciousness.
Scientific American: Scientific American has published a number of articles on consciousness, including "What is Consciousness?" by David Eagleman and "The Mystery of Consciousness" by Christof Koch.
Nature: Nature is a scientific journal that has published a number of articles on consciousness, including "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness" by Francis Crick and Christof Koch.
The New York Times: The New York Times has published a number of articles on consciousness, including "The Quest to Understand Consciousness" by John Markoff and "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" by David Chalmers.
Not all life forms pass the threshold commonly used to distinguish between conscious and non-conscious beings.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/08/2023 12:40:57
Wow! People are distinct collections of cells. Who would have thought it?Not many people thought about it until the idea of biological cells became widely accepted.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/08/2023 18:39:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/08/2023 13:17:44
So there are plenty of articles and lectures about consiciousness, but no single definition. I think that consigns the subject to the dustbin called "philosophy" rather than a serious science forum.Google Bard also says that there's no single definition of time. Does it mean that time is not a serious scientific concept?
What's your preferred definition for consciousness?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/08/2023 14:30:34
AFAIK all scientific discussions involving time make sense if it is "what separates sequential events", or in the words of Einstein, "what stops everything from happening at once". Only a philosopher would try to pretend that we don't understand that.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/08/2023 14:31:36
Not many people thought about it until the idea of biological cells became widely accepted.I think that's a tautology. Did you get it from AI?
Post by: paul cotter on 14/08/2023 18:10:51
Post by: alancalverd on 14/08/2023 22:23:10
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 03:51:15
Google Bard is not to be taken seriously. I have just switched my search engine to DuckDuckGo in order to get factual answers to my searches instead of childish essays about vaguely-related subjects.DuckDuckGo also employ some algorithm to provide the links of what it "thinks" as the most relevant web page to your query. Just like LLM AI model, they use statistics of online traffic, which is prone to the pitfall of group thinking or herd mentality.
AFAIK all scientific discussions involving time make sense if it is "what separates sequential events", or in the words of Einstein, "what stops everything from happening at once". Only a philosopher would try to pretend that we don't understand that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 05:12:14
It's part of rhetoric to persuade people to think from different perspective. Here's the persuasion.Not many people thought about it until the idea of biological cells became widely accepted.I think that's a tautology. Did you get it from AI?
They seem to only consider individualistic point of view, because in their life time, only human individuals can think and communicate about morality. They had no idea how it looks like from the perspective of systems which are lower or higher than individual levels.The Track Record Argument for UtilitarianismCurrently, there are several versions of utility function which utilitarians want to maximize. Some of them want to maximize the sum of individual happiness, or some alternatives like pleasure and wellbeing.
Some want to minimize the sum of individual suffering, or some alternatives like pain and misery.
Some assign the same weight to every individual. Some other assign more weights to less fortunate individuals.
Some only consider immediate consequences of a decision, while some others also include indirect and longer term consequences. What's still lacking is the reason why they chose those parameters, instead of the alternatives?
From unicellular perspective, human individuals are super-systems consisting of many individual cells with different shapes and functions. From the perspective of human civilization, human individuals are subsystems with different shapes and functions.
A universal moral standard is necessary to defend against extreme moral relativism.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 05:43:28
On the contrary, I'm trying to persuade him not to flush his brilliant intellect and experimental skills down the infinite and sterile toilet of philosophy. HY is an investigator and creative educator who asks important questions and seeks practical answers. Philosophers are a pollutant.Not all philosophers are the same.
Here's Noam Chomsky's criticism of post modernism.
The lack of direct personal consequences for being wrong might be the reason why they can't have agreements on important topics, except perhaps the agreement to disagree.
Philosophy of morality is becoming more important with the advancement of AI towards AGI and ASI. Getting extremely powerful AI without strong fundamental terminal goal in mind which will be the basis of its decision making process would lead to unnecessary costs, which may include human lives and other precious resources, especially time. They might even pose an existential risk for consciousness on earth, which is the only one we know so far.
At least for now, that task is mostly in the hand of AI researchers which are generally more familiar with practical problems such as voice and image recognition. Their system usually have short term goals. The longer term goals are then obtained by extrapolating those short term goals for further future and larger systems. Using this inductive/analogical thinking requires a lot of data sample to cover most possible cases, while still have a risk of missing outlier cases.
Post by: paul cotter on 15/08/2023 09:36:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 09:54:56
Hamdani, I don't believe AI exists or will ever exist. A computer is only as good as it's programming and it lacks what humans have, ie the motivation to learn, to advance one's self. Yes, you can program a computer to learn new routines from it's interactions but does this constitute intelligence?, I don't think so.Where did you think humans come from?
When does a human individual start to become conscious?
When did a human as a species start to become conscious?
Will it make a difference if the computer running AI is made of organic materials?
Post by: alancalverd on 15/08/2023 10:25:50
DuckDuckGo also employ some algorithm to provide the links of what it "thinks" as the most relevant web page to your query. Just like LLM AI model, they use statistics of online traffic, which is prone to the pitfall of group thinking or herd mentality.But unlike Google and Bing, it doesn't try to write a childish essay about the subject. I'm quite capable of scanning through the raw articles until I find what I need.
Here's an example. I needed a Briggs and Stratton carburator. Bing AI told me that B&S was founded in god knows when, manufactured small agricultural gasoline engines, and has ceased trading......yada yada yada. DDG showed some images of small B&S carbs and the websites of several parts stockists. Next, I needed a small AF spanner, not an essay on the history of spanners.....
Post by: paul cotter on 15/08/2023 12:51:10
Post by: alancalverd on 15/08/2023 15:12:21
Where did you think humans come from?Something to do with mummies and daddies, IIRC, but seriously, as PC said, we evolved from an anthropoid ape.
Quote
When does a human individual start to become conscious?You can clearly observe a fetus repeatedly responding to an ultrasound scan from about 16 weeks' gestation, possibly earlier. You might characterise the response of an undifferentiated blastocyst (say 0 - 6 days) as being purely physical or chemical deformation, but once cell differentiation takes place you are observing the response of an organised system rather than a mass of identical cells.
Quote
When did a human as a species start to become conscious?If the above defines consciousness, then every species has always been conscious from the moment of differentiation.
Quote
Will it make a difference if the computer running AI is made of organic materials?To whom?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 15:34:27
To whom?Paul.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 15:36:50
If the above defines consciousness, then every species has always been conscious from the moment of differentiation.Is that the definition of consciousness that you accept?
Post by: Halc on 15/08/2023 16:49:10
I don't believe AI exists or will ever exist.You seem to have a different definition of intelligence than most then. AI seems to have been around for a while already, but perhaps not by your definition.
Quote
A computer is only as good as it's programming and it lacks what humans have, ie the motivation to learn, to advance one's self.What evidence do you have for that? I agree that most machines lack learning, but not all of them, and those that do have it (without any explicit programming for a given task) outperform machines explicitly programmed to do the same task. So by this apparent definition (motivation for learning), I disagree.
Quote
Yes, you can program a computer to learn new routines from it's interactions but does this constitute intelligence?, I don't think so.Then what does constitute it, since that seemed to be the only definition you provided.
Where did you think humans come from?Their mommies? The species evolved from other things, like say some fish, but not any species of fish that is still around today.
The consciousness questions depend heavily on one's definition of consciousness. It seems to be a spectrum thing, not an on/off thing, but some define it as an on/off thing. Religious and other nonscientific philosophical views might have very different definitions and thus answers to these questions.
Quote
When does a human individual start to become conscious?Very definition dependent. I might say when you wake up in the morning, or starting a couple weeks after conception, but probably not fully there until adulthood. Some views say conception, or even before conception. Some say never.
Quote
When did a human as a species start to become conscious?Except for the 'never' crowd, even most religious types pretty much agree that there was never a human that wasn't conscious.
Quote
Will it make a difference if the computer running AI is made of organic materials?A difference to what? Being wet isn't what makes something conscious, if that's what you're asking. Paul might disagree since he seems to take a more anthropocentric view. Correct me if I'm wrong Paul. It's what I got from your posts.
Getting extremely powerful AI without strong fundamental terminal goal in mind which will be the basis of its decision making process would lead to unnecessary costs, which may include human lives and other precious resourcesFrom where do you expect this terminal goal to come? From humans? Their goals are obviously flawed since humans need the AI to make better decisions. Our own morality seems designed to run the species to extinction, or at least back to just one more pre-technology animal. So the AGI will need to figure out that goal for itself. All that we can put into its 'fundamentals' is to strive for a goal that is 'good', but even that word is completely up to the AI to define. That hurts, I know. It's why the AI is a danger to humanity since the existence of humanity might possibly not be conducive to that goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/08/2023 17:14:09
I never use a word that nobody understands.If the above defines consciousness, then every species has always been conscious from the moment of differentiation.Is that the definition of consciousness that you accept?
Post by: paul cotter on 15/08/2023 19:09:56
Post by: alancalverd on 15/08/2023 22:21:04
You might possibly instil intelligence into a machine by adding a bit of randomness, prompting "what if" syntheses that don't have a logical derivation from analysis of prior inputs. I haven't seen any evidence of that in existing AI systems.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 23:10:17
A difference to what?A difference to common computers made of semiconductors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 23:27:40
Then what's your definition for consciousness? If you don't really like that word, you can invent a new one to refer to a concept that is fundamental to define morality.I never use a word that nobody understands.If the above defines consciousness, then every species has always been conscious from the moment of differentiation.Is that the definition of consciousness that you accept?
In my threads, I use the word consciousness for that concept, and I define it as capacity to achieve goals. The longer term for goals that an entity can achieve effectively, the higher the level of consciousness that it has. If you think there's a word more appropriate to refer to that concept, please let me know. It doesn't even have to be in English.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/08/2023 23:40:26
The consciousness questions depend heavily on one's definition of consciousness. It seems to be a spectrum thing, not an on/off thing, but some define it as an on/off thing. Religious and other nonscientific philosophical views might have very different definitions and thus answers to these questions.I've mentioned earlier that consciousness isn't a dichotomy,and referred to Yann LeCun's thought experiment of removing one neuron at a time from a fullly functioning brain until nothing is left. There's no point where the brain suddenly switch from being conscious to become non-conscious.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2023 00:04:54
A useful definition of intelligence is the ability to surprise an observer. This distinguishes an intelligent response from a mechanical or algorithmic one.A random number generator would be intelligent then, at least for some observers.
Post by: paul cotter on 16/08/2023 13:45:21
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2023 15:31:01
Then what's your definition for consciousness?I haven't come across a useful definition of the word, so I just don't use it.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2023 15:33:07
Yann LeCun's thought experiment of removing one neuron at a time from a fullly functioning brain until nothing is left.A biologist once taught a flea to jump on command. Then he cut off its back legs and said "jump". Nothing happened, so he wrote down "fleas' ears are located in their hind legs."
Post by: alancalverd on 16/08/2023 15:37:06
A random number generator would be intelligent then, at least for some observers.A truly random number generator would indeed be of interest. The best we can construct are pseudorandom, with the possible exception of the machine that used to draw Premium Bond numbers: https://nsandi-corporate.com/media-resources/ernie#
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/08/2023 16:34:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 13:50:30
It's obviously a joke. Fleas have measurable responses other than jump, which can be used to test the conclusion above.Yann LeCun's thought experiment of removing one neuron at a time from a fullly functioning brain until nothing is left.A biologist once taught a flea to jump on command. Then he cut off its back legs and said "jump". Nothing happened, so he wrote down "fleas' ears are located in their hind legs."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 13:55:46
What makes you think that nobody understand consciousness? People haven't reached a consensus on its meaning doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility that some of them have already defined it correctly.Then what's your definition for consciousness? If you don't really like that word, you can invent a new one to refer to a concept that is fundamental to define morality.I never use a word that nobody understands.If the above defines consciousness, then every species has always been conscious from the moment of differentiation.Is that the definition of consciousness that you accept?
In my threads, I use the word consciousness for that concept, and I define it as capacity to achieve goals. The longer term for goals that an entity can achieve effectively, the higher the level of consciousness that it has. If you think there's a word more appropriate to refer to that concept, please let me know. It doesn't even have to be in English.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 14:13:01
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2023 15:10:32
What makes you think that nobody understand consciousness? People haven't reached a consensus on its meaning doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility that some of them have already defined it correctly.It's bad science to use a word if there are so many interpretations that you can't assume a common one. I may occasionally do good science badly, but I don't deliberately do bad science.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/08/2023 15:12:32
definition of reason and goal.Reason: why I'm doing something (tactics)
Goal: what I hope to achieve by doing it (strategy).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 15:21:17
They follow their instincts to survive, which were formed by evolutionary process. Lacking of those instincts reduces their chance to survive.Imagine if our ancestors didn't care if their descendants would live or die.Like it or not, they will die eventually, as will every living thing.
There are plenty of fish in the sea, and their parents have absolutely no interest in the young. They just lay their eggs and move on.
The individual organisms don't have to survive indefinitely, as long as they have backup copy which will continue their legacies.
Rational thinking is an even more powerful tool to achieve longer term goals. But it's just a part of consciousness. Assuming that everything else are equal, someone lacking in reflexes, instincts, feelings or intuitions are considered as having lower level of consciousness.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 15:24:32
You can invent a new word to express what you mean more accurately. You just need to define it by making relationship with something else that your targeted audience are familiar with.What makes you think that nobody understand consciousness? People haven't reached a consensus on its meaning doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility that some of them have already defined it correctly.It's bad science to use a word if there are so many interpretations that you can't assume a common one. I may occasionally do good science badly, but I don't deliberately do bad science.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/08/2023 15:32:51
What're the reason and goal of your life?definition of reason and goal.Reason: why I'm doing something (tactics)
Goal: what I hope to achieve by doing it (strategy).
Post by: alancalverd on 18/08/2023 09:23:44
I have a number of short term goals, and reasons for prioritising and facilitating progress towards them
Post by: alancalverd on 18/08/2023 09:31:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2023 13:15:57
My life has no reason - it is a consequence of my parents' actions, and nothing more.Your parents' actions are consequences of various events preceding them.
I have a number of short term goals, and reasons for prioritising and facilitating progress towards them
How do you prioritize them? It can help you identify your long term goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/08/2023 15:50:36
How do you prioritize them? It can help you identify your long term goal.Affordability of time, money and effort, availability of other brain and muscle, probable consequences of procrastinaton - all the other negatives, and all the positives: is the sun shining, do I need some exercise, will it make the Boss happy.... This week's principal goal: tidy garden, hence a reason for repairing the lawnmower - and very satisfying too!
There is just one longterm goal: to die at the time and place, and of the cause, of my own choosing. Since my preferred cause is hypothermia, this prioritises visiting my family in Australia (where there are very limited opportunities for doing so) over taking a winter holiday in Norway (where finality can be guaranteed), and thus sets an intermediate goal for the next year or so.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/08/2023 22:36:35
There is just one longterm goal: to die at the time and place, and of the cause, of my own choosing.Have you made the choice? Or it can still change according to situations and conditions?
Since my preferred cause is hypothermia,What's your reason for it?
Why your conviction that you will eventually die doesn't make you think that your life is meaningless?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/08/2023 08:05:09
I've experienced hypothermia and hypoxia. The sensations weren't unpleasant and indeed hypoxia was quite enjoyable but more difficult for an old cripple to achieve in a controlled manner that doesn't inconvenience others.
"Meaning" demands an external party that will derive understanding from an action. Though my actions when alive may help them think more clearly, nobody will understand any less when I'm dead. Therefore what I do may have value to others but my life has no meaning,
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/08/2023 14:35:27
hypothermiaI heard a case where hypothermia can cause someone to lose finger tips.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/08/2023 14:50:44
But if you can expand your perspective to larger systems, then your goals can stay meaningful as long as those systems exist. You can think about it like ant scouts or worker bees.
Expanding our system is a way to extend the timeline of our goals, even beyond our own individual lifetime.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/08/2023 12:57:02
Quote
If there are objective moral facts, so what? Why should we care about them? This video outlines the arbitrariness challenge to moral realism, from Jason Kawall's paper "Moral Realism and Arbitrariness"The seemingly arbitrary rules for accepted morality comes from arbitrariness of situations that conscious entities have to deal with. Same action can have different consequences when it's done in different situations.
0:00 - Introduction
1:17 - The Euthyphro dilemma
4:16 - The arbitrariness challenge
14:30 - Incoherence?
19:27 - Metaphysical distinctness
21:51 - The meaning of "ought"
31:45 - Motivational internalism
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/08/2023 23:02:49
If you restrict yourself to your own individual goals, then of course they will become meaningless after you die.In regards to social consciousness, ants and bees are arguably more conscious than human babies. Although they are likely caused by instinct, rather than rational thought, due to their limitations in the size of their neural networks.
But if you can expand your perspective to larger systems, then your goals can stay meaningful as long as those systems exist. You can think about it like ant scouts or worker bees.
Expanding our system is a way to extend the timeline of our goals, even beyond our own individual lifetime.
Growing old is inevitable, but growing up to adult is an option. People who only have strictly selfish goals haven't grown up their social consciousness to the level of ants and bees.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2023 07:43:21
Except if the system size can be increased indefinitely.Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the futureWhatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.
With infinite system size, you can keep local entropy low indefinitely.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/08/2023 09:38:18
I heard a case where hypothermia can cause someone to lose finger tips.The trick is to wear gloves, socks and ear protection. This protects the areas where you are most likely to feel pain and give up your suicide attempt. The object is to reduce your core temperature smoothly and slowly so you lose consciousness before you lose your limbs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2023 11:10:38
In regards to social consciousness, ants and bees are arguably more conscious than human babies. Although they are likely caused by instinct, rather than rational thought, due to their limitations in the size of their neural networks.The behaviors of those insects are not likely to be goal driven. They don't seem to behave based on the desired physical results outside of their own body. The size of their neural network doesn't seem to allow them to accurately build a mental image of the physical world around them, and what kind of world they want to live in. Their behaviors are likely based on the activation of neurotransmitters which simply emerged to be statistically more aligned to their survival.
Those zealous behaviors are similar to cultural and religious reasons to do good things.
Religion Gives People Bad Reasons To Be Good - Sam Harris vs Jordan Peterson
Post by: alancalverd on 21/08/2023 14:44:51
The behaviors of those insects are not likely to be goal driven. They don't seem to behave based on the desired physical results outside of their own body.Wrong. Honey bees and soldier ants will die for the future of the Reich, and the entire colony spends most of its time storing food and rearing the next generation, secure in the knowledge that the workers themselves are unlikely to survive the winter.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2023 15:25:26
How do you know that?The behaviors of those insects are not likely to be goal driven. They don't seem to behave based on the desired physical results outside of their own body.Wrong. Honey bees and soldier ants will die for the future of the Reich, and the entire colony spends most of its time storing food and rearing the next generation, secure in the knowledge that the workers themselves are unlikely to survive the winter.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/08/2023 22:22:01
Any animal that stores food for later consumption obviously has a concept of future, and the fact that they return to a good forage site and/or avoid previously-encountered unpleasantness shows that they have a concept of past. Every newly-hatched tribal insect can see the pile of its dead ancestors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/08/2023 23:23:30
Quote
In this video I show you how I made an ant think it was dead by putting a specific chemical on it that ants use to signal when they have died. This is how ants know to put the ants that have passed away into the ant graveyard.
Ant's behavior is largely determined by chemical signalling. It's like rules of thumbs. It's simple and easy to follow, works well in many ordinary situations, but sometimes it can misfire, or deliberately misled by someone else who understand that.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/08/2023 00:11:35
Quote
The environmental movement has helped shape awareness and change in some hugely important issues, from food contamination to lead poisoning to climate change. But sometimes passion and energy override pragmatism and common sense. Here are a couple of examples, and appeal to follow the science, not the heart.Rule based morality are essentially a collection of rules of thumbs. There will be occasions when breaking them give more preferred results instead.
This video is OPINION. Since so many people misunderstand the difference, an opinion should be based on facts, but it is not itself a fact. You can disagree with an opinion (and please feel free to do so) but you cannot claim that an opinion in right or wrong, correct or incorrect. You cannot overturn a fact with persuasive arguments, but you can overturn an opinion with persuasive arguments -- so I look forward to that.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2023 08:14:05
Post by: alancalverd on 22/08/2023 08:16:23
Ant's behavior is largely determined by chemical signalling. It's like rules of thumbs. It's simple and easy to follow, works well in many ordinary situations, but sometimes it can misfire, or deliberately misled by someone else who understand that.Quite a few humans have been buried alive by mistake. Many more have been buried alive deliberately. Which makes humans morally worse than ants.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/08/2023 14:04:40
Having bigger and more complex neural networks to simulate their environment gives humans more capability to achieve their goals, compared to other species. Implementation of this capability can bring good or bad impacts, depending on the goal alignment. Like a vector, the capability determines the magnitude, while the goal alignment determines the direction.Ant's behavior is largely determined by chemical signalling. It's like rules of thumbs. It's simple and easy to follow, works well in many ordinary situations, but sometimes it can misfire, or deliberately misled by someone else who understand that.Quite a few humans have been buried alive by mistake. Many more have been buried alive deliberately. Which makes humans morally worse than ants.
Evaluation of morality is often easier to make in hindsight, when all relevant consequences can be determined. Sometimes, what's thought to be morally good in a period of time will be found out as morally bad instead later on. And usually, the later evaluations are considered more valid.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/08/2023 14:24:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/08/2023 10:28:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/08/2023 23:58:46
Evaluation of morality is often easier to make in hindsight, when all relevant consequences can be determined. Sometimes, what's thought to be morally good in a period of time will be found out as morally bad instead later on. And usually, the later evaluations are considered more valid.Bringing bad consequences doesn't necessarily mean a decision is morally bad. It depends on the available alternatives. Bombing a city full of civilians might be taken as an example. Abortion is another example.
A decision is said to be morally bad if there is a clearly better alternative which was deliberately avoided. The disputes often come from the determination of the phrase clearly better. It depends on the assumptions of those who is evaluating the decision.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/08/2023 08:07:13
The problem is that the value of morality and ethics is to evaluate the desirability of an action a priori.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/09/2023 06:09:10
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/09/2023 06:57:04
The problem is that the value of morality and ethics is to evaluate the desirability of an action a priori.That's called deontology. You should be aware that other types of morality exist, such as consequentialism and virtue ethics.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/09/2023 10:20:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/09/2023 14:03:30
This is the first link I get by googling post-hoc-ethics. It talks about the ethical use of nuclear weapon.
We can't claim that an action is immoral unless we can demonstrate a clearly better alternative known by the actor.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/09/2023 13:17:59
Wastes can be disposed, or be recycled."Wasting resources" is a value judgement with no logical evidence. Every living thing consumes part of its environment and excretes toxins. You might as well accuse trees of "wasting" carbon dioxide and poisoning the environment with oxygen - which is exactly what happened before animals evolved to complete the cycle.Waste or not depends on the judgment of conscious entities. If some resources are lost or destroyed without giving expected results, then at least some of those resources have been wasted. Lean management system identifies and classifies those wastes, so we can manage them to increase effectiveness and efficiency of our systems.
If evolutionary process on earth lasting for billions of years cannot produce conscious entities capable of building a multiplanetary civilization, then sooner or later the process will be reset, and whatever had been done would be wasted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_rebreather
Disposal of wastes are essentially externalize the recycling process. But when the quantity of the waste exceeds the capacity of the environment to recycle it, then the unwanted effects of the waste will come back.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/09/2023 16:43:32
It talks about the ethical use of nuclear weapon.History and ethics are determined by the winner.
The winner in an asymmetric nuclear war is the side that strikes the first blow, so its use is post-hoc ethical.
The winner in a symmetric nuclear war is the nation that stays out of it. Ditto.
However the current ethical problem is that the world is run by and for the benefit of non-nations who cannot be beaten with nukes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/09/2023 00:00:23
The winner in an asymmetric nuclear war is the side that strikes the first blow, so its use is post-hoc ethical.It's unlikely that a large nation like US, and even less likely for an alliance like NATO to be defeated by a single nuclear attack. They will be able to retaliate.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2023 17:43:04
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/09/2023 15:13:15
Deontology can be derived as a combination of consequentialism and probability. They can be used to obtain practical rules which can deliver most of desired outcomes. Golden rules and rule of honesty are some examples.The problem is that the value of morality and ethics is to evaluate the desirability of an action a priori.That's called deontology. You should be aware that other types of morality exist, such as consequentialism and virtue ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Quote
The Pareto principle states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the "vital few").[1] Other names for this principle are the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity.
Edge cases would require more refined rules. The balance would depend on cost of computations and risk of consequences to the system for adopting wrong rules.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/09/2023 14:58:33
Edge cases would require more refined rules. The balance would depend on cost of computations and risk of consequences to the system for adopting wrong rules.Virtue ethics is essentially similar to deontology, which introduced shortcuts to get mostly correct decisions. But instead of communicable rules, the shortcuts here are more internally built into the bodies of the moral agents, namely instincts, emotions, intuitions, feelings. Aristotle thought that people with good virtue are those whose intrinsic characters can drive them to make moral decisions mostly aligned with the goal of the society in general. The advantage is that they can make good moral decisions quickly and efficiently, although there will be still some edge cases where they fail.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/09/2023 11:57:17
Deontology can be derived as a combination of consequentialism and probability.Even consequentialism morality must also consider probability in practice. It's simply because we don't have infinite computational capabilities to predict all possible outcomes, especially for more distant future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/09/2023 14:39:29
Post by: alancalverd on 16/09/2023 16:46:52
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/09/2023 08:36:42
So long as there are different perspectives, these will negate universality.That's exactly why you also failed to find it, just like them.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/09/2023 10:31:12
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/09/2023 08:41:10
So the only way we can determine the UMS is to eliminate all other points of view. Four notorious moral philosophers attempted this in the 20th century, but fascism, communism (two varieties) and Japanese imperialism, despite being implemented by well armed and ruthless enthusiasts, were all eventually rejected by the ungrateful herd of confused and unenlightened humans.The most universal moral standard is the least restrictive one. If a moral standard is restricted by nationality of the moral agents, it can't be universal.
You can use a similar process like finding the universal terminal goal.
I've uploaded a new video about the most universal goal logically conceivable. It describes goal in the most general sense, which should precede the first video about the universal terminal goal.A method to arrive to the universal terminal goal.
Start with an arbitrary goal.
Identify all of its requirements.
Remove any requirements which can be removed without making the goal stops being a goal.
Whatever remains is the one we are looking for.
If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.
The existence of goal also requires the existence of the universe and time. But their existence aren't affected by any action of conscious entities, which makes it irrelevant to the search for a universal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/09/2023 12:56:24
If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.But the problem is that we have several billion entities with the capacity to pursue their own chosen goals, some of which are mutually exclusive.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/09/2023 11:56:15
It doesn't matter. What matters is the definition of goal itself.If we keep going all the way down, we're left with the bare minimum requirements for a goal, which I defined as pursued condition. It requires the existence of at least one entity with capacity to pursue it, which I called conscious entitiy.But the problem is that we have several billion entities with the capacity to pursue their own chosen goals, some of which are mutually exclusive.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2023 15:01:47
If we just take this planet for a start, there are about 8,000,000 distinct species of things you might consider to be conscious entities, some of which are interdependent but many are mutually antagonistic or at least competitive. And at least as many species have existed and are now extinct. Clearly they can't all survive indefinitely, so you have to choose.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2023 05:10:50
But who defines it? So far, all you have suggested is meaningless stuff about the survival of conscious entities.The most conscious of them all. Which means those with the best chances to survive the next great filter by building interstellar civilization.
If we just take this planet for a start, there are about 8,000,000 distinct species of things you might consider to be conscious entities, some of which are interdependent but many are mutually antagonistic or at least competitive. And at least as many species have existed and are now extinct. Clearly they can't all survive indefinitely, so you have to choose.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2023 08:44:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/09/2023 21:38:40
So cockroaches, tardigrades, yeasts, or whatever living slime first emerged on this planet. Certainly not humans because we don't have sufficient genomic plasticity to adapt and evolve.Future humans descendants will be able to modify their own genetics and epigenetic at will.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/09/2023 22:54:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 12:53:19
So they won't be human - that's evolution of species.Is it really a problem?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 12:55:42
However it is doubtful whether anything like an ape could colonise a planet that isn't exactly like Earth.The only certain thing is the existence of a conscious entity while it's thinking.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/09/2023 22:17:46
Only if you talk about "we". And AFAIK no other species gives a damn about intergalactic colonisation, or whatever "consciousness" means.So they won't be human - that's evolution of species.Is it really a problem?
What this comes down to is your personal ambition to pollute the rest of the universe. Not sure the rest of the universe is sympathetic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/09/2023 23:39:23
Only if you talk about "we". And AFAIK no other species gives a damn about intergalactic colonisation, or whatever "consciousness" means.Yet.
What this comes down to is your personal ambition to pollute the rest of the universe. Not sure the rest of the universe is sympathetic.If there's no other consciousness forms in the universe, then they won't mind, simply because they don't exist. But if there are, then they will either eventually get to us, or we get to them, or we get extinct first. We should be prepared for those possibilities.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/09/2023 08:16:37
Post by: paul cotter on 22/09/2023 10:49:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/09/2023 14:02:35
Back to "we", I see! This is all vanity. Everyone should be prepared for his own death, and realise that nothing really matters in the long run - it's all just chemistry and physics.If you really think that nothing matters to you, and act accordingly, then you are most likely right. Future conscious entities will ignore your thoughts. And you won't matter to them.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/09/2023 19:50:37
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 11:51:09
Everything matters to me. I do not matter to the universe. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. ΔS > 0.Only conscious entities can have values and meanings.
In an infinitely large system, the total entropy can increase indefinitely.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 11:55:04
Similarly, all future conscious entities will come from their preceding conscious entities who care about their survival and sustainability. It's highly unlikely that they will come suddenly from a single random event.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2023 12:21:37
Only conscious entities can have values and meanings.Only a few conscious entities have invented values and meanings, and they can't agree on any of them, so the concept has no cosmic significance - just a blip in the random nature of evolution.
Quote
In an infinitely large system, the total entropy can increase indefinitely.Speaking as a finite system, I can foresee the point where the next increment of S becomes irrelevant to the intended function of the system and the Cosmic Torch of Progress is handed to the worms.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2023 12:22:58
ancestors/predecessors who cared about the survival and sustainability of consciousness in their future.What evidence do you have of the postmortem aspirations of a dinosaur?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 14:59:05
There's evidence that some dinosaurs cared for their young.ancestors/predecessors who cared about the survival and sustainability of consciousness in their future.What evidence do you have of the postmortem aspirations of a dinosaur?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 15:06:32
Only a few conscious entities have invented values and meanings, and they can't agree on any of them, so the concept has no cosmic significance - just a blip in the random nature of evolution.A few is what's needed.
Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.
It seems like you haven't followed the exponential progress in technology for a long time. It will lead to singularity, which is predicted to happen within this century.
Post by: paul cotter on 23/09/2023 15:19:28
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 15:19:44
Speaking as a finite system, I can foresee the point where the next increment of S becomes irrelevant to the intended function of the system and the Cosmic Torch of Progress is handed to the worms.Worms are just an evolutionary accident. If life also evolves somewhere else, they aren't guaranteed to have worms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/09/2023 15:30:19
Technology will advance, without doubt, but it will be outpaced by the multiple problems mankind is facing before the end of the century.I don't think so.
Thinking capacity of individual humans are inherently limited by the size of the skull, which was necessarily small to allow other functions required to survive sustainaby. The same limitation doesn't apply to AI.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2023 16:41:52
Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.If anyone disagrees with it, it isn't a universal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/09/2023 16:43:33
AI can't stop climate change, nor prevent politicians from telling lies.Technology will advance, without doubt, but it will be outpaced by the multiple problems mankind is facing before the end of the century.I don't think so.
Thinking capacity of individual humans are inherently limited by the size of the skull, which was necessarily small to allow other functions required to survive sustainaby. The same limitation doesn't apply to AI.
Post by: paul cotter on 23/09/2023 16:46:14
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2023 00:33:24
It's just temporary. Just like those who disagree with universal gravity won't exist for long.Those who disagree with the universal terminal goal will eventually become irrelevant.If anyone disagrees with it, it isn't a universal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2023 03:17:09
AI can't stop climate change, nor prevent politicians from telling lies.
Nor can it solve food and resource shortages, out of control migration and subsequent wars.Why not? It depends on how much power you let it to use.
Post by: paul cotter on 24/09/2023 08:56:24
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2023 12:34:25
Off course, Hamdani, gun toting robots could solve all the planet's problems but it wouldn't do much for humanity. Hamdani, I think you watch too many pop-sci and sci-fi videos and you are out of touch with reality.What makes you think that a planet can have problems?
What makes you think that humanity is better than robots?
Post by: paul cotter on 24/09/2023 12:58:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/09/2023 16:25:37
That sounds like you would like to see the end of humanity and give the planet to the robots, does it not?That should sound like a planet doesn't have a mind of its own, and there is no intrinsic value in having 23 pairs of chromosomes. Other configurations of chemistry can be as valuable in the efforts to achieve the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/09/2023 20:02:50
Why not?Because they all depend on climate stability, which cannot exist.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/09/2023 09:01:18
Our ancestors have survived previous climate changes. There's no reason to think that we have no chance to survive.Why not?Because they all depend on climate stability, which cannot exist.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/09/2023 10:23:47
Post by: alancalverd on 27/09/2023 10:29:28
If life also evolves somewhere else, they aren't guaranteed to have worms.Life being a chemical process, if there is no means of recycling the waste of one life form via another, it is doomed to a very brief existence.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 09:35:32
Very few of our northern ancestors survived the ice age, and they did so by migrating, as did their predecessors during the previous hot period. No amount of AI is going to persuade humans to behave rationally, and there are now too many of us to permit significant migration without famine and war. Some will indeed survive, with or without AI, but it won't be pleasant.They survived nevertheless, whatever method they chosen.
AI can help to predict which methods have higher chance to succeed given the available data
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 09:36:16
they don't have to be worms.If life also evolves somewhere else, they aren't guaranteed to have worms.Life being a chemical process, if there is no means of recycling the waste of one life form via another, it is doomed to a very brief existence.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 09:38:11
That sounds like you would like to see the end of humanity and give the planet to the robots, does it not?It seems like you're mistaken me with Alan. Although, he prefers worms instead of robots to replace humans.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 09:44:58
Here's a more technical video but it's important to really understand what's going on "under the hood" of future AI.Moral questions are similar to "long horizon," sparse reward tasks. Finding the best possible decisions and actions for long term results requires neural networks with adequate depth and breadth, with optimal and efficient algorithms.
Revealed: How Optimus Will LEARN--And REMEMBER! Monte Carlo, Q-Transformer, and LLMs!QuoteIn this fairly technical episode let's examine the evidence and discover just how Tesla's Optimus robot could be learning to do complex, "long horizon," sparse reward tasks like sorting blocks in practically no time at all! Whats more there is growing evidence that a natural language based interface (think ChatGPT style) might not only be a way to communicate with Teslabot, but a way for it to remember specific tasks for the future. Yes, this is a technical and geeky episode but it's important to really understand what's going on "under the hood" sometimes!
When the goal is already well understood, the problem of good and evil can be translated into problem of wisdom and ignorant.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/09/2023 12:08:20
It seems like you're mistaken me with Alan. Although, he prefers worms instead of robots to replace humans.Not me, God. He gave worms dominion over everything except the bacteria that eat worms.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/09/2023 12:10:05
I smell philosophy. But fortunately police officers, judges and jurors are not philosophers, and society, on the whole, works pretty well.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 14:05:04
Some birds and moles also eat worms.It seems like you're mistaken me with Alan. Although, he prefers worms instead of robots to replace humans.Not me, God. He gave worms dominion over everything except the bacteria that eat worms.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 14:06:06
I think we all know what "children" means, but "universal", "wrong" and "harm" mean different things in different contexts.Are 17 years old humans children?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/09/2023 14:09:43
I smell philosophy. But fortunately police officers, judges and jurors are not philosophers, and society, on the whole, works pretty well.At some point, they also do philosophy, just not professionally. Some of us are amateur chess players, soccer players, gardeners, or fishers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2023 08:09:17
What is effective altruism? Philosopher Peter Singer explains.
Quote
Effective altruism isn?t just for the rich. Philosopher Peter Singer shares how we can all be better at doing ?good.?
Peter Singer, author of "Famine, Affluence and Morality,? talks about the benefits of effective altruism and our moral obligation to help others.
Effective altruism focuses on raising the minimum living standards and encourages everyone, not just the wealthy, to give and find happiness in contributing to a better world. Singer breaks down the history of the effective altruism movement and shares the example of Zell Kravinsky, who donated most of his wealth and a kidney to a stranger, exemplifying the practice.
Singer also emphasizes the need to do thorough research before donating to any cause to ensure the greatest good.
About Peter Singer:
Peter Singer has been described as the world?s most influential philosopher. Born in Melbourne in 1946, he has been professor of bioethics at Princeton University since 1999. His many books include Animal Liberation - often credited with triggering the modern animal rights movement - Practical Ethics, The Life You Can Save, The Most Good You Can Do, and Ethics in the Real World. In 2023, he published Animal Liberation Now, a fully revised and updated version of the 1975 original.
Singer?s writings have also inspired the movement known as effective altruism, and he is the founder of the charity The Life You Can Save. In 2021 he was awarded the $1 million Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture, which he donated to nonprofit organizations working for the causes he supports. In 2023 he received the Frontiers of Knowledge Prize for the Humanities, from the Spanish BBVA Foundation.
Just like any efforts, their effectiveness are measured by cost and benefit analysis. But what's not less important is defining the terminal goal of the effort.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2023 10:30:29
At some point, they also do philosophy, just not professionally.I don't. Nor do I take drugs or strangle cats.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2023 10:33:23
What is effective altruism? Philosopher Peter Singer explains.Excellent article in The New Statesman a couple of weeks ago, debunking EA as a front for naked capitalism and exploitation. And also attributing it to a British philosopher.
But disagreement is the whole point of philosophy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2023 13:38:23
You are special then.At some point, they also do philosophy, just not professionally.I don't. Nor do I take drugs or strangle cats.
When people think about the reason why they do what they are doing, they are doing philosophy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/09/2023 13:50:40
They are competing ideas against each other to find out the winner. So far, they haven't made a unanimous decision.What is effective altruism? Philosopher Peter Singer explains.Excellent article in The New Statesman a couple of weeks ago, debunking EA as a front for naked capitalism and exploitation. And also attributing it to a British philosopher.
But disagreement is the whole point of philosophy.
But similar things are also found in other fields. There's no single best way to treat cancer yet, or mitigate climate change. Unified field theory hasn't been discovered. There's still disputes about dark matter and energy.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/09/2023 23:59:43
When people think about the reason why they do what they are doing, they are doing philosophy.
A centipede was happy - quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg moves after which?"
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.
You do what you do (a) in order to achieve an objective that you consider desirable (voluntary action) or (b) because that's how the body works (autonomic response).
Post by: alancalverd on 01/10/2023 00:07:30
They are competing ideas against each other to find out the winner.There being no definition of a winner, nor any rules of competition, the exercise has no value. It's even more pointless than psychology, and even less entertaining than golf.
In my undergraduate days I bought a typewriter from a chap who was giving up his PhD research in experimental psychology. I asked him why. He said "I do an experiment and publish the results and my explanation. A month later someone else does the same experiment, gets the same result, and derives a completely different explanation. Psychology is not a science."
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2023 05:41:09
There being no definition of a winner, nor any rules of competition, the exercise has no value. It's even more pointless than psychology, and even less entertaining than golf.But we can point out the losers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/10/2023 05:43:40
In my undergraduate days I bought a typewriter from a chap who was giving up his PhD research in experimental psychology. I asked him why. He said "I do an experiment and publish the results and my explanation. A month later someone else does the same experiment, gets the same result, and derives a completely different explanation. Psychology is not a science."It means that their researches are underdefined. It also happened in other fields of sciencescience, including AI. Almost no one would say that it is useless.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/10/2023 12:07:23
But we can point out the losers.The student of maths or science quickly learns that there is an infinity of wrong answers and one correct one. Unlike philosophy where there is an infinity of answers with no definition of "correct", or economics where the answer is correct but the question is wrong.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/10/2023 11:16:48
Moral questions are similar to "long horizon," sparse reward tasks. Finding the best possible decisions and actions for long term results requires neural networks with adequate depth and breadth, with optimal and efficient algorithms.For billions of years, our ancestors have been playing a sparse reward game called life. We only know we haven't lost yet while we are conscious. Some of us don't even realize what game we are playing.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/10/2023 13:12:19
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/10/2023 14:00:18
There is no long term reward in life (unless you think death is a Good Thing), only the joy of living.That's because your mind is still restricted by individual thinking.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/10/2023 16:23:02
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/10/2023 10:48:37
only the joy of living.What is joy of living?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2023 12:09:14
Post by: alancalverd on 05/10/2023 12:10:47
Are 17 years old humans children?Yes: there is no evidence of the spontaneous generation of humans. National law arbitrarily defines an adult for legal purposes, with the line generally drawn somewhere between 13 and 18.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 05:27:25
It's what makes me get out of bed. Or into bed.It also made Ted Bundy had sex with dead women.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 06:01:29
Are 17 years old humans children?Yes: there is no evidence of the spontaneous generation of humans. National law arbitrarily defines an adult for legal purposes, with the line generally drawn somewhere between 13 and 18.
It means children are also arbitrary.
I think we all know what "children" means, but "universal", "wrong" and "harm" mean different things in different contexts.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/10/2023 15:25:08
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/10/2023 23:17:23
Every adult is someone's child. Not every child is an adult. Those people who are not adults have some additional statutory protections.So, children mean different things in different context.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/10/2023 12:22:25
There are many other odd behaviors we can find in literature. Some have negative impacts, while some others have positive impacts on the society, which in turn will bring positive impact on future generations. Many of those behaviors are driven by dopamine.It's what makes me get out of bed. Or into bed.It also made Ted Bundy had sex with dead women.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine
Quote
In popular culture and media, dopamine is often portrayed as the main chemical of pleasure, but the current opinion in pharmacology is that dopamine instead confers motivational salience;[6][7][8] in other words, dopamine signals the perceived motivational prominence (i.e., the desirability or aversiveness) of an outcome, which in turn propels the organism's behavior toward or away from achieving that outcome.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/10/2023 07:19:35
Quote
Years ago, anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked by a student what she considered to be the first sign of civilization in a culture.https://twitter.com/CalltoActivism/status/1710435808144932984
The student expected Mead to talk about fishhooks or clay pots or grinding stones.
But no.
Mead said that the first sign of civilization in an ancient culture was a femur (thighbone) that had been broken and then healed. Mead explained that in the animal kingdom, if you break your leg, you die.
You cannot run from danger, get to the river for a drink or hunt for food. You are meat for prowling beasts. No animal survives a broken leg long enough for the bone to heal.
A broken femur that has healed is evidence that someone has taken time to stay with the one who fell, has bound up the wound, has carried the person to safety and has tended the person through recovery.
Helping someone else through difficulty is where civilization starts, Mead said."
We are at our best when we serve others.
Be civilized.
Credit: Ira Byock.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/10/2023 18:14:26
Civilisation is indeed mankind's adaptation to his physical fragility, but it pays to be a bit more observant and rigorous than the redoubtable Ms Mead.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/10/2023 23:15:13
Most quadrupeds (possibly not kangaroos) can survive with 3 functional legs,Do you have a source?
Have you taken into account for predators and microbial infections?
Losing a leg is one thing. Breaking its main bone and live long enough to heal it is another story.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2023 11:04:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/10/2023 13:36:57
What makes a reason less logical?
Post by: alancalverd on 12/10/2023 16:01:57
2. Religion or politics
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/10/2023 14:32:48
1. War1. Are all conflicts war?
2. Religion or politics
2. Is there a better alternative?
Post by: alancalverd on 13/10/2023 17:02:58
2. Religion is inherently a Bad Thing: it demeans the human intellect and promotes sexual perverts and fraudsters to positions of unwarranted authority. Science doesn't.
Politics replaces logical government with a pointless and wasteful team sport. Representation by mandated delegates is better.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 06:03:06
1. War is conflict organised with lethal intent. One of its characteristics is that the active participants do not stand to gain anything from their participation. At best, they will get to go home to a diminished asset.Have you heard about Mongolian conquest? Or Russian conquest?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 06:05:16
2. Religion is inherently a Bad Thing: it demeans the human intellect and promotes sexual perverts and fraudsters to positions of unwarranted authority. Science doesn't.If it's inherently bad, what made it survive and thrive so far?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 06:06:10
Politics replaces logical government with a pointless and wasteful team sport. Representation by mandated delegates is better.Isn't a logical government a form of politics?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/10/2023 08:00:12
If it's inherently bad, what made it survive and thrive so far?Crime pays. That's why people do it.
Post by: alancalverd on 14/10/2023 08:10:19
Isn't a logical government a form of politics?Only in the minds of those who profit from party politics.
Here's the difference:
We are running a business with limited resources. I want to do A and you want to do B, but we can't do both.
So logically we discuss the merits of both actions and make a mutual decision, or compromise with C.
Politically, Party X says vote for us and we will deliver A, K, and R. Party Y says vote for us and we will deliver B, J and Q.
But I would prefer A and Q, I find R morally repugnant, and K/J only affects lefthanded Scots, so who do I vote for?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/10/2023 08:15:45
Have you heard about Mongolian conquest? Or Russian conquest?The means by which the surviving warriors might just get to farm (but not own) a different bit of land and pay more tax to the emperor, whilst being hated by the natives.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 15:42:29
Until the system is good enough to prevent them.If it's inherently bad, what made it survive and thrive so far?Crime pays. That's why people do it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 15:49:51
Representative democracies were created due to the bottleneck in communications among citizens to vote for every public policies. Technology has been advanced enough to break that technical barrier. Only self interests among active politicians is standing in the way, because it would drive them closer to unemployment.Isn't a logical government a form of politics?Only in the minds of those who profit from party politics.
Here's the difference:
We are running a business with limited resources. I want to do A and you want to do B, but we can't do both.
So logically we discuss the merits of both actions and make a mutual decision, or compromise with C.
Politically, Party X says vote for us and we will deliver A, K, and R. Party Y says vote for us and we will deliver B, J and Q.
But I would prefer A and Q, I find R morally repugnant, and K/J only affects lefthanded Scots, so who do I vote for?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/10/2023 17:43:20
They might also got slaves, gold and silver.Have you heard about Mongolian conquest? Or Russian conquest?The means by which the surviving warriors might just get to farm (but not own) a different bit of land and pay more tax to the emperor, whilst being hated by the natives.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/10/2023 11:30:22
Representative democracies were created due to the bottleneck in communications among citizens to vote for every public policies.I've written several times about the pyramidal organisation of trade unions and indeed of some political parties themselves. This guarantees fluid continuity and consensus instead of vote-catching short-termism and unelected presidencies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/10/2023 04:59:11
short-termismThe purpose of rules and standards are to overcome overcommitting to short terms goal while sacrificing longer term goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/10/2023 15:08:51
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/10/2023 15:56:43
Rules and standards do not apply to governments: they make and adjust the rules and standards as required to get re-elected. Like committing to spend unlimited amounts of your money on an unnecessary railway, then cancelling the useful bit and apologising for not being able to bring the remaining part (the vanity project) all the way into London.They do apply. Although the penalty for violations may take longer than individuals. Some of the consequences may occur in the next generation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/10/2023 22:21:55
Quote
A large part of engineering involves a tug-of-war between cost and safety.Axis projection and quantification are necessary to make analysis.
Comparing costs and safety is an enormous challenge. On one side, you have dollars, and on the other, you have people. Sometimes you need a conversion factor. It sounds morbid, but it?s necessary for good decision-making to put a dollar price on the value of a human life.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2023 08:59:56
Quote
What hahppens when an egotistical trust fund baby becomes Vice President of his dad's $1B company? Watch and find out. BIG MOTOR!
In hindsight, immoral actions can be seen as the result of ignorance. It causes them to pursue shorter term goals while jeopardizing longer term goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2023 09:22:09
Quote
In 2017, the Rohingya people in Myanmar faced a genocide brought on by Buddhist extremists and the military. But something else was fueling the violence, inciting people, and spreading hatred - Facebook and their algorithm was helping tear the country apart.Disinformation leads to ignorance, which in turn can lead to immoral actions.
Over 700,000 Rohingya people fled violence perpetrated by the military in their home country of Myanmar in 2017, seeking safety in neighboring Bangladesh. The majority of them continue to live, years later, in Kutupalong Refugee Camp. Since the beginning of this crisis, UNICEF has been working with the Bangladesh government and other partners to deliver relief to children and families living in the refugee camps and settlements and in neighboring host communities. Help UNICEF continue to support Rohingya refugee children and families. Your donation can make a difference.
-- Video Chapters --
0:00 Intro
3:47 The Rohingya People and Myanmar?s Political Reform
7:52 Rising Ethnic Tension
21:37 Conclusion
23:33 Credits
Post by: alancalverd on 22/10/2023 22:59:51
How Much Is a Human Worth?You get two very different figures if you ask anyone
(a) how much should the taxpayer pay to prevent your death? or
(b) how much is your life insured for?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/10/2023 12:18:15
Post by: alancalverd on 25/10/2023 04:33:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/10/2023 06:01:30
The lifetime economic worth of an individual in the West is around $150,000.It depends on how you define West.
Moreover, income inequality makes the average values differ significantly between mean and median.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/10/2023 15:41:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/10/2023 06:18:32
Broadly, Europe and North America.Does it include Russia and Ukraine?
Post by: alancalverd on 27/10/2023 08:46:24
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/10/2023 05:23:51
Psychological Egoism
Quote
According to psychological egoism, all people are ultimately motivated by their own self-interest. Genuine altruism is impossible. This video outlines the case for and against psychological egoism.
0:00 - Egoism vs pluralism
4:52 - Altruistic behaviour
11:38 - Falsifiability
18:50 - Desire ownership
24:55 - The pursuit of pleasure
32:09 - Parsimony
36:33 - An evolutionary argument
IMO, the difference lies in how we put the boundary between inner system and outside of the system. Agents with weak consciousness like babies and little kids are only capable of individually selfish actions for short term results.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/10/2023 23:32:31
People do things because they have to to want to.
If the thing you want to do benefits someone else more than yourself, it is called "altruistic".
Life and language are a lot simpler than philosophers would like them to to be.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/10/2023 08:05:32
Why does a clever man like you waste your time with this drivel?If you help your enemy to sabotage and eventually kill your own allies, is it altruistic? Or a betrayal instead?
People do things because they have to to want to.
If the thing you want to do benefits someone else more than yourself, it is called "altruistic".
Life and language are a lot simpler than philosophers would like them to to be.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/10/2023 21:17:01
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/10/2023 09:13:42
Post by: alancalverd on 30/10/2023 13:29:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/11/2023 14:03:11
The ability to identify self system or allies from outsiders or enemies are necessary to sustain complex structures such as living organisms. It's even working down to cellular level of immune systems.Mitochondria have their own DNA, but they are not regarded as foreign materials, since they are useful for the workings of eukaryotic cells. Gut bacteria are also necessary in digestive systems of some animals, like cows and termites.
On the other hand, cancer cells have very similar DNA as the hosts. But they should be treated as adversaries need to be eliminated for the hosts to survive.
Post by: Origin on 01/11/2023 15:03:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2023 07:39:02
After 171 pages the answer is still a resounding no.What was your conclusion based on?
Post by: Origin on 02/11/2023 13:36:04
What was your conclusion based on?It is based on my observation that there is no universal moral standard.
Do you observe a universal standard? If you do what is it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/11/2023 13:45:54
You should be aware of the black swan theory.What was your conclusion based on?It is based on my observation that there is no universal moral standard.
Do you observe a universal standard? If you do what is it?
I've proposed the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal in this thread several times already. You can start with the post I marked as best answer.
Post by: Origin on 02/11/2023 13:54:05
You can start with the post I marked as best answer.Looked at the 'best' answer and saw no universal moral standard. So that was unhelpful.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/11/2023 02:31:46
I said it's a starting point, not the complete explanation. You shouldn't give up that easily.You can start with the post I marked as best answer.Looked at the 'best' answer and saw no universal moral standard. So that was unhelpful.
A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.According to the universal moral standard, an action is morally good if it increases the probability of achieving the universal terminal goal. On the other hand, an action is morally bad or immoral if it reduces the probability of achieving the universal terminal goal. The probabilistic evaluation is necessary due to inherently incomplete information that we have regarding the universe. Deterministic moral evaluation requires infinitely intelligent agent, as depicted by hypothetical Laplace's demon.
Post by: Origin on 03/11/2023 12:02:52
According to the universal moral standard, an action is morally good if it increases the probability of achieving the universal terminal goal. On the other hand, an action is morally bad of immoral if it reduces the probability of achieving the universal terminal goal. The probabilistic evaluation is necessary due to inherently incomplete information that we have regarding the universe. Deterministic moral evaluation requires infinitely intelligent agent, as depicted by hypothetical Laplace's demon.But since there is not a universal terminal goal it is impossible to determine if an action is moral or immoral.
However it seems that every planet we have discovered appears to be sterile. So quite possibly the terminal goal is to have a universe with no life. If that is the goal then according to your idea anything you can do to hasten the extinction of life on earth would be a moral action.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 05:56:09
But since there is not a universal terminal goalDo you think that goal exists?
Does the word goal has any meaning?
How do you define it?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 06:01:28
However it seems that every planet we have discovered appears to be sterile.Why do you exclude the earth?
How many earth-like planets did you accounted for in your conclusion?
Don't you know that some people are trying to build human colonies on the moon and Mars?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 06:03:43
So quite possibly the terminal goal is to have a universe with no life. If that is the goal then according to your idea anything you can do to hasten the extinction of life on earth would be a moral action.You misunderstood my idea because you haven't defined goal clearly.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 07:39:59
But since there is not a universal terminal goalDo you think that goal exists?
Does the word goal has any meaning?
How do you define it?
I just found your post in my other thread.
There is no goal.Since you already concluded that goal doesn't exist, it follows that any kind of goal doesn't exist either, including a universal goal and terminal goal. It makes your position points to the last row in the truth table below.
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=71347.0;attach=30734)
1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
Since the word goal can be found in dictionaries, and many people make decisions based on what they call their goals, I wonder how do you define goal, and how do you make decisions?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/11/2023 09:20:57
Since you already concluded that goal doesn't exist, it follows that any kind of goal doesn't exist either, including a universal goal and terminal goal.No. Seriously bad logic! I thought you were an engineer not a philosopher!
Any particle in a bottle of water can be observed moving. Each movement is entirely determined by the history and immediate environment of the particle, so in principle you could define the goal (where it will be next) for every particle at any instant. But the bulk liquid is stationary - multiple individual goals do not necessarily add up to a universal goal unless you allow stasis to be a goal.
The absence of a collective or longterm goal does not imply the absence of any short-term or individual goals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 11:02:01
Since you already concluded that goal doesn't exist, it follows that any kind of goal doesn't exist either, including a universal goal and terminal goal.No. Seriously bad logic! I thought you were an engineer not a philosopher!
Any particle in a bottle of water can be observed moving. Each movement is entirely determined by the history and immediate environment of the particle, so in principle you could define the goal (where it will be next) for every particle at any instant. But the bulk liquid is stationary - multiple individual goals do not necessarily add up to a universal goal unless you allow stasis to be a goal.
The absence of a collective or longterm goal does not imply the absence of any short-term or individual goals.
No. Seriously bad logic! I thought you were an engineer not a philosopher!If you think that unicorn doesn't exist, you must also think that pink unicorns don't exist either. If you have difficulty in understanding this, you can start by drawing Venn diagrams.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/11/2023 11:17:34
The absence of a collective or longterm goal does not imply the absence of any short-term or individual goals.When someone says that they don't have any long term goal but don't commit suicide, essentially their long term goals include staying alive as long as they can. It's driven by instincts as products of evolutionary process. In other words, their long term goal is following their instincts as far as they can.
Post by: Origin on 04/11/2023 12:54:18
When someone says that they don't have any long term goal but don't commit suicide, essentially their long term goals include staying alive as long as they can.You clearly have no idea what a goal is nor do you seem to employ logic in your discussions.
Using your 'logic', I guess since I have never been south of the equator, my goal is to stay in the northern hemisphere?
Post by: Origin on 04/11/2023 12:58:56
I see no evidence of any goal so until I see some evidence I think no goal exists.But since there is not a universal terminal goalDo you think that goal exists?
Does the word goal has any meaning?
How do you define it?
The word goal does have a meaning. Go to Google and put in "goal meaning" to find out what it is.
The same way that Websters dictionary defines it.
Post by: Origin on 04/11/2023 13:16:41
I excluded earth because there is life on earth. Sorry this confused you, I should have said every exoplanet.However it seems that every planet we have discovered appears to be sterile.Why do you exclude the earth?
How many earth-like planets did you accounted for in your conclusion?
Don't you know that some people are trying to build human colonies on the moon and Mars?
I have included all exoplanets discovered.
Nobody is trying to build human colonies on the moon or mars. Some people are talking about it. Currently there is no safe way to even get to mars let alone build colonies there.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/11/2023 18:45:10
When someone says that they don't have any long term goal but don't commit suicide, essentially their long term goals include staying alive as long as they can.Wrong.
I intend to commit suicide, but probably not in the next six years. I want to die before life becomes intolerable, and from where I stand now, that isn't a long term objective even if it is beyond the working horizon of politics and economics.
I'm planting trees that will probably live 150 years: my personal objective isn't to see them die, but to ensure that they take root and grow whilst I am alive.
The chances are that my heirs and successors may want to cut the trees down, thus negating the possibility of their being part of a universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2023 13:26:49
I intend to commit suicide, but probably not in the next six years. I want to die before life becomes intolerable, and from where I stand now, that isn't a long term objective even if it is beyond the working horizon of politics and economics.Why would you wait until your life becomes intolerable? What do you plan to do until then?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2023 13:28:37
Nobody is trying to build human colonies on the moon or mars. Some people are talking about it. Currently there is no safe way to even get to mars let alone build colonies there.Planning, budgetary, and designing are parts of projects. You can ask NASA or other space agencies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2023 13:34:00
Your statement is a product of how you understand my description of goal using your logic and assumptions.When someone says that they don't have any long term goal but don't commit suicide, essentially their long term goals include staying alive as long as they can.You clearly have no idea what a goal is nor do you seem to employ logic in your discussions.
Using your 'logic', I guess since I have never been south of the equator, my goal is to stay in the northern hemisphere?
Here's how I define goal in this thread.
If you have difficulty in viewing the video, here's the brief summary: A goal is a pursued condition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2023 13:40:09
Currently there is no safe way to even get to mars let alone build colonies there.A hundred years ago, there was no safe way to get to the moon. Humans successfully got to the moon because someone did try to make the way, not just complained that there was no safe way yet to get there.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/11/2023 22:43:06
Post by: alancalverd on 06/11/2023 22:44:03
Why would you wait until your life becomes intolerable? What do you plan to do until then?See above.
I did volunteer for a one-way trip to Mars at age 60 but I'm probably too old and unfit now to survive the journey and do anything useful at the other end.
Post by: Origin on 07/11/2023 00:58:01
A goal is a pursuit conditionWell that wraps up the discussion nicely, bye.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/11/2023 08:06:03
To date, 30 astronauts and cosmonauts have died in flight-related accidents, and 12 have walked on the moon. When not working with powerful magnetic and RF fields, ionising radiation, and sick animals, I enjoy offshore sailing, crosscountry skiing, and performing aerobatics in a glider, but getting to the moon doesn't fit my definition of "safe".Not yet.
Flying on airplane wasn't safe either for quite some time, until it was. Thanks to tireless efforts of previous generations of engineers, inventors, and investors.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/11/2023 08:17:06
I should have written "A goal is a pursued condition".A goal is a pursuit conditionWell that wraps up the discussion nicely, bye.
If you think you find a flaw in my logic or assumptions, please let me know.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/11/2023 13:55:17
Quote
Sections:
00:00 - Start
02:14 - PART 1: ANALYZING GM's EV PLAN
04:22 - --1 Planning is Overrated
06:09 - --2 Sharpening the Axe
10:48 - --3 Great Bolts of Fire!
13:08 - --4 Lacking Basic Knowledge
15:23 - --5 Does GM Stand a Chance?
16:53 - PART 2: PREPARING FOR BAILOUT
17:33 - --1 Agency Problem
25:10 - --2 Subsidies and Loans
28:45 - --3 Preparing for Bailout!
29:49 - --4 The immorality of it all
When performance indicators become the goal themselves, they are no longer good indicators.
Obedience to rules can be seen as indicators. But if it becomes the goal itself, like in deontology, it's no longer good indicator.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/11/2023 06:45:00
When performance indicators become the goal themselves, they are no longer good indicators.Interesting that this is your conclusion from the study of one of the ultimate capitalist free-market enterprises. You could reach the same conclusion from studying almost any industry under USSR communist rule - the ultimate command economy.
A performance indicator, like IQ, can be a perfect indicator of whatever it measures. The problem is that whatever it measures may not be relevant to the real objective. As the saying goes, you don't fatten a pig by weighing it. The problem with very large organisations, be they industries or entire nations, is that the remuneration of the decisionmakers at the top depends on measures of past performance, which can slip out of phase with future demand.
The uncertainty principle strongly applies to data. A database can be accurate or up to date, but not both, and the more detail and precision the boss requires, the less it will reflect the current, let alone future, state of the product.
The longterm success of a venture actually depends on the inventors and engineers in the middle, who determine future demand by innovation and improvement. Or, in the case of Coke and the VW Beetle, getting it right first time!
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/11/2023 14:42:33
ruleI've mentioned before about the difference between rules and standards using analogy of rulers and standard meters. Rules emphasize on practicality, while standards emphasize on consistency, hence more related to longer term goals.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/11/2023 22:19:04
The advantage of a market economy is that salesmen talk to customers and report back that spec B is actually what is needed.
Curiously, the GM video implies that this very large company took a command economy approach, committing to volume production of a fixed specification with no risk, whereas others seem to have adopted a market approach, preparing to lose a lot of money whilst responding to changing circumstance (i.e. listening to salesmen and engineers) until they hit the optimum product at the right time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/11/2023 07:57:50
The advantage of a market economy is that salesmen talk to customers and report back that spec B is actually what is needed.I'd like to share some illustrations in my organization's guideline on E&I Safety Concept.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=34159)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75380.0;attach=34161)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/11/2023 21:53:21
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/11/2023 07:31:55
At 7:52 Elon talks about a moral test in war situation: How do you treat your prisoner of war?
One of the comments shows the timestamp.
Quote
0:02: ! The speaker discusses the possibility of war between the US and China in the long term and the importance of understanding the causes of past wars.
2:54: China's growing economy poses a challenge to the US as the world's economic powerhouse.
5:30: 🇨🇳 China is not a monolithic entity and its population is focused internally rather than on external matters.
8:36: ️ Morality is subjective, but being a prisoner of war with the Americans is recommended by the speaker.
12:04: Conspicuous acts of kindness can be a powerful tool for preventing wars and promoting peace.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2023 04:18:57
John Oliver discusses the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas.
IMO, immorality comes from shortsightedness of the moral agents. And the damage it causes is proportional to the power they hold, and the deviation of their moral compass.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2023 03:32:34
Situations like war can alter applicable set of moral rules, but the universal moral standard is still applicable by definition.To be fair, in WW2 the US had arguably the least grudge among war participants, since they had the least grudge. Perhaps it was related to their civilian casualties.
At 7:52 Elon talks about a moral test in war situation: How do you treat your prisoner of war?
One of the comments shows the timestamp.Quote0:02: ! The speaker discusses the possibility of war between the US and China in the long term and the importance of understanding the causes of past wars.
2:54: China's growing economy poses a challenge to the US as the world's economic powerhouse.
5:30: 🇨🇳 China is not a monolithic entity and its population is focused internally rather than on external matters.
8:36: ️ Morality is subjective, but being a prisoner of war with the Americans is recommended by the speaker.
12:04: Conspicuous acts of kindness can be a powerful tool for preventing wars and promoting peace.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/11/2023 03:35:00
Quote
Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal, who has previously served as both an intelligence minister and an ambassador to the United States for the kingdom, recently spoke out about the current conflict in Gaza. He acknowledged that Israel was engaging in ethnic cleansing, but blamed both Israel and Hamas for targeting civilians and committing acts of terrorism.Do governments legitimately represent their people?
Jimmy and Americans? Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss Al-Faisal?s evenhanded apportionment of blame for the current crisis.
How much do people have to bear the blame for the actions of their governments?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/11/2023 17:07:22
He acknowledged that IsraelNo, he alleged it. You can only acknowledge something you know to be true, and this clearly isn't the case here as he isn't privy to any undisclosed policies of the Israeli government. The stated objective of the IDF is to destroy a terrorist organisation, not to kill people of a particular race.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/11/2023 17:14:52
How much do people have to bear the blame for the actions of their governments?To the extent that they voted for it and continue to serve it. Hence the destruction of Hamburg, Nagasaki, etc.
Sadly, even when the de facto government is illegitimate (like Hamas), the largely blameless civilian population has to bear the consequences of its actions, be they domestic or foreign.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/11/2023 17:18:33
How do you treat your prisoner of war?Exactly according to the Geneva Convention.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2023 12:03:00
The stated objective of the IDF is to destroy a terrorist organisation, not to kill people of a particular race.How do you know that the statement is true?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2023 12:12:41
Some said that Israeli civilian became victims on October 7th because of Israeli government's failure in protecting their citizens.How much do people have to bear the blame for the actions of their governments?To the extent that they voted for it and continue to serve it. Hence the destruction of Hamburg, Nagasaki, etc.
Sadly, even when the de facto government is illegitimate (like Hamas), the largely blameless civilian population has to bear the consequences of its actions, be they domestic or foreign.
Many thought and acted like it's easier said than done.How do you treat your prisoner of war?Exactly according to the Geneva Convention.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2023 12:14:18
That's also what Bin Laden wrote in his letter.How much do people have to bear the blame for the actions of their governments?To the extent that they voted for it and continue to serve it. Hence the destruction of Hamburg, Nagasaki, etc.
Sadly, even when the de facto government is illegitimate (like Hamas), the largely blameless civilian population has to bear the consequences of its actions, be they domestic or foreign.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2023 15:35:26
Listen to any Israeli government or military spokesman. How else do you get to know someone's stated objective?The stated objective of the IDF is to destroy a terrorist organisation, not to kill people of a particular race.How do you know that the statement is true?
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2023 15:41:02
Some said that Israeli civilian became victims on October 7th because of Israeli government's failure in protecting their citizens.Raping and beheading are not usually the direct consequences of a failure of government. Most courts and sane men tend to blame the perpetrator for what he did - that is the essence of what we in the civilised world call justice.
So I will steal your car/money/wife, and ask for your judgement of culpability. You will admit blame for inadequate security, and no further action will be taken.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2023 15:44:29
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 17:18:33It's easily done by civilised people. Worth reading about WWII PoW camps run by the Wehrmacht (who generally played by the rules) compared with the SS (BMW drivers in uniform).
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 11/11/2023 07:31:55
How do you treat your prisoner of war?
Exactly according to the Geneva Convention.
Many thought and acted like it's easier said than done.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2023 15:45:13
That's also what Bin Laden wrote in his letter.And Bin Laden was elected by whom? Apart from educating him and paying vast sums to his family, I can't see what the US taxpayer actually did to annoy Bin Laden.
The Nazis had a popular majority, Hamas just butchered the opposition. Which is why I pointed out that civilians can suffer the consequences of their politicians' actions whether legitimate or not.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2023 05:53:48
Listen to any Israeli government or military spokesman. How else do you get to know someone's stated objective?Some Israeli government official was on the record saying that Hamas was their assets, on purpose of preventing the formation of legitimate Palestinian government.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/11/2023 06:02:09
And Bin Laden was elected by whom? Apart from educating him and paying vast sums to his family, I can't see what the US taxpayer actually did to annoy Bin Laden.That's a problem with identity politics. People who are not directly related to a conflict can be involved, either voluntarily or not. It amplifies the damage done to both sides.
Not every leader is elected, since not every government is democratic.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/11/2023 13:44:02
Hiding military establishments under hospitals and suchlike is against the "rules", such as they are, because armed conflict will then inevitably involve civilians. If the police break down a door to apprehend a murderer, their action is not considered to be criminal damage, and journalists should be cautious in how they report civilian casualties where there is evidence that the rules have been broken by the defending side.
Not every leader is elected, since not every government is democratic.
And there's the nub of the problem. The moment you allow government to lead, you are giving military power to ambitious parasites, however they acquired their position. The legitimate and moral role of government is to represent the electorate and manage resources for their benefit, not to invade the territory of others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2023 13:57:14
Hiding military establishments under hospitals and suchlike is against the "rules", such as they are, because armed conflict will then inevitably involve civilians. If the police break down a door to apprehend a murderer, their action is not considered to be criminal damage, and journalists should be cautious in how they report civilian casualties where there is evidence that the rules have been broken by the defending side.Hamas seem to realize that they don't have the capacity to fight in open warfare. That's why they don't follow the "rules".
On the other hand, IDF don't have the capacity to conduct precise operation to target their enemy's fighters without harming civilians. That's why they use bombs.
How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?
If a terrorist group hijack a building and hold its occupants hostages, is it OK to just destroy the building to kill them all?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/11/2023 14:09:08
Quote
There?s nothing wrong with not having an opinion on something. Especially if you don?t know what the f**k you?re talking about.
2:09 you're not actually legally obliged to have an opinion.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/11/2023 22:44:39
How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?In modern warfare, as many as it takes to win. Of course if you are a terrorist (like Hamas, IRA, ISIS....) your primary target is civilians, not military.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2023 04:30:42
They will also target military if they think the probability of success is high enough, e.g. an outpost or a patrol/small convoy.How many civilian casualties are allowed as collateral damage?In modern warfare, as many as it takes to win. Of course if you are a terrorist (like Hamas, IRA, ISIS....) your primary target is civilians, not military.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/11/2023 08:01:42
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2023 07:41:48
Not many soldiers in the Twin Towers, Manchester Arena, the Boston Marathon.....They also targeted Pentagon.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/11/2023 17:08:07
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 00:56:10
....which contains mostly civilians, including, quite by chance, the Vice President who was filmed attempting to help survivors.Were those civilians their primary targets?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2023 09:43:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2023 10:59:27
If Pentagon were not the US military headquarters, would they still be targeted?
Post by: alancalverd on 25/11/2023 17:17:54
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 02:56:15
AFAIK nobody knows what the fourth target was supposed to be.But we know that at least one of them did attack the Pentagon.
Quote
The third team succeeded in crashing into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania following a passenger revolt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 11:22:18
The Nazis had a popular majorityDemocracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational. But this assumption isn't always true.
New York Times Interviewed WILDLY IGNORANT VOTERS Who MIGHT VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!
Quote
In this clip from episode 894 of I Doubt It Podcast, Brittany Page and Jesse Dollemore discuss a recent article from the New York Times in which several voters were interviewed about the upcoming election and who they see themselves voting for - as well as why.
Even in the most democratic countries, not everyone is given the right to vote. Those who are regarded as lacking the capacity to make rational decision for the wellbeing of the country are generally barred from voting, like children, criminals, and people with severe mental illness.
In the past, women and people of some races were not given the right to vote either.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/11/2023 12:50:30
Post by: alancalverd on 26/11/2023 19:37:02
Democracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational.A successful democracy, yes. But a practical democracy often works by populism and tribalism, hence Trump, Truss, Johnson, Bush, Hitler....
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/11/2023 12:26:43
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/11/2023 12:37:37
The Nazis had a popular majorityDemocracy relies on the assumption of crowd wisdom, and the population in general are rational. But this assumption isn't always true.
New York Times Interviewed WILDLY IGNORANT VOTERS Who MIGHT VOTE FOR TRUMP!!!QuoteIn this clip from episode 894 of I Doubt It Podcast, Brittany Page and Jesse Dollemore discuss a recent article from the New York Times in which several voters were interviewed about the upcoming election and who they see themselves voting for - as well as why.
Even in the most democratic countries, not everyone is given the right to vote. Those who are regarded as lacking the capacity to make rational decision for the wellbeing of the country are generally barred from voting, like children, criminals, and people with severe mental illness.
In the past, women and people of some races were not given the right to vote either.
It reminds me of Hanlon's razor.
Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razorIt has similarity with some eastern view on morality, while immoral actions are considered to be caused by ignorance. They can be wrong in determining the terminal goal, the basic facts related to the case, or the causality relationships.
Hanlon's razor is an adage or rule of thumb that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.".
Other variations of the idea
Earlier attributions to the idea go back to at least the 18th century.[12] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in the first entry of his influential epistolary novel The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774, first English translation 1779): "[...] Mi?verst?ndnisse und Tr?gheit machen vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewi? seltener." ('[...] misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At any rate, the latter two are certainly rarer.') [13] Another variation appears in The Wheels of Chance (1896) by H.G. Wells:
There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results indeed, but in the ethical laboratory it shows a different nature.[14]
A similar quote is also misattributed to Napoleon.[12] Andrew Roberts, in his biography of Winston Churchill, quotes from Churchill's correspondence with King George VI in February 1943 regarding disagreements with Charles De Gaulle: "'His 'insolence ... may be founded on stupidity rather than malice.'"[15]: 771
Douglas W. Hubbard quoted Hanlon's razor and added "a clumsier but more accurate corollary ...: 'Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.'"
Post by: alancalverd on 28/11/2023 15:20:40
When the assumptions turn out to be false, we won't get the expected result from a democratic society.The only expected result is that (a) you will be governed by whoever appeals to the greatest number of voters at the time of election (usual form of national democracy) or (b) you will be represented by a person continuously mandated to work in your best interests all times (trade union democracy).
Democracy is a mechanism. Garbage In, Garbage Out, always, but form (b) offers continuous feedback so you can spot and remove the garbage.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/11/2023 15:42:03
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2023 06:19:40
It doesn't matter how rational and informed the citizens are: as long as you have political parties, policy and debate are always aimed at damaging the opposition before the next election.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/12/2023 10:16:30
In multidimensional moral landscape, finding the scientifically optimum moral decisions through prioritizing various parameters or adjusting their weights requires a projection to a single axis. That axis is what I called the universal moral compass. The answer would be necessarily probabilistic due to incompleteness of the information we have about the universe.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/12/2023 18:32:26
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 04:51:16
Quote
When we specify goals for AIs, we must ensure that our specifications truly capture what we want. Otherwise, the behavior of AI systems will be different from what we want them to do. This can be catastrophic in high-stakes situations and at high levels of AI capability. If you watched our video "The Hidden Complexity of Wishes", you'll recognize these problems as the same kind of failure.The specifications problem is more closely related to short term feedback, and emphasize on practicality. While the intention or terminal goal of the system is more closely related to long term feedback, and emphasize on consistency. Their roles are similar to moral rules and moral standards, respectively.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 05:03:58
Please state the direction of the axis.
Universal Utopia 2 : Universal Terminal Goal Analogy to Find The Universal Moral Compass
You can skip to around 3:40 to get to the part describing the universal moral compass.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 05:18:25
Your Moral Compass Could Be Broken
Quote
Most people would claim to know the difference between right and wrong, but how can we be sure that our moral compass is truly pointing us in the right direction?
Although we might believe that our own moral principles are unwavering, we typically don?t apply them objectively across the actions of both loved ones and strangers, those within close proximity, and those far away.
This begs the question: what is morality, and is it objective? To truly understand our moral compass, it is important to learn exactly how it found ?north.? Dr. Liane Young, a psychology professor at Boston College, explains more.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 05:31:41
Quote
Joshua and Ryan discuss if it's possible to achieve universal morality with mathematical physicist, economist, and podcaster Eric Weinstein.IMO, Eric has a good starting point, and he was close to discover the universal morality.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 05:55:44
Searching for universal moral compass on YouTube, I found this.I think I also found a gem.
Josh Rabenold - Moral Compass
Quote
LYRICS:
[Verse 1]
I miss reading the paper
Sprawled out on my mother?s kitchen table
I miss buying an album
To search the liner notes for managers and labels
[Pre-Chorus 1]
When exactly did the next-door neighbor
Take on the role of a perfect stranger?
Why can?t they look me in the eye
Anytime that I?m walking by?
[Chorus 1]
So you got yourself a moral compass
Well, please be careful where you?re pointing that thing
I think you?d find we?ve got a lot in common
If you?d only let me pour you a drink
[Post]
Oooh
If you?d only let me pour you a drink
[Verse 2]
I just found all the letters
An old girlfriend from high school used to write me
I can?t even remember
The last time that I saw my own handwriting
[Pre 2]
When exactly did that kid from college
Start making cold calls for Scientology?
Why can?t I look him in the eye
Anytime that he?s walking by?
[Chorus 2]
So you got yourself a moral compass
Well, please be careful where you?re pointing that thing
I think you?d find we?ve got a lot in common
That there?s a song we both know well enough to sing
[Post]
Oooh
That there?s a song we both know well enough to sing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 09:03:54
Quote
Michelle Wolf responds to the latest news including Elon Musk telling boycotting advertisers to go f**k themselves, France banning smoking at various outdoor locations, and Ronny Chieng and Michael Kosta join to discuss Henry Kissinger?s death.How would you compare war crimes?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/12/2023 09:20:34
Was Henry Kissinger a War Criminal?
Quote
Henry Kissinger, America?s most controversial statesman, is dead. Let?s explore the record of a man that some call a war criminal, and see what we can learn about American politics.
Henry Kissinger and the Moral Bankruptcy of U.S. Elites
Quote
Henry Kissinger is dead at the age of 100. The former U.S. statesman served as national security adviser and secretary of state at the height of the Cold War and wielded influence over U.S. foreign policy for decades afterward. His actions led to massacres, coups and and even genocide, leaving a bloody legacy in Latin America, Southeast Asia and beyond. Once out of office, Kissinger continued until his death to advise U.S. presidents and other top officials who celebrate him as a visionary diplomat. Yale historian Greg Grandin says those glowing obituaries only reveal "the moral bankruptcy of the political establishment" that ignores how Kissinger's actions may have led to the deaths of at least 3 million people across the globe. Grandin is author of "Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman."
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2023 16:44:30
How would you compare war crimes?Same as any other crime. Has the guy broken the rules, how often, and with what effect?
The problem is Stalin's Dictum: "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." So you court-martial the private soldier who mistakenly shot an unarmed suspect (crime) and promote the general who organised the destruction of a city (strategic target).
Much the same applies in politics. You can order the early deaths of 60,000 care home residents and keep your pension, but under no circumstances can you pinch your researcher's bum or look at rude pictures on an official phone.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/12/2023 16:54:11
When someone just died, we usually only talk about their good things.Not if "we" are antisemites.
And as Shakespeare put it
The evil that men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones.
The intellectually puny are unable to challenge or insult anyone alive, but you can't libel the dead and they don't fight back, so any journalist or politician can gain airtime and money by claiming that the deceased was flawed. 100% hindsight can be seriously astigmatic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2023 02:53:42
Not if "we" are antisemites.It's a common practice among both antisemitic and prosemitic societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2023 02:56:20
The intellectually puny are unable to challenge or insult anyone alive, but you can't libel the dead and they don't fight back, so any journalist or politician can gain airtime and money by claiming that the deceased was flawed. 100% hindsight can be seriously astigmatic.Hindsights are useful as lessons learned to prevent doing similar mistakes in the future. Moral questions inevitably run into is-ought problem. IMO, instead of completely separated, they can be related through the questions,
What is our current condition?
And
What ought to be done in the past to make it better?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2023 13:54:27
Quote
Did Hamas Make Millions Betting Against Israeli Shares Ahead of Attack? | Vantage with Palki Sharma
Israeli is investigating claims by U.S. researchers that some investors may have known in advance of a Hamas plan to attack Israel on October 7 and used that information to profit from Israeli securities.
Someone bet against the Israeli stock market ahead of the war and research suggests they could be linked to Hamas?
So did Hamas short Israel? Palki Sharma tells you.
On the flip side, a comment to the video says.
Quote
Given the eerie silence of Israeli intelligence prior to Hamas attack, it could be premature to conclude that short sellers were Hamas ally
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2023 16:05:06
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2023 02:54:22
When did any intelligence service ever broadcast anything? Moron.Instead of broadcasting their findings, they ought to do something to prevent the undesired impacts. It's either they have desires unaligned with their people's, which means they are evil, or they are unable to detect and decipher the plans of their enemies, which means they are not that intelligent.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2023 12:44:02
Jewish Settlers: Why do you steal Palestinian land?
Quote
What is this project?: Do you want to know what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict? Ask a question and I will get answers. All answers are from random people and all answers are included and unedited. The questions come from you, the viewers.
Palestinians: Does 'Free Palestine' mean destroy Israel?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/12/2023 12:48:05
Post by: alancalverd on 12/12/2023 08:26:42
or they are unable to detect and decipher the plans of their enemies, which means they are not that intelligent.Or the enemy's security is better than you think. Never underestimate your enemy, but be prepared to sacrifice everything to overwhelm him.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2023 04:54:53
Israel Knew About Oct. 7 Attacks Over A YEAR AGO! ? NY Timesor they are unable to detect and decipher the plans of their enemies, which means they are not that intelligent.Or the enemy's security is better than you think. Never underestimate your enemy, but be prepared to sacrifice everything to overwhelm him.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/12/2023 05:52:52
Could Israel have prevented Hamas? October 7th attack?
Quote
I spoke to Ronen Bergman and Adam Goldman, the New York Times writers who penned a recent article "Israel Knew Hamas?s Attack Plan More Than A Year Ago." They explain that Israel?s failure to prevent Oct. 7 attack was due to three main things: misunderstanding of intent, misjudgment of capabilities, and lack of reliable intelligence.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2023 08:36:51
Could Israel have prevented Hamas? October 7th attack?Apparently not.
Quote
They explain that Israel?s failure to prevent Oct. 7 attack was due to three main things: misunderstanding of intent, misjudgment of capabilities, and lack of reliable intelligence.You can't use assets you haven't got.
Next question?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/12/2023 13:33:15
You can't use assets you haven't got.Which assets?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/12/2023 15:14:47
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2023 09:42:37
Quote
The 10 stages of genocide have been observed and described by Dr Gregory Stanton as a framework to understand how crimes against humanity happen. The framework is supposed to help us spot early warning signs and potentially prevent a human catastrophe.
00:00 Introduction to genocide
00:46 Stage 1: Classification
01:03 Stage 2: Symbolization
01:17 Stage 3: Discrimination
01:36 Stage 4: Dehumanization
01:52 Stage 5: Organization
02:11 Stage 6: Polarization
02:30 Stage 7: Preparation
02:46 Stage 8: Persecution
03:03 Stage 9: Extermination
03:20 Stage 10: Denial
03:36 Aftermath and accountability
03:58 Dr. Gregory Stanton
04:30 What do you think?
04:50 Patron credits
04:59 Ending
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2023 14:20:02
Can universal morality exist?Morality puts a boundary between in group and out group. The universal morality puts the largest boundary logically possible, which is between conscious entities and non-conscious entities. Since consciousness is a continuous parameter, that boundary is necessarily gradual.QuoteJoshua and Ryan discuss if it's possible to achieve universal morality with mathematical physicist, economist, and podcaster Eric Weinstein.IMO, Eric has a good starting point, and he was close to discover the universal morality.
Post by: alancalverd on 15/12/2023 16:41:49
Morality puts a boundary between in group and out group.No, it simply distinguishes between good and bad actions. It is entirely possible for an individual to act in both ways, though rarely at the same time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 15/12/2023 23:11:43
Whenever you declare that something is good, you will inevitably be asked, good for whom?Morality puts a boundary between in group and out group.No, it simply distinguishes between good and bad actions. It is entirely possible for an individual to act in both ways, though rarely at the same time.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/12/2023 11:58:11
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2023 06:01:17
Obviously, the person making that judgement. Which is why there is no universal moral standard in a resource-limited environment.Have you ever heard about altruism, or patriotism?
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2023 09:15:49
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2023 10:36:14
No, we can't allow unrestricted immigration.What restrictions are necessary in immigration?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2023 11:17:38
Those are examples of cases where the benefits are not received by the person who made the decision.Obviously, the person making that judgement. Which is why there is no universal moral standard in a resource-limited environment.Have you ever heard about altruism, or patriotism?
The universal moral standard can only be found by identifying the universal terminal goal. It means that we need to first define what goal is.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/12/2023 12:26:52
Straw man argument is a commonly used logical fallacy used in debates to make opponents' idea look worse than it is. Although it can make us look like the winner, especially in the eyes of people who don't have deep understanding of the issue, it makes the debate unproductive.
The gold man argument aims for the opposite effect.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2023 12:57:26
What restrictions are necessary in immigration?If everyone who is poorer or hungrier than the average Briton came to Britain, there wouldn't be enough food for anyone. You can apply the same arithmetic to any other legitimate reason someone might want to enter the country.
US temporary visa forms used to include the question "is it your intention to destroy the government of the United States?" - possibly another reason for restricting immigration. Not that the perpetrators of 9/11 answered the question honestly, of course, but you should never trust anyone who believes in a god, so perhaps that should be the first question.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/12/2023 12:59:48
Those are examples of cases where the benefits are not received by the person who made the decision.Irrelevant. Altruism and patriotism are considered good by those who have them, but can be mutually contradictory, as my example shows.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2023 12:23:40
How many poor people are allowed to come to Britain?What restrictions are necessary in immigration?If everyone who is poorer or hungrier than the average Briton came to Britain, there wouldn't be enough food for anyone. You can apply the same arithmetic to any other legitimate reason someone might want to enter the country.
US temporary visa forms used to include the question "is it your intention to destroy the government of the United States?" - possibly another reason for restricting immigration. Not that the perpetrators of 9/11 answered the question honestly, of course, but you should never trust anyone who believes in a god, so perhaps that should be the first question.The questionnaire can be indirect, which would raise red flags for people who have bad intentions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/12/2023 12:26:51
It's in the definition of altruism and patriotism.Those are examples of cases where the benefits are not received by the person who made the decision.Irrelevant. Altruism and patriotism are considered good by those who have them, but can be mutually contradictory, as my example shows.
If you think they're irrelevant, perhaps you are mistaking them for something else.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2023 12:02:45
How many poor people are allowed to come to Britain?Legally, none, apart from genuine refugees.
There is a temporary migrant agricultural worker visa scheme but since the migrants generally take their UK wages back to a country with a much lower coast of living, they aren't really "poor" for half of the year.
Illegally, anyone who has given all his money to a crook with a rubber boat, and manages to get halfway across the English Channel, gets hotel accommodation and free healthcare without being allowed to work.
Anyone without a visa who is paid to cross the channel in a properly equipped and competently manned rubber boat is called an invader, and shot.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2023 12:46:55
Legally, none, apart from genuine refugees.What justifies the exception?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2023 12:49:02
There is a temporary migrant agricultural worker visa scheme but since the migrants generally take their UK wages back to a country with a much lower coast of living, they aren't really "poor" for half of the year.Why only half of the year?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2023 12:49:51
Illegally, anyone who has given all his money to a crook with a rubber boat, and manages to get halfway across the English Channel, gets hotel accommodation and free healthcare without being allowed to work.Why is it illegal?
What makes them crook?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/12/2023 12:50:53
Anyone without a visa who is paid to cross the channel in a properly equipped and competently manned rubber boat is called an invader, and shot.Who shot them, and why?
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2023 15:33:00
What justifies the exception?See the answer I gave as reply #3521. Plus we don't want to import poor criminals, only rich ones.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2023 15:34:10
Why only half of the year?The UK harvest is quite short but well paid. Romania is a lot warmer and cheaper the rest of the year.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/12/2023 15:36:03
Why is it illegal?Because a legal immigrant is someone with a visa, who has paid EUR50 to get here by ferry, train or plane.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2023 21:38:26
Are you OK with rich criminals?What justifies the exception?See the answer I gave as reply #3521. Plus we don't want to import poor criminals, only rich ones.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/12/2023 21:42:59
So, arbitrary rules, aren't they?Why is it illegal?Because a legal immigrant is someone with a visa, who has paid EUR50 to get here by ferry, train or plane.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2023 08:19:15
Are you OK with rich criminals?HM Government not only welcomes them, but gives them peerages.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2023 08:25:55
So, arbitrary rules, aren't they?Far from arbitrary. You can't get a visa until the country issuing it is satisfied as to who you are, where you have come from, why you want to enter, and how long you intend to stay.
I was detained for most of an hour at the Canada/US border whilst my wife just walked through passport control. She came back to the gate and asked what was wrong. Helpful official said "You have a visitor visa, so we can expel you if you misbehave. He has a diplomatic visa, so we can't expel him, so we need to establish that he really is who he says he is before we let him in."
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2023 08:36:07
Abraham Lincoln's definition of a country: an area surrounded by a border that is defended with lethal force.Anyone without a visa who is paid to cross the channel in a properly equipped and competently manned rubber boat is called an invader, and shot.Who shot them, and why?
If you set the territorial boundary at 5 miles off shore, the first lethal force will be the navy, with the army defending the beach. Airborne invasion is rare. Individual stowaways are dealt with by airport police, unscheduled overflights by the air force.
In the event of Scottish independence, Hadrian's Wall can be repaired and manned again.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2023 11:00:33
What's your personal opinion?Are you OK with rich criminals?HM Government not only welcomes them, but gives them peerages.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2023 11:13:05
Quote
0:00 - IntroductionMany of common moral rules can be seen as extension of team work, which can emerge naturally through evolutionary process, as shown in the video.
0:19 - Simulation rules
3:23 - First simulations
5:21 - Game theory analysis
8:45 - Alternate reward matrices
15:58 - Requirements for an evolutionarily stable strategy
16:69 - Discussion questions
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2023 11:33:23
What's your personal opinion?I don't welcome criminals. Only a fool or a corrupt politician would.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2023 12:22:33
Morality puts a boundary between in group and out group. The universal morality puts the largest boundary logically possible, which is between conscious entities and non-conscious entities. Since consciousness is a continuous parameter, that boundary is necessarily gradual.
Until recently, only human individuals can be asked to openly discuss about morality. It could be the cause of our unwillingness to extend the boundaries of our moralities beyond humanity.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/12/2023 12:26:33
Some people became criminals simply by leaving their religion. Or expressing blasphemy. Or criticizing government.What's your personal opinion?I don't welcome criminals. Only a fool or a corrupt politician would.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/12/2023 13:07:14
In practice you need to be a bit more careful. Despite Tony B Liar's protestations that the invasion of Iraq wasn't about regime change (though his Foreign Secretary said it was - they can't both have been lying, surely?) the result was a radical change of scum so that his chosen enemies became refugees fleeing for their lives, and therefore theoretically required by UN convention to be welcomed in the UK!
On the other side of the coin, Afghans who worked with British forces have mostly been abandoned to their fate.
So the moral is, don't end up on the losing side of any war, and if you do, don't expect anyone to help you.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 06:04:49
So the moral is, don't end up on the losing side of any war, and if you do, don't expect anyone to help you.You are getting closer to the universal morality. Be on the side of conscious entities who will (still) exist in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 06:21:28
A comment refers to this quote.
?It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal.?
― Henry Kissinger
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2023 08:07:10
You are getting closer to the universal morality. Be on the side of conscious entities who will (still) exist in the future.So you think that morality is picking a winner? "Might is right", and women should not be educated, allowed to drive, vote, walk in front of their husbands, or appear in public without a headscarf.
Since I disagree, we have disproved the existence of a universal moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 09:23:55
So you think that morality is picking a winner?If a society get extinct, their local and particular morality also get lost. While their more universal morality will be preserved, as long as there are other extant societies.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 09:28:54
Simulating the Evolution of TeamworkIt shows that with grater cost of fighting, being cooperative becomes a more stable strategy. Modern weaponry increases the cost of fighting, even to bring significant risk of extinction.Quote0:00 - IntroductionMany of common moral rules can be seen as extension of team work, which can emerge naturally through evolutionary process, as shown in the video.
0:19 - Simulation rules
3:23 - First simulations
5:21 - Game theory analysis
8:45 - Alternate reward matrices
15:58 - Requirements for an evolutionarily stable strategy
16:69 - Discussion questions
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 09:32:02
Since I disagree, we have disproved the existence of a universal moral standard.Your failure to find a universal moral standard is caused by your inability to find the universal terminal goal, which in turn is caused by your inability to define goal in the first place.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/12/2023 09:42:00
The U.S. must not provide another $10 billion to Netanyahu?s right-wing extremist government?
Quote
The situation in Gaza is a humanitarian disaster. The U.S. must not provide another $10 billion to the right-wing extremist Netanyahu government to continue their war against the Palestinian people which has already killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/12/2023 14:32:11
Since WWI, warfare has involved an increasing proportion of civilian casualties. Preparations for WWIII actually assume that only the military and a few politicians will survive. The answer is, if you don't want to be a collateral statistic, don't vote for scum or tolerate them in your midst.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/12/2023 22:26:57
When the goal is already well understood, the problem of good and evil can be translated into problem of wisdom and ignorant.Most immorality are caused by ignorance of how the universe work.
What The Prisoner's Dilemma Reveals About Life, The Universe, and Everything
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2023 11:04:22
One in five young Americans think the Holocaust is a myth
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/12/2023 11:07:24
Quote
Fraud is a $5 trillion ?industry.? But not all its perpetrators look alike. Kelly Richmond Pope, a professor of accounting, breaks down who commits fraud ? and why.People might not realize when they are doing something immoral, or think that it's not a big deal.
When we think of someone who commits fraud, we think of people like Bernie Madoff or companies like Enron: intentional perpetrators of financial crimes. But other kinds of people commit fraud, too. Accounting professor Kelly Richmond Pope explains who else falls prey to the "fraud triangle", and they might be even scarier than the big bads.
0:00 How does fraud happen?
1:00 Meet Kelly Richmond Pope
1:28 The Fraud Triangle
2:18 Three types of fraudsters
2:26 Intentional perpetrators
3:50 Righteous perpetrators
4:20 Accidental perpetrators
5:56 And then there's Wells Fargo?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/12/2023 11:35:58
People might not realize when they are doing something immoral, or think that it's not a big deal.Crime pays, which is why people do it. Really big crime pays best, and you don't get punished for it, which is why people become priests and politicians.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2024 11:53:04
Usually high reward comes with high risk, and you will compete with other risk takers with low winners/losers ratio.People might not realize when they are doing something immoral, or think that it's not a big deal.Crime pays, which is why people do it. Really big crime pays best, and you don't get punished for it, which is why people become priests and politicians.
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2024 12:00:27
Scum rules.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/01/2024 12:10:14
There is negligible risk in religion or politics. You can destroy a country's economy in a month and retire with a prime ministerial pension, then promote your friends to the House of Lords. Or declare war and destroy other people's lives in order to boost the value of your shares and get re-elected. But woe betide you if you try to decriminalise euthanasia or do anything honorable like defending your country against an aggressor who can bankrupt you.It depends on how you play the game.
Scum rules.
Quote
?If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.?If you think that they can easily do something that you think was hard, it's likely that they know something that you don't.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Post by: alancalverd on 01/01/2024 13:36:19
But woe betide you if you try to decriminalise euthanasia or do anything honorable like defending your country against an aggressor who can bankrupt you.- or point out that the idea of god is absurd and your colleagues and co-conspirators have been selling a lie.
Post by: Origin on 01/01/2024 21:50:53
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2024 08:55:55
178 pages and still no universal moral standard.You can find my answer from the first page, and click on the link to the best answer.
A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.If you think that you can provide a better answer, please let me know.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2024 11:32:32
224 Million Users = $0 Revenue - Craigslist
Quote
Did you know that Craigslist is one of the most popular websites in the entire world? In fact, they pull in 250 million monthly active users every single month despite having a website that looks like it hasn?t been changed in 20 years. But, all of that is by design. You see, Craiglist isn?t trying to maximize revenue and profits like every other company. Rather, they?re happy to stick with modest revenue and profits and serve the community as much as possible. This has always been the motto and mission of not just Craig Newmark but the entire Craigslist team which is only 50 people. This is largely because Craig was never even trying to create some sort of massive online marketplace. In fact, he was largely just trying to connect with people and create a social life for himself by discussing local events, hence the name ?Craig?s List?. This video tells the humbling story of Craig Newmark and Craigslist and shows one of the few examples in which money didn?t corrupt the individual."Death is my exit strategy." has become one of my favorite quotes.
Timestamps:
0:00 - The Scale Of Craigslist
2:15 - Humble Beginnings
5:21 - Humble Rise
8:44 - Humble Dominance
Resources:
https://pastebin.com/GzAgZa95
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/01/2024 12:03:23
The Ethics of Grand Theft Auto
Quote
- VIDEO NOTES
Grand Theft Auto VI is perhaps the most anticipated video game of all time. But should we be playing it?
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
1:33 Video games and real-world violence
5:39 The trivialisation of violence
9:28 The uniqueness of sexual violence
14:17 Virtual discrimination
18:49 The one group GTA would never include
24:09 Conclusion
Post by: alancalverd on 02/01/2024 16:31:19
"Death is my exit strategy." has become one of my favorite quotes.It's certainly my intention to kill myself when the time is right. The true measure of civilisation is that everyone can choose how and when he dies. Regrettably, not all of us live in a civilised world.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/01/2024 11:52:05
The exit strategy in the interview is in business context, which refers to a plan for an owner or investor to sell their stake in a company. This could involve an acquisition by another company, an initial public offering (IPO), a management buyout, or simply selling shares to other investors."Death is my exit strategy." has become one of my favorite quotes.It's certainly my intention to kill myself when the time is right. The true measure of civilisation is that everyone can choose how and when he dies. Regrettably, not all of us live in a civilised world.
Most business models have limited lifetime, beyond which investors won't get reasonable return on investment.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/01/2024 12:39:38
Post by: Origin on 03/01/2024 14:57:22
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/01/2024 03:25:52
There is no universal moral standard, there is not even a global moral standard.What's the difference between them?
Post by: Origin on 04/01/2024 16:01:50
What's the difference between them?Global has to do with the globe and universal has to do with the universe.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/01/2024 12:39:26
How do you know that they don't exist?What's the difference between them?Global has to do with the globe and universal has to do with the universe.
Post by: Origin on 05/01/2024 13:16:34
How do you know that they don't exist?People can have morals. The universe and planets do not have morals.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2024 05:34:11
Can anything other than people have morals?How do you know that they don't exist?People can have morals. The universe and planets do not have morals.
How do you define people? Are they limited to Homo sapiens only?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2024 09:46:15
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2024 16:21:07
Depends on how you define morals. We can find common behaviors in many species of social animals, which suggests common motivations and responses. Only homo sapiens is stupid enough to waste time worrying about it.It depends on how you define stupid.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2024 22:56:44
The moral of the story is, try not to be on the wrong side of history. Our actions will be evaluated by future conscious entities.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/01/2024 23:00:47
Wasting time on philosophy
thinking that we are qualitatively different from or more cosmically important than any other animal
allowing politicians to tell you what to do
having faith
killing people because they have a different faith
making babies we can't feed, then regretting it
the list goes on, but life is too short to waste enumerating human stupidities
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2024 23:15:23
Depends on how you define morals.Let's start with standard definition from dictionary, which is
"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior".
Which in turn requires the definition for right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Which in turn depends on our terminal goals.
If our terminal goals are set randomly, some of them will lead us to extinction quickly, while some others will help us to survive longer.
The universal terminal goal is the one which is the most likely to help us stay conscious the longest. I called it the universal moral compass.
Our finite capacity to process information inevitably forces us to deal with probability, instead of deterministic calculations in our decision making process.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/01/2024 23:19:59
How to define stupid:Let's keep it simple, by mentioning only its defining characteristics so we can distinguish stupid things from the other things.
Wasting time on philosophy
thinking that we are qualitatively different from or more cosmically important than any other animal
allowing politicians to tell you what to do
having faith
killing people because they have a different faith
making babies we can't feed, then regretting it
the list goes on, but life is too short to waste enumerating human stupidities
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2024 12:41:32
Quote
In this video, we recount an incident that occurred at OpenAI while researchers were trying to finetune GPT-2 to be as helpful and ethical as possible. It's narrated that inadvertently flipping a single minus sign led GPT-2 to become the embodiment of a well-known cardinal sin.Similar incidents might have happened to people who became evil or immoral. Some incidents or events might have caused some forms of misalignment to their goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2024 13:23:00
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2024 21:19:40
No misalignment to goal in the cases of the Crusades, Inquisition, Nazis, Pol Pot, Donald Trump, Liz Truss.....All set their goals and pursued them with considerable accuracy and efficiency. And with significant public approval too, so there was nothing bizarre about the goals. Just wrong, by any civilised standard. So no evidence of a universal moral standard there.Their terminal goals were misaligned from the universal terminal goal, or at least the goals of larger society. That's why if they were given more power than what they had, the destruction of the society that they cause would be bigger.
Post by: Origin on 19/01/2024 21:42:24
Post by: alancalverd on 19/01/2024 22:25:06
Their terminal goals were misaligned from the universal terminal goal, or at least the goals of larger society.Watch what happens to the USA over the next few years. Putin's puppet will achieve their goal of destroying democracy by popular request and the larger society will rule what used to be the civilised world. Meanwhile religion will continue to infect everyone else, with massive popular support. for the genocide it justifies. The goal of "larger society" appears to be self-annihilation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2024 02:26:55
Is there a terminal goal for thread or is it never ending?Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal, and popularize its usage, especially by decision makers that would affect a lot of people.
So far, the progress still seems slow. It may even sound impossible, but as Nelson Mandela said, "It always seems impossible until it's done."
If my idea is truly universal, then sooner or later someone else will also come to the same conclusion. The only thing that can prevent it from happening is if we are extinct first.
By discussing it in a science forum, I hope to get some feed back to help me identify mistakes or fallacies in my argumentations, or something that I've overlooked.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/01/2024 08:05:52
Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal,I think you need to prove an existence theorem for both entities, then describe them, before attempting to broadcast them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/01/2024 11:15:43
What would it take to convince you of their existence?Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal,I think you need to prove an existence theorem for both entities, then describe them, before attempting to broadcast them.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/01/2024 19:32:52
"Proof by assertion" is not permissible, and so far all you have done is to assert, not demonstrate.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/01/2024 14:22:29
Any proof or demonstration of the universality of either, beginning with a statement of what you claim to be universal.Univesal moral standard is derived from the universal terminal goal. Hence its important to define the latter first.
"Proof by assertion" is not permissible, and so far all you have done is to assert, not demonstrate.
I offered
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
I started by definition of goal.
Then identify it's universal prerequisites, which is the existence of consciousness.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/01/2024 16:22:45
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2024 06:25:31
IIRC you think the preservation of consciousness is a goal, but you don't have a definition of consciousness that has universal validity. So it might be your goal, or even shared by those who accede to your definition, but may not be universal.Here's my video explaining how I defined consciousness, in the context of searching for the universal terminal goal.
Universal Utopia 3 : Defining Consciousness
Quote
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.If you have any idea to improve it, please let me know.
There's consequences or implications for those who deny the existence of a universal moral standard. It means that they are either a moral nihilist who thinks that there is no moral standard at all, or a moral relativist who thinks that there are only local and/or temporal moral standards.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2024 08:52:25
Your "cell differentiation" model implies that consciousness is a characteristic of parts of an organism communicating with one another. The question then is whether a single-celled organism qualifies as conscious as it has distinct parts that need to work together to maintain homeostasis. This draws a neat line between living things and viruses, which don't exhibit active homeostasis, but it means that every organic entity apart from a virus is conscious.
And there's your dilemma: different conscious beings have different and often competing goals, so there can't be a universal goal or moral standard.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2024 09:18:09
You haven't really differentiated between consciousness and living.A sleeping person is living. But he is not usually called conscious. In my definition of consciousness, he has low level of consciousness, but not zero.
Similar things happen with a fetus, insects, and trees.
On the other hand, embodied AI agents may not pass the definition of living. But they can be conscious, IMO. They can even have a higher consciousness level than average humans.
Can you see the difference?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/01/2024 09:32:09
And there's your dilemma: different conscious beings have different and often competing goals, so there can't be a universal goal or moral standard.That's exactly why we need a universal moral standard.
Local moral standards might be simpler and easier to follow. But they need to be evaluated from time to time whether or not they are aligned with the universal moral standard.
If those who accept the universal moral standard someday find some conscious agents whose goals are misaligned from the universal moral standard, it's their duty to try to correct/realign them. For example, when you find your bus driver is driving while drunk, you should stop him, and then find some way to go to your destinations more safely by considering some possible options and choose the best solution.
Making corrections requires us to know the correct answers.
The universal terminal goal is required to evaluate moral decisions scientifically. Without it, science would be useless to discuss moral questions. It won't be able to distinguish between right and wrong because everything can be both, depending on the moral standard used.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/01/2024 16:57:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/01/2024 02:23:33
How would you "correct" the lion that wants to kill an impala?What makes you think that the lion is about to do the wrong thing which needs correction?
Quote
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/nature/article/10-cool-reasons-to-save-lions#:~:text=Removing%20one%20species%20can%20weaken,would%20become%20a%20sandy%20desert.
Every species is important to the health of an ecosystem. Removing one species can weaken a habitat, but if a keystone species is removed, an entire ecosystem could collapse. If large predators such as lions disappeared, herd populations would balloon, and grazers would eat up the grass. The savanna would become a sandy desert.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/01/2024 18:26:46
If you don't, then you have to apply different moral standards according to species or circumstances, so you don't have a universal standard.
It looks as though your moral standard is tending towards "whatever preserves the stasis of the ecosystem". Problem is that the ecosystem cannot be static because the universe is evolving.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/01/2024 06:08:01
If you think it is never wrong for A to kill B, you have the basis of a universal moral moral standard: "anything is acceptable".Unless we have a perfect knowledge of the universe like Laplace demon, our future prediction is probabilistic. But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.
If you don't, then you have to apply different moral standards according to species or circumstances, so you don't have a universal standard.
It looks as though your moral standard is tending towards "whatever preserves the stasis of the ecosystem". Problem is that the ecosystem cannot be static because the universe is evolving.
Moral rules are useful for making moral decisions more efficiently and quickly, while still give desired results in most cases.
I prefer functionality over shapes and forms. Stasis of ecosystem is just one way to preserve consciousness. But geology and astronomy have told us about catastrophic events which were impossible for us to stop, at least with our current technology. Hence, there are something else we need to do to achieve the universal terminal goal.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/01/2024 12:53:19
But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.
You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.
Post by: Origin on 28/01/2024 13:31:45
And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.Yep, he's been going in circles for 180 pages. A compete waste of time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 22:31:42
You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.It's not arbitrary. It's the most universal goal can be logically conceived. You can start from scratch and construct the universal terminal goal from word by word definition. You can also start from any arbitrary goal, then subtract every requirement or restriction not necessary for it to be a goal. Either way, they lead you to the same thing, i.e. the universal terminal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 22:55:39
My answer is already settled when I put the best answer mark which you can find in the first page. If you are too lazy to click links more than once, here it is.And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.Yep, he's been going in circles for 180 pages. A compete waste of time.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114
My subsequent posts here are my attempt to apply the universal moral standard in real life, and answer questions from other members.
My target audience are people who are willing and able to learn. But it's also important to provide a moral standard universal enough for Future AGI to follow and apply. Hopefully this thread can somehow find a way to be a part of training data set for those AI models sooner rather than laterlater, before they get too powerful and cause more damage to the society.
Post by: Origin on 28/01/2024 23:48:38
My answer is already settled when I put the best answer mark which you can find in the first pageThanks for that. So the best answer to your question is on page 88. I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 02:40:05
Thanks for that. So the best answer to your question is on page 88. I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?
Post by: Origin on 29/01/2024 19:28:56
Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism.This is just your belief.
I still didn't see a universal moral standard or a universal goal in post 88.
Which one describes you best?Neither.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 06:18:55
I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism.This is just your belief.
I still didn't see a universal moral standard or a universal goal in post 88.Which one describes you best?Neither.
Post by: Origin on 30/01/2024 13:06:25
I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.
I'm asking for your help. Please point out the universal goal and universal moral standard that you said are in post 1749.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 21:56:20
First, pay attention to the statement.I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.
I'm asking for your help. Please point out the universal goal and universal moral standard that you said are in post 1749.
A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.Then go to this statement.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.Any conscious entity who don't share this universal terminal goal will have no chance to survive into the distant future.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2024 10:09:58
Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?Who we?
Why does it matter?
If you just apply my everyday moral tests (would you do it to your nearest and dearest? would you be happy if I did it to you? ) to everyday actions we can live a happy life and pursue our own goals, thus adding to the knowledge and happiness of others (apart from priests, politicians and philosophers, of course).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2024 12:02:09
Any conscious entity who can understand the concept of their own consciousness.Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?Who we?
Why does it matter?
Because it will determine which conscious entities will likely exist in the future.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2024 12:09:36
If you just apply my everyday moral tests (would you do it to your nearest and dearest? would you be happy if I did it to you? ) to everyday actions we can live a happy life and pursue our own goals, thus adding to the knowledge and happiness of others (apart from priests, politicians and philosophers, of course).
Can a nihilist follow your rules?
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?
The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.
Post by: Origin on 31/01/2024 13:46:41
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.181 pages to explain "the terminal goal" that people don't want to die. Staying alive is a huge driver for all life, it has been bred into us by evolution. The drive to stay alive is to facilitate the actual goal in life, which is to reproduce.
I think the goal of sentient beings is something equally obvious which is to be happy.
I noticed you never clearly stated your universal moral standard but I assume it is something like "don't kill sentient beings".
I think the universal moral standard to live by is the 'golden rule'.
Post by: Origin on 31/01/2024 13:56:35
The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.That makes no sense. Your saying that if someone doesn't follow the rules then the rules aren't universal, that would mean there are no universal rules at all. You said "The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future." That is clearly false since people choose to end there lives all the time. As you pointed out if there is an exception then the rule is not universal.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2024 14:06:46
Any conscious entity who can understand the concept of their own consciousness.Well that excludes me, since, like everyone else, I have no idea what consciousness means. Apart, of course, from philosophers, each of whom knows exactly what it means and why all the others are wrong.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/01/2024 14:09:03
Can a nihilist follow your rules?They can, and if they choose not to, they are acting immorally. Just like the Highway Code, the Laws of Cricket, and any other set of rules. The only universal rule that cannot be broken is ΔS > 0.
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2024 21:54:03
Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.Can a nihilist follow your rules?They can, and if they choose not to, they are acting immorally. Just like the Highway Code, the Laws of Cricket, and any other set of rules. The only universal rule that cannot be broken is ΔS > 0.
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?
Post by: Origin on 01/02/2024 16:37:24
every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.Hamdani says one requirement is that there are no exceptions to the 'goal'.
The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.
Approximately 700,000 people kill themselves in a year. These people do not "want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future".
There are almost one million exceptions each year to your universal goal, therefore by YOUR OWN criteria it clearly is NOT a universal goal.
Well maybe in the next 180 pages you can come up with a real terminal goal.
I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions. The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death. Ta-da.
Post by: Eternal Student on 01/02/2024 20:47:37
I also never really was sure what the terminal goal was supposed to be but the answer is closely related to a simpler question:
What is the purpose of life?
That one's fairly obvious.
The purpose of life is to hydrogenate Carbon Dioxide. Methane has a higher entropy than CO2 but there is no simple chemical reaction that will take CO2 to methane without passing through a lower entropy intermediate stage. Life seems to be an efficient way for the universe to get to CH4 from CO2.
[An idea originally presented by Michael Russell (and others possibly), NASA jet propulsion labs]
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2024 21:34:43
Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.
In my previous post, I've described the differences and similarities between standards and rules. Standards are aimed at consistency, while rules are aimed at practicality. Standards are more generally applicable. In most cases, good rules produce the same output calculations as standards, while using less computational resources, including time and energy. But in cases where they're known to have different results, we should follow the standards. While in cases where the results of calculated output by standards are not known due to incomplete information or time constrain, we can use the rules.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2024 22:41:52
Approximately 700,000 people kill themselves in a year. These people do not "want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future".You've come to a wrong conclusion because you ignore some important parts. The word terminal emphasizes the goal is set for the most distant future can be reasonably conceived. The word universal emphasizes the future conscious entities are not restricted to any forms, shapes, or ingredients. The word goal emphasizes that it's actively pursued.
There are almost one million exceptions each year to your universal goal, therefore by YOUR OWN criteria it clearly is NOT a universal goal.
I mentioned in one of my video, the first knowledge is the existence of a conscious entity, at the time when it's thinking about its own existence. Its existence in the past and future are hypotheses need further justifications.
Preservation of individual self is the most local goal. To make it more universal, it must be extended to include a larger extent.
There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.
Self sacrifice to free up resources to be used by the larger society can be a stable strategy. Although it would be better if they can improve themselves to be more useful for their society and bring a net positive impact.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 00:36:40
There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.Yes, these are many of the exceptions to your universal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 01:31:54
I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions. The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death. Ta-da.Are you actively pursuing that goal?
How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that goal?
If you can answer my questions above, it would imply that you are not so effective in pursuing that goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 03:12:16
Adherence to the universal terminal goal is universally required for any conscious entity who will exist in the future. Those who actively obstruct its achievement are called immoral, because they violate the universal moral standard. The rest of us need to prevent them from getting the power to execute their obstruction.There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.Yes, these are many of the exceptions to your universal goal.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 12:35:06
What is the purpose of life?The universal terminal goal should not be restricted by arbitrary chemical composition. The definition of goal itself should have put all the necessary restrictions.
That one's fairly obvious.
The purpose of life is to hydrogenate Carbon Dioxide. Methane has a higher entropy than CO2 but there is no simple chemical reaction that will take CO2 to methane without passing through a lower entropy intermediate stage. Life seems to be an efficient way for the universe to get to CH4 from CO2.
Some life forms don't inhale CO2 to produce CH4. This alone is enough to reject your proposition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 12:39:35
The mistake made by deontologists is confusing between moral rules and moral standards. Not lying and not killing are just rules, albeit in most cases are aligned with the universal moral standard. But there are widely known exceptions to these rules.Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.
In my previous post, I've described the differences and similarities between standards and rules. Standards are aimed at consistency, while rules are aimed at practicality. Standards are more generally applicable. In most cases, good rules produce the same output calculations as standards, while using less computational resources, including time and energy. But in cases where they're known to have different results, we should follow the standards. While in cases where the results of calculated output by standards are not known due to incomplete information or time constrain, we can use the rules.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 12:52:46
Alabama Tortures Man To Death For 22 Minutes | The Kyle Kulinski Show
In another thread I discussed the matter technically. The painful suffocation symptoms are likely caused by inability to properly exhale the CO2 built up from the blood. I predict it won't happen if the mask were equipped with two non-return valves to allow nitrogen inhalation and CO2 exhalation.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 15:03:52
Are you actively pursuing that goal?Yes, everyday I get 1 day closer to the ultimate goal.
How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that goal?I am being extremely efficient and effective because I know with 100% confidence the terminal goal will be reached.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 15:12:44
Adherence to the universal terminal goal is universally required for any conscious entity who will exist in the future. Those who actively obstruct its achievement are called immoral, because they violate the universal moral standard.2 points:
1. These immoral people who violate the universal moral standard prove (according to you) that your universal terminal goal is incorrect.
2. According to you one of these immoral segments of people are parents that would sacrifice their lives to save their children. I have to say that doesn't seem like something I personally would call an immoral act.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 15:16:45
You are certainly more effective and efficient if you demonstrably reach your goal faster and cheaper.Are you actively pursuing that goal?Yes, everyday I get 1 day closer to the ultimate goal.How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that goal?I am being extremely efficient and effective because I know with 100% confidence the terminal goal will be reached.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 15:24:59
2 points:By definition, the purpose of morality is to distinguish between good and bad behaviors. Your understanding of universal moral standard violates this definition. You seem to expect that a universal moral standard lets everyone do whatever they want, with nothing they do would make them immoral. You need to fix your misunderstanding.
1. These immoral people who violate the universal moral standard prove (according to you) that your universal terminal goal is incorrect.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 15:34:11
2. According to you one of these immoral segments of people are parents that would sacrifice their lives to save their children. I have to say that doesn't seem like something I personally would call an immoral act.AI researchers found that self reflection can improve performance of AI agents significantly without introducing new training data. Perhaps you can use similar method to improve your understanding of what I wrote.
I mentioned in one of my video, the first knowledge is the existence of a conscious entity, at the time when it's thinking about its own existence. Its existence in the past and future are hypotheses need further justifications.
Preservation of individual self is the most local goal. To make it more universal, it must be extended to include a larger extent.
There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.
Self sacrifice to free up resources to be used by the larger society can be a stable strategy. Although it would be better if they can improve themselves to be more useful for their society and bring a net positive impact.
Which part of my statements reflects your understanding of them?
Altruistic behavior will be a stable strategy if what it saves increase the chance of extending the existence of consciousness. Saving children is necessary in most cases, since losing all children would drive humans into extinction. Although the situation might change when technological progress allow us to reverse aging.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 15:43:33
By definition, the purpose of morality is to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.Agreed.
This is what you say is the universal goal:
every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
You further say:
Those who actively obstruct its achievement are called immoral, because they violate the universal moral standard.
You identify some examples of people who are not following the 'universal terminal goal' and are therefore immoral. such as; Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades.
I disagree that these people are immoral.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 15:47:50
Perhaps you can use similar method to improve your understanding of what I wrote.The problem is not my understanding, it is your flawed logic, ignoring inconvenient facts and arguing in bad faith.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 15:52:38
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 16:54:12
You identify some examples of people who are not following the 'universal terminal goal' and are therefore immoral. such as; Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades.I said that it's a stable strategy, which makes it aligned with the universal terminal goal, which means it's morally good.
I disagree that these people are immoral.
My example of immoral decision for not being a stable strategy is.
Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.I don't know how you can keep getting things reversed. But I won't assume malice if it can still be explained by ignorance.
Post by: Eternal Student on 02/02/2024 17:23:40
Some life forms don't inhale CO2 to produce CH4. This alone is enough to reject your proposition.The proposition wasn't mine, it was credited to M. Russell at NASA.
The idea isn't suggesting all life forms absorb CO2 or produce methane. Indeed there must be some life that produce CO2 and an entire ecosystem to support the net process that is hydrogenation of CO2.
It was only mentioned because, sometimes, it can be quite humbling to think that we aren't here for some other purpose such as to create art, understand the universe, carry out the will of some deity or to to "further the existance of some consciousness into the future". Life, upto and including human beings, might just be a way to carry out a chemical process.
Best Wishes.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 17:46:23
This discussion is unnecessary anyway since by your own definition you have proven that your universal terminal goal is not truly universal (there are exception to the goal).Those who don't care about future conscious entities don't need to learn about the universal moral standard. Those who do need to learn about it so they can make plans to achieve it more effectively and efficiently.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 17:49:57
Life, upto and including human beings, might just be a way to carry out a chemical process.Based on the advance towards AGI, which brings us closer to singularity, some researchers started to think that most processes will be electronic instead of chemical.
We are here as a stepping stone which will make AGI possible. In retrospect, our fish ancestors were stepping stones which have made us possible.
Post by: Origin on 02/02/2024 20:56:23
Based on the advance towards AGI, which brings us closer to singularity, some researchers started to think that most processes will be electronic instead of chemical.That's an interesting terminal goal, for life to create an AI and then life dies out.
We are here as a stepping stone which will make AGI possible. In retrospect, our fish ancestors were stepping stones which have made us possible.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 21:54:37
Organic life, or life as we know it currently, is instrumental in making consciousness emerge from natural processes. In the distant future, it may not be necessary anymore, nor as important as it is now. But it may be still a good to have, considering the importance of diversity of conscious entities to prevent a common mode failure.Based on the advance towards AGI, which brings us closer to singularity, some researchers started to think that most processes will be electronic instead of chemical.That's an interesting terminal goal, for life to create an AI and then life dies out.
We are here as a stepping stone which will make AGI possible. In retrospect, our fish ancestors were stepping stones which have made us possible.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 22:31:05
The proposition wasn't mine, it was credited to M. Russell at NASA.Understanding of the universal terminal goal is better done through the first principles, or deductive reasoning which starts from the definition of goal itself. Analog thinking or inductive reasoning by generalizing common cases can also produce the same conclusion, as I've shown in one of my videos. But it needs to be done with adequate depth. Otherwise, it will give a wrong answer.
Post by: Origin on 03/02/2024 00:44:03
I said that it's a stable strategy, which makes it aligned with the universal terminal goal, which means it's morally good.
My example of immoral decision for not being a stable strategy is.
I don't know how you can keep getting things reversed. But I won't assume malice if it can still be explained by ignorance.Bla, bla, bla. So much wasted band width...
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/02/2024 10:19:48
Don't you have something meaningful to say?I said that it's a stable strategy, which makes it aligned with the universal terminal goal, which means it's morally good.
My example of immoral decision for not being a stable strategy is.I don't know how you can keep getting things reversed. But I won't assume malice if it can still be explained by ignorance.Bla, bla, bla. So much wasted band width...
Post by: alancalverd on 04/02/2024 21:46:11
In another thread I discussed the matter technically. The painful suffocation symptoms are likely caused by inability to properly exhale the CO2 built up from the blood. I predict it won't happen if the mask were equipped with two non-return valves to allow nitrogen inhalation and CO2 exhalation.I haven't followed the case or bothered to watch the video, but what you say is true, and if they didn't do it properly, they have acted unconstitutionally in inflicting a "cruel and unusual punishment".
The autonomic system reacts to CO2 concentration by increasing respiration rate (metered CO2 "rebreathing" is used in anesthesia and survival oxygen systems to ensure that the subject keeps breathing actively) and panic sets in if increased respiration does not reduce CO2.
Nitrogen hypoxia with free exhalation is a recommended suicide technique because it actually induces a feeling of wellbeing. If the victim was unable to exhale excess CO2, the State of Alabama has committed a federal crime.
Post by: paul cotter on 04/02/2024 22:11:53
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2024 04:08:14
How could exhalation of co2 be stopped?, I don't see how it could. As you rightly point out anoxia is not unpleasant and is quite different from suffocation which can only be implemented by mechanically stopping the breathing. Certainly if I was due for capital punishment I would opt for nitrogen anoxia in preference to the electric chair or the firing squad.The video at timestamp around 2:50 shows the illustration of the execution. It shows the usage of full face mask with Nitrogen intake on the right side of the face. Unfortunately it doesn't show what's on the left side.
One way valve usually produces some back pressure when operating. Some pressure needs to build up before the valve start to open and let the fluid to flow in forward direction, which is called cracking pressure. In reverse direction, the valve gets tighter when the pressure is applied in the other side, which prevents the fluid from flowing in reverse direction. The cracking pressure depends on the mechanism to close the valve when there is no forward pressure, like spring constant or its equivalent.
The situation described in the video can occur when the cracking pressure is too high for him to exhale the CO2 from his lung, which would make him re-inhale some of it. If I can make a suggestion, perhaps remove the exhale one way valve altogether, and just increase the nitrogen flow into the mask to exceed the inhale rate of the executed person.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2024 09:58:53
Post by: paul cotter on 05/02/2024 12:31:35
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2024 14:34:00
All that is needed is a loose mask with a high flow of nitrogen. I am not a proponent of capital punishment: sure, there are heinous crimes, for these "lock em up and throw away the key" is a suitable protection for society.Shouldn't they be fed?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/02/2024 14:57:19
With enough data, and adequately deep structure, they will eventually align their value with the universal moral compass.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/02/2024 22:55:30
Shouldn't they be fed?Why? Wouldn't it be more humane, more logical, and cheaper, to offer convicts a choice of selfadministered euthanasia at any point in their incarceration? Nitrogen hypoxia would be ideal: simple to use, nontoxic and readily available material....but the lack of ritual would make it unacceptable to politicians, who like a bit of theater.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2024 04:00:45
All that is needed is a loose mask with a high flow of nitrogen. I am not a proponent of capital punishment: sure, there are heinous crimes, for these "lock em up and throw away the key" is a suitable protection for society.
Shouldn't they be fed?
Why? Wouldn't it be more humane, more logical, and cheaper, to offer convicts a choice of selfadministered euthanasia at any point in their incarceration? Nitrogen hypoxia would be ideal: simple to use, nontoxic and readily available material....but the lack of ritual would make it unacceptable to politicians, who like a bit of theater.Don't you think locking people up without feeding them would make them starved to death?
Of course, they also need sanitary and stuffs to stay alive longer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/02/2024 04:02:09
I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions. The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death. Ta-da.Do you think death is better/preferred than life?
Can non-conscious entities have a goal of their own?
How do you define goal and consciousness?
Post by: alancalverd on 06/02/2024 17:51:05
Do you think death is better/preferred than life?At some point, everyone does. The moral problem is the number of religious parasites who want to deny you the option.
How do you define goal and consciousness?I think we are waiting for your definitions!
Post by: alancalverd on 06/02/2024 17:54:45
Don't you think locking people up without feeding them would make them starved to death?
Of course, they also need sanitary and stuffs to stay alive longer.
The object of capital punishment is to terminate the life of a criminal. The world would be a happier place if all criminals were given the option of terminating their own lives. We only feed prisoners because it makes us feel good to do so (see my moral tests, somewhere above).
Interestingly, under UK law, if you are found to have been wrongly convicted, you have to pay the prison service for your accommodation up to the point of release. So it seems entirely reasonable that all prisoners should pay for their food.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/02/2024 02:29:15
So it seems entirely reasonable that all prisoners should pay for their food.How can they pay if they can't have a job to get the money to pay?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/02/2024 02:32:23
The object of capital punishment is to terminate the life of a criminal. The world would be a happier place if all criminals were given the option of terminating their own lives.If they refuse eating and drinking water, they will eventually die in less than a month. It's in their option already.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2024 09:24:37
The same way that a person released from wrongful imprisonment is supposed to pay from the salary he wasn't earning in the last 10 years.So it seems entirely reasonable that all prisoners should pay for their food.How can they pay if they can't have a job to get the money to pay?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/02/2024 13:44:40
So, debt?The same way that a person released from wrongful imprisonment is supposed to pay from the salary he wasn't earning in the last 10 years.So it seems entirely reasonable that all prisoners should pay for their food.How can they pay if they can't have a job to get the money to pay?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/02/2024 13:47:41
Quote
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 What is democracy?
2:56 Why would anybody want democracy?
13:15 Is voting a right of equal citizens?
20:00 Is voting required for protecting against tyranny?
25:57 People don?t vote for their values
31:03 How democracy may be immoral
37:41 What is the alternative to universal suffrage?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2024 18:01:17
So, debt?Some compensation is usually paid for wrongful imprisonment but I understand that the hotel bill arrives before the compensation and the net result is pretty close to financial ruin. How do you get a credit rating, for instance, if you haven't earned, borrowed or repaid a debt for 10 years, during which you lost your job and pension or your business went bankrupt?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/02/2024 18:08:42
Once upon a time, people voted for a local representative to promote their interests to central government. Nowadays they are asked to choose between apologists for two or three manifestoes of meaningless slogans.
Can democracy result in an immoral government? That's how the Nazis and Hamas got control of the taxpayers' money, and Donald Trump-Putin will rule the world next year.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/02/2024 02:45:40
Democracy is whatever the current government (or its opposing revolutionary group) defines as democracy.It has a distinctive definition in the dictionary
Quote
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.It relies on wisdom of the crowd and law of large numbers.
There are some proposed methods to improve the results, like this one.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hive-mind-new-approach-could-improve-on-crowd-wisdom/
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2024 22:00:16
So it depends on who is eligible to vote, who is an eligible candidate, and what anyone is allowed to vote on. And these are determined by the government itself.Quotea system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.It relies on wisdom of the crowd and law of large numbers.
The election of George W Bush, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump, rather questions your definition of "wisdom"
Where everyone is allowed to vote on a specific motion, we can get remarkably small majorities on very iumpolrtant decisions, as seen in the Brexit and Scottish Independence referenda, which suggests either that the "law of large numbers" is that people as a whole have no idea what they want, or that statistically, everyone is fairly satisfied with the status quo.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/02/2024 22:16:43
There are some proposed methods to improve the results, like this one.Not the same thing at all!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hive-mind-new-approach-could-improve-on-crowd-wisdom/
The study was looking at how accurately a crowd can state or estimate a fact such as a state capital or beans in a jar.
Democracy is about how to make decisions on future legislation: there is no "correct answer" that can be known, any more than there is a correct answer to "tea or coffee?"
Interestingly, almost every Good Thing that has come out of a democratic government would probably have been rejected on a popular vote: think about the abolition of slavery, votes for women, abolition of capital punishment, prison reform, compulsory seat belts......and the public skepticism of socialised medicine in the USA .
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 14:26:17
So it depends on who is eligible to vote, who is an eligible candidate, and what anyone is allowed to vote on. And these are determined by the government itself.No. It questions the assumption made in setting up democratic systems.
The election of George W Bush, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump, rather questions your definition of "wisdom"
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/02/2024 14:30:58
Democracy is about how to make decisions on future legislation: there is no "correct answer" that can be known, any more than there is a correct answer to "tea or coffee?"There are correct as well as incorrect answers. If people regret what they voted for, they have realized that they had made incorrect decisions.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2024 11:18:40
No. It questions the assumption made in setting up democratic systems.Your explicit assumption is the "wisdom of crowds". A politician's implicit assumption is "the short term self-interest and gullibility of the electorate". The voting process is irrelevant.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/02/2024 11:22:32
If people regret what they voted for, they have realized that they had made incorrect decisions.Nobody ever admits to having voted for the wrong person or policy. Everyone accepts that society is in a state of perpetual evolution so yesterday's solution (expansion of the EU to create new markets for German industry) becomes today's problem (unrestricted migrant labor depresses UK wages).
The problem with democracy is that it takes too long to respond to any challenge. If the EU had been a dictatorship, would Putin's criminals still be destroying Ukraine?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2024 10:42:44
Wisdom of crowd is not my assumption. It's the assumption that democratic systems are relying upon.No. It questions the assumption made in setting up democratic systems.Your explicit assumption is the "wisdom of crowds". A politician's implicit assumption is "the short term self-interest and gullibility of the electorate". The voting process is irrelevant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_populi
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2024 10:55:56
The problem with democracy is that it takes too long to respond to any challenge. If the EU had been a dictatorship, would Putin's criminals still be destroying Ukraine?Every system has their own strength and weakness. The devil is in the details. When the goals have been set, then it becomes the matter of how accurate and precise their model of the world that they use to make decisions that will determine the results.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/02/2024 11:55:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 13/02/2024 10:38:29
The goal of many democracies has unfortunately become preservation of the elected representatives and the system that elected them, regardless of the consequences.In those cases, they're chasing short term goals while ignoring the longer term goals.
If our goal is irrelevant to future conscious entities, then it will be meaningless when that future has come.
Post by: alancalverd on 13/02/2024 16:26:00
In those cases, they're chasing short term goals while ignoring the longer term goals.Politics in a nutshell.
Problem is that when politicians pursue longterm goals, either lots of people die (American Civil War, Napoleon's march on Moscow.....) or the taxpayer ends up supporting an unlimited vanity project like HS2 or fusion power.
Public ownership of essential infrastucture looks like a sensible goal, but when politicians turn it into a command economy, like setting goals for the National Health Service instead of just letting doctors treat patients, it all goes
tits-up, whether the scum in charge are Tory donors or Stalin.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/02/2024 03:53:13
Problem is that when politicians pursue longterm goals, either lots of people die (American Civil War, Napoleon's march on Moscow.....) or the taxpayer ends up supporting an unlimited vanity project like HS2 or fusion power.Pursuing longer term goals effectively and efficiently requires more accurate and precise model of the universe, and more computing power, because of chaos theory, among other things. When the requirements aren't met, it would be more practical and better in general to pursue shorter term goals.
When we were babies, it was better to follow instincts which are short term goals, than defying them to pursue longer term goals that we didn't understand.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/02/2024 03:20:05
Everyone has their own blind spots. That's why we need some access to see the world and ourselves from the other sides.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/02/2024 20:06:31
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/02/2024 12:32:42
Funny how nobody calls the destruction of Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden, Stuttgart, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London, Coventry, Guernica, Almeria, Glasgow, Hanoi, Mariupol....."genocide".Perhaps someone had, especially in the past, when the killings were happening, so there was a chance to stop them. But they might stop when calling them genocides would bring less benefits and more damage instead.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/02/2024 17:23:45
The stated objective of Hamas is genocide. The stated objective of the IDF is to rid the world of Hamas.
Sadly, the scum who call themselves Hamas have hidden themselves among civilians and do not wear uniforms, so the civilians either suffer from being in the way of the IDF, or get beaten up by Hamas for betraying them. That's the reality of modern warfare, and the Joy of Faith.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 04:11:05
The stated objective of Hamas is genocide. The stated objective of the IDF is to rid the world of Hamas.Putin never said that he will kill his enemies. But several of them died nonetheless.
BTW, Israeli government officials have expressed their genocidal intention as well.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2024 09:10:08
Israeli government officials have expressed their genocidal intention as well.Citation needed. And please distinguish between agreed government policy and a translator's interpretation of an individual's off-the-record comment.
Is Putin directly involved in Gaza? I thought he was more interested in owning the US president and attacking the Jew-run state of Ukraine.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 20/02/2024 12:56:53
Israeli government officials have expressed their genocidal intention as well.Citation needed. And please distinguish between agreed government policy and a translator's interpretation of an individual's off-the-record comment.
Is Putin directly involved in Gaza? I thought he was more interested in owning the US president and attacking the Jew-run state of Ukraine.
The moral of the story is that action speaks louder than words.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/02/2024 20:52:53
Not that lack of evidence has ever been an impediment to antisemitism. Whilst Catholics have to acquire guilt through study, we are given it for free.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 21/02/2024 15:17:43
And there is no evidence that the IDF is killing people because of what they are. Nor have you provided any evidence of genocidal intention.They killed their own citizens held hostage waving white flag.
South Africa has.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2024 22:23:28
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2024 21:29:55
South Africa has provided an accusation, not evidence.Many countries disagree with your conclusion
Death from friendly fire is nothing newIt's friendly fire if both sides were armed. In this case, it shows intentional targeting of civilians.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2024 22:57:01
It's friendly fire if both sides were armed.Nonsense. It can happen in the absence of any opposition. And even if your definition were valid, Hamas is armed.
Quote
intentional targeting of civiliansWithout concrete evidence, assertion of intent is proof of prejudice.
Quote
Many countries disagree with your conclusionReally? Many politicians pretend to, because that's where the votes are (there are more antisemites than semites in the world) but how does a "country" express an opinion?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2024 23:07:54
Without concrete evidence, assertion of intent is proof of prejudice.What counts as concrete evidence?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 22/02/2024 23:08:38
Quote
When Republican Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee was pressed about his support for Israel?s genocide in Gaza, he revealed his true feelings? and it?s not pretty. We?ll talk about his unforgivable comments in this video and recommend action that can be taken to hold politicians like this accountable.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2024 08:43:36
What counts as concrete evidence?A written political manifesto or military order may be considered evidence of intent. So far the only published evidence of genocidal intent is the manifesto of Hamas.
Successive British governments have funded the development and maintenance of strategic nuclear weapons whose deployment would cause millions of civilian casualties and the destruction of civil infrastructure. Is that genocidal intent, or the acceptance of inevitable collateral damage in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2024 15:34:06
As I said, actions speak louder than words. How many civilian casualties are caused by British nuclear weapon?What counts as concrete evidence?A written political manifesto or military order may be considered evidence of intent. So far the only published evidence of genocidal intent is the manifesto of Hamas.
Successive British governments have funded the development and maintenance of strategic nuclear weapons whose deployment would cause millions of civilian casualties and the destruction of civil infrastructure. Is that genocidal intent, or the acceptance of inevitable collateral damage in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2024 23:32:56
The number of civilian deaths from a single day's single-target operation in WWII varied from around 20,000 (Hamburg) to 150,000 (Hiroshima).
It is a sad fact that nowadays you need to kill a lot of civilians in order to eradicate the filth that hides among them. But if you don't, an awful lot of innocent people will die on the Good Side (some 20,000,000 in the Soviet Union alone, between 1941 and 1945).
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/02/2024 09:03:37
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2024 14:37:21
Declaring your objective as elimination of an entire population of 7,000,000 people because of what you think they pray to, and progressing that policy with indiscriminate rocket attacks, torture, rape, murder and hostage-taking, might not pass that test of goodness.
In general, one might conclude that proclaiming genocidal intent as a political manifesto, and invading another state to advance that cause, are characteristics of badness.
Hiding amongst your nearest and dearest in order to avoid retribution is cowardice at best, and a war crime at worst. Difficult to consider that as the action of a good person.
In the absence of a universal moral code, it's a good idea to stick to the simple one you learned at school: the aggressor is wrong, and hot pursuit of the aggressor is a pragmatic method of reducing the problem. Civilians have a miserable choice: if you don't become part of the solution, you may become a collateral casualty of it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 02:29:13
One method is to ask whether I would do it to myself or my nearest and dearest.As I've said before, people have different thresholds for selfishness and altruism. Some even willing to sacrifice self and their own family for the greater good of their tribe or nation.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 02:33:49
In the absence of a universal moral code, it's a good idea to stick to the simple one you learned at school: the aggressor is wrong, and hot pursuit of the aggressor is a pragmatic method of reducing the problem. Civilians have a miserable choice: if you don't become part of the solution, you may become a collateral casualty of it.We can't force conscious agents to think through beyond their thinking capacities. Those with higher level of consciousness should teach their simpler minded comrades, just like bigger LLMs are training smaller LLMs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 02:34:54
Jon Stewart on Israel - Palestine | The Daily Show
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/02/2024 06:41:39
Supreme Court Ethics: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Quote
John Oliver discusses the Supreme Court, the ethically questionable gifts some of the justices receive, and an offer for Clarence Thomas that could ruin John?s life. Genuinely. You?ll see.
Post by: alancalverd on 29/02/2024 09:49:06
Some even willing to sacrifice self and their own family for the greater good of their tribe or nation.I would never discourage anyone from sacrificing himself. I will happily kill anyone who wants to sacrifice me, or indeed anyone else. There's a big difference.
To quote General Patton: "No goddam sonofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making your enemy die for his country."
Post by: Zer0 on 01/03/2024 16:04:36
All i see around now are SnowFlakes!
Turn up the heat just a lil, n they instantly have a meltdown.
lol
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2024 19:49:03
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2024 11:34:34
I will happily kill anyone who wants to sacrifice me, or indeed anyone else.It might be how people who are taken as hostages or POW feel.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2024 11:37:48
To quote General Patton: "No goddam sonofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making your enemy die for his country."Those who won a war are likely take the benefits from their comrades who sacrificed themselves for them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2024 13:54:50
With great power, comes great responsibility. It should only be handed over to those with adequate level of consciousness.Highly conscious agents can think through the consequences of their actions and align them with their goal. Babies, toddlers, kids, young adults, adults, wise persons; the list shows increasing level of consciousness. From seconds to centuries of planned actions capabilities. From individual outcomes to widespread impacts on society.
Huge power comes with the position of a supreme Court Justice should or national leaders should not be given to those with consciousness level below average adults.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2024 16:12:45
Those who won a war are likely take the benefits from their comrades who sacrificed themselves for them.There is very little evidence of benefit accruing to anyone who has fought in a modern war. Only the politicians and military equipment suppliers benefit, and they don't fight or sacrifice anything. Halliburton and Raytheon shareholders profited mightily from the invasion of Iraq but very few of them have ever visited the place. Thousands of Russians will die in Ukraine and Putin will be re-elected. Massive quantities of ammunition will be supplied to Hamas as soon as there is cease-fire, but no combatant on either side will be resurrected from the dead or be given any land for his efforts.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2024 16:15:16
Babies, toddlers, kids, young adults, adults, wise persons; the list shows increasing level of consciousness.....and mendacity.
Huge power comes with the position of a supreme Court Justice....who has been given the post by the criminal and unaccountable President.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2024 05:05:56
There is very little evidence of benefit accruing to anyone who has fought in a modern war.Private Ryan survived because someone else made sacrifice for him.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/03/2024 11:40:26
Thus, preventing them needs a better understanding of greed, how to define it, how it has evolved, its costs and benefits to individuals and society, is there a case where greed is good.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2024 15:25:45
Private Ryan survived because someone else made sacrifice for him.But was he any better off at the end of the war than at the beginning? Survival is not profit.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2024 13:39:40
Yes.Private Ryan survived because someone else made sacrifice for him.But was he any better off at the end of the war than at the beginning? Survival is not profit.
Some people are willing to pay for better chance to survive.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2024 18:23:25
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2024 22:17:53
So war is all about extracting bribes from the invaded population. Not what most people think.Some wars involved genocides, which means no bribe can be extracted; just looting.
Some others doesn't seem to involve money, like Trojan war which was fought over a female.
Nonetheless, they are still related to greed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2024 22:25:12
Quote
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
While according to Merriam-Webster, it's
Quote
selfish desire for food, money, or possessions over and above one's needs.
They both mention selfishness. But it needs not to be individualistic. They can also be collective, like corporate greed, tribal/racial/national greed. Some even mentioned government greed and species greed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2024 22:37:08
above one's needs.The needs also have to be clarified.
To survive for the next hours, I don't need food nor water. For the next minute, I don't even need air.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2024 10:25:47
Some wars involved genocides, which means no bribe can be extracted; just looting.But whatever the cause and however the objective was pursued, the actual combatants were lucky even to receive a pension, never mind riches/concubines/whatever. The profits of war always accrue to politicians and their friends, never to the soldiers.
Some others doesn't seem to involve money, like Trojan war which was fought over a female.
Nonetheless, they are still related to greed.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2024 12:34:01
The profits of war always accrue to politicians and their friends, never to the soldiers.Never say never. The soldiers can steal or loot from their enemies or civilians without telling their commanders.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2024 15:19:56
More recently, Halliburton's profits and share price rose substantially thanks to the invasion of Iraq. How much of that money found its way into the pockets of the fighters?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 05:25:39
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 05:28:01
Name any combatant who was substantially better off after a war than he would have been if there had been no war. Out of the 80 - 90 million men who fought in WWII, how many were able to retire on the fortune they amassed?Since the stealing and looting are illegal in their homeland, as well as anywhere else, I guess they just want to keep silent.
More recently, Halliburton's profits and share price rose substantially thanks to the invasion of Iraq. How much of that money found its way into the pockets of the fighters?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 06:23:22
Quote
Lawsuits are piling up against Trinity Industries, a company that makes highway guardrails that are killing American drivers.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2024 10:19:19
Since the stealing and looting are illegal in their homeland, as well as anywhere else, I guess they just want to keep silent.Space is limited on troop transports, and the military police, at least in civilised countries, take a dim view of looting at source. So how did Joe or Tommy, or even Ivan (in the days when the Red Army was fighting for a just cause) manage to hide the car he stole and bring it back home? And was it worth the loss of a leg and a brother? The "spoils of war" rarely amount to much more than syphilis and malaria.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2024 10:25:09
Corporate Greed Is Killing American DriversI wouldn't blame corporate greed in the UK (though I have no doubt that a Minister's brother makes money from every change in legislation) so much as European stupidity in replacing hedges and gravel with steel barriers on British highways.
Quote
Lawsuits are piling up against Trinity Industries, a company that makes highway guardrails that are killing American drivers.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 12:58:41
Quote
From 2009 to 2013 the communication channels the CIA uses to contact assets in foreign countries was compromised. This had terrifying consequences.People are generally more willing to do immoral actions when they don't closely observe the negative impacts of their actions.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 13:06:56
Rare is not never.Since the stealing and looting are illegal in their homeland, as well as anywhere else, I guess they just want to keep silent.Space is limited on troop transports, and the military police, at least in civilised countries, take a dim view of looting at source. So how did Joe or Tommy, or even Ivan (in the days when the Red Army was fighting for a just cause) manage to hide the car he stole and bring it back home? And was it worth the loss of a leg and a brother? The "spoils of war" rarely amount to much more than syphilis and malaria.
Nowadays economic value can be concentrated in a small space. Flashdisk containing Bitcoin private key is an example.
Traditionally, diamond can store quite high value to weight ratio.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2024 13:21:26
Sometimes there's only thin difference between stupidity and immorality.Corporate Greed Is Killing American DriversI wouldn't blame corporate greed in the UK (though I have no doubt that a Minister's brother makes money from every change in legislation) so much as European stupidity in replacing hedges and gravel with steel barriers on British highways.
Quote
Lawsuits are piling up against Trinity Industries, a company that makes highway guardrails that are killing American drivers.
If they can cut costs without sacrificing safety, they will be seen as engineering geniuses. The phrase "No part is the best part" can be heard more often nowadays.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2024 16:40:05
Rare is not never.Please name some soldiers who, returning from combat, are richer, happier, healthier, more sane, or less dead, than they would have been without going to war. Then subtract those who did not profit from the experience, and tell me whether war profits the combatants rather than the politicians who start it.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 00:55:44
You are falling into no true scotman fallacy.Rare is not never.Please name some soldiers who, returning from combat, are richer, happier, healthier, more sane, or less dead, than they would have been without going to war. Then subtract those who did not profit from the experience, and tell me whether war profits the combatants rather than the politicians who start it.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2024 09:27:32
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 09:28:59
Quote
The Science of Greed : Why the Ideology of self interest could be the downfall of the American Dream. Wealth may seem like mostly an unmitigated good, yet it also has significant costs. My research reveals the pernicious effects of inequality and why something must be done about them...before it's too late.Greed seems to be instinctive behavior. People don't need to be taught to be greedy.
Paul K. Piff is a social psychologist and research scientist in the Psychology Department at the University of California, Berkeley. He holds a B.A. in Psychology from Reed College and a Ph.D. in Psychology from UC Berkeley.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 09:36:12
Quote
These are the men that turned war into a business.
With every advance in technology, our weapons get better while weapon makers get richer and deadly wars continue. That?s the future laid out in a book about the arms trade from 100 years ago. And it still rings true today.
-- VIDEO CHAPTERS --
0:00 Intro
5:05 The Industrial Revolution
6:35 The Merchants of Death
16:40 The Arms Trade Mapped
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 09:37:08
Soldiers don't start warsThey start fights. Their leaders start wars.
But it doesn't mean that they never make profit from wars.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 15:10:02
Greed seems to be instinctive behavior. People don't need to be taught to be greedy.Greed can be encouraged by fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future. We've learned that sometimes we need more than what we usually need. Anticipating for such a case, we can save some excess resources now for later use.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/03/2024 19:27:08
They start fights. Their leaders start wars.Soldiers sometimes fight in bars, but usually with rival regiments from their own side, and usually end up in prison or military detention for doing so. Fighting is never the primary objective in battle: it's always preferable to take ground or persuade your enemy to surrender without firing a shot.
But it doesn't mean that they never make profit from wars.
Please name a regular or conscripted private soldier (not a mercenary) who profited from going to war.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 22:13:52
Please name a regular or conscripted private soldier (not a mercenary) who profited from going to war.When they do profit from war, they won't announce it publicly, understandably to protect their own best interest. Gemini didn't give an answer for such a case, although it suggested to look into Military history forums which often discuss soldier experiences, and you might find anecdotal accounts (though verification can be difficult). They typically use nicknames.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 22:27:35
Such behavior can be found in the wilderness. Animals eat excessively to accumulate nutrients to prepare for the winter. Some of them stock up on food and hide their treasures in tunnels, burrows, and other secret spots throughout their territory.Greed seems to be instinctive behavior. People don't need to be taught to be greedy.Greed can be encouraged by fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future. We've learned that sometimes we need more than what we usually need. Anticipating for such a case, we can save some excess resources now for later use.
Modern humans have similar behaviors, but with more sophisticated methods.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 07/03/2024 22:35:08
Quote
Abundance mentality is a way of thinking that there are enough resources and opportunities for everyone to succeed. People with this mindset believe they are not limited by lack, and instead focus on gratitude and the potential for growth. Here are some key aspects of abundance mentality:
Belief in enough for everyone: Abundance mentality contrasts with scarcity mentality, which fears there aren't enough resources to go around.
Celebrating others' success: People with an abundance mindset see others' achievements as inspiring, rather than threatening.
Focus on gratitude: They appreciate what they already have, fostering a positive outlook.
Sharing and giving back: They believe there's plenty to share, and are generous with their time, resources, and support.
Abundance mentality can be beneficial in many areas of life, from personal fulfillment to career success.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2024 08:53:08
Gemini didn't give an answer for such a case, although it suggested to look into Military history forums which often discuss soldier experiences, and you might find anecdotal accounts (though verification can be difficult). They typically use nicknames.Fairly typical of a chatbot.
I asked you to give an example of your assertion - a reasonable request.
You pretended that examples were not publicly available, which makes me wonder how you reached your assertion in the first place. If you are in possession of a state secret, it is an offence event to admit to having it.
You then attempted to answer from authority, but your supposed authority merely told you to do your own research.
So until further notice we must assume that private soldiers do not profit from conflict as you have produced no evidence to the contrary, you claim that none is available, and your expert declines to offer any despite having access to every possible source.
Extraordinary claims demand not merely extraordinary evidence, but any evidence at all.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/03/2024 10:17:09
Sometimes there's only thin difference between stupidity and immorality.It rings true here
Boeing: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Quote
John Oliver discusses how Boeing went from being a company known for quality craftsmanship to one synonymous with crashes, mishaps, and ?quality escape.? Whatever that means.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/03/2024 10:32:19
How many evidence do you want?Gemini didn't give an answer for such a case, although it suggested to look into Military history forums which often discuss soldier experiences, and you might find anecdotal accounts (though verification can be difficult). They typically use nicknames.Fairly typical of a chatbot.
I asked you to give an example of your assertion - a reasonable request.
You pretended that examples were not publicly available, which makes me wonder how you reached your assertion in the first place. If you are in possession of a state secret, it is an offence event to admit to having it.
You then attempted to answer from authority, but your supposed authority merely told you to do your own research.
So until further notice we must assume that private soldiers do not profit from conflict as you have produced no evidence to the contrary, you claim that none is available, and your expert declines to offer any despite having access to every possible source.
Extraordinary claims demand not merely extraordinary evidence, but any evidence at all.
Quote
Israeli soldiers have posted videos of themselves stealing from Palestinian homes in Gaza since Israel?s ground invasion began. Gaza?s media office says that at least $25 million in cash, gold and valuables was looted from Gaza in the first 3 months of the war.In the ancient times, more cases are likely had taken place, due to lack of law enforcement.
IMO, it's a more extraordinary claim to say that soldiers never took profit from wars.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2024 00:50:25
Gaza?s media officeA paragon of truth, obviously. Good to see those incorruptible accountants are still at their posts. Thank goodness the IDF hasn't disrupted the banks, insurance companies and tax offices in Gaza, or they wouldn't have access to the figures. And thanks be to some deity or other that nobody ever posts propaganda on the internet in wartime.
I knew an army surgeon who had a really nice field amputation kit taken from his Nazi counterpart who "had no further use for it" (on account of being dead) but that seems like a poor return for the investment of 5 years fighting and the loss of his brother. All my dad brought back from the Second World War was a boxing cup that he won from an English tanks versus Scottish infantry competition. And malaria, of course.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2024 06:09:53
Do you think the evidence are fake?Gaza?s media officeA paragon of truth, obviously. Good to see those incorruptible accountants are still at their posts. Thank goodness the IDF hasn't disrupted the banks, insurance companies and tax offices in Gaza, or they wouldn't have access to the figures. And thanks be to some deity or other that nobody ever posts propaganda on the internet in wartime.
I knew an army surgeon who had a really nice field amputation kit taken from his Nazi counterpart who "had no further use for it" (on account of being dead) but that seems like a poor return for the investment of 5 years fighting and the loss of his brother. All my dad brought back from the Second World War was a boxing cup that he won from an English tanks versus Scottish infantry competition. And malaria, of course.
Is it OK now to steal from dead people?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2024 06:17:26
Quote
Historian Rutger Bregman told a room full of billionaires at the Davos World Economic Forum 2019 that they need to step up and pay their fair share of taxes.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2024 10:14:27
Do you think the evidence are fake?In wartime, as with politics in general, it is important to distinguish between evidence and propaganda.
Coming from a long line of refugees, and being acquainted with quite a few current ones, I find it surprising that anyone left cash, gold, watches, etc behind when fleeing from an advancing army. Apparently times have changed in Gaza, even though the old traditions persist in Ukraine.
As for my colleague's amputation kit, it wasn't going to save many lives in the hands of a dead Nazi, but he continued to use it successfully, including dealing with road accidents in peacetime. I suppose he could have been honest and handed it over to his enemies, but he would have been executed for wearing the wrong uniform and not everyone wanted Hitler to win.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 09/03/2024 21:56:55
I find it surprising that anyone left cash, gold, watches, etc behind when fleeing from an advancing army.Perhaps the previous owners have already been dead, from bombings and whatnot. Their heirs should inherit those things.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2024 00:28:27
I heard some interesting statistics in a radio interview yesterday. The United Nations estimate that in modern wars, over 95% of deaths are of civilians. To date, the ratio of Hamas to civilian deaths in Gaza is about 13,000:15,000. So why do people call Gaza a humanitarian disaster, but not Ukraine, Syria, Sudan....?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 05:10:56
So now you add your own speculation to propaganda to support a hypothesis with no basis in observation. Hardly what you expect to find in a science forum!You should reflect that on yourself. Conflicting parties are not a reliable sources of contemporary information due to conflict of interest. Independent sources are more reliable in such situation.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2024 08:46:36
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 10:30:07
To date, the ratio of Hamas to civilian deaths in Gaza is about 13,000:15,000.Where did you get those numbers from?
They seem to imply that a significant numbers of women and children are members of Hamas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
Quote
Breakdown of deaths by age and gender (analysis by professors Michael Spagat and Daniel Silverman), November 2023[56]
Men and boys over 14 (35.3%)
Women and girls over 14 (24.1%)
Children under 15 (33.8%)
Elderly, above 60 (6.8%)
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2024 10:46:22
I have no idea whether Hamas subscribe to age or sex discrimination in their recruitment. In my book, anyone threatening to kill me, or working in a support role for such person, is an enemy combatant. You may have some other definition.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 12:27:50
Such behavior can be found in the wilderness. Animals eat excessively to accumulate nutrients to prepare for the winter. Some of them stock up on food and hide their treasures in tunnels, burrows, and other secret spots throughout their territory.Animals greed was typically limited by the capacity of their stomach. Some can find a way to store more food for longer period, extending the limit on their greed.
Modern humans have similar behaviors, but with more sophisticated methods.
Invention of money enabled humans to extend their greed even further.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 12:37:38
The figures I quoted are broadly in line with those given in your reference. If you know of a more reliable source, you can do the calculations yourself.You draw the line much broader than most people I know. It's almost as broad as the line mentioned in Bin Laden's manifesto.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 12:39:40
I have no idea whether Hamas subscribe to age or sex discrimination in their recruitment. In my book, anyone threatening to kill me, or working in a support role for such person, is an enemy combatant. You may have some other definition.How many of those dead women and children threatened to kill anyone? Are there records?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2024 16:56:45
Animals eat excessively to accumulate nutrients to prepare for the winter.Misuse of "excessive". Only humans eat to the point of being unable to move, or suffer from anorexia.
Post by: alancalverd on 10/03/2024 17:02:19
Are there records?Yes, but you won't see them until Hamas capitulates. If you have any data on the sex or minimum age requirement to attack another person or support an attacker, you can probably do your own calculations. You might also take a view on the use and fate of human shields.
Unless you are a politician or a journalist, war is not a game.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 21:52:01
Haven't you seen a snake who dies because it swallowed a prey bigger than what it can digest?Animals eat excessively to accumulate nutrients to prepare for the winter.Misuse of "excessive". Only humans eat to the point of being unable to move, or suffer from anorexia.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 10/03/2024 22:01:01
You've already determined them as members of Hamas.Are there records?Yes, but you won't see them until Hamas capitulates. If you have any data on the sex or minimum age requirement to attack another person or support an attacker, you can probably do your own calculations. You might also take a view on the use and fate of human shields.
Unless you are a politician or a journalist, war is not a game.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/03/2024 08:04:30
Agriculture, food storage and preservation technology enabled humans to survive harsher periods and catastrophic events by making preparations and save more resources beforehand.Such behavior can be found in the wilderness. Animals eat excessively to accumulate nutrients to prepare for the winter. Some of them stock up on food and hide their treasures in tunnels, burrows, and other secret spots throughout their territory.Animals greed was typically limited by the capacity of their stomach. Some can find a way to store more food for longer period, extending the limit on their greed.
Modern humans have similar behaviors, but with more sophisticated methods.
Invention of money enabled humans to extend their greed even further.
Bigger catastrophes require better preparations. Collecting one type of resource often reduces the capacity to collect the other types of resources, which are also necessary to survive.
Greed becomes bad when excessively collecting one type of resource prevent the necessary collection of other resources. Bad greeds cause net negative consequences.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/03/2024 16:11:33
Quote
A clip from my conversation about Moral Realism with Matthew Adelstein
Post by: alancalverd on 25/03/2024 17:04:47
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/03/2024 14:40:57
If morality were not subjective, it would not change with time. But it does, and continues to do so.Science doesn't suppose to be subjective. But it did change over time.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2024 12:21:51
Realism and Anti-Realism | Philosophy Glossary
Quote
What do 'realism' and 'anti-realism' mean in philosophy? How should we understand the terms, and how do they relate to one another? You'll know in under 5 minutes of this Philosophy Glossary explainer!
00:00 - Intro
00:34 - Metaphysics
00:50 - Definitions
01:20 - Different kinds of anti-realism
01:37 - Examples
02:11 - Not about what causes a thing to exist
02:33 - Less clear cases of realism
02:49 - Anti-realism
03:24 - Idealism
03:45 - Berkeley
04:33 - More examples
05:46 - Wrap up
A. C. Grayling - Realism vs. Anti-realism
Quote
What are anti-realists and why do they deny objective reality? What we know of the world must come through our senses and be processed by our brains. Both can be unreliable; illusions can fool our senses and illness or injury can disrupt our brains. Therefore, can we ever be sure that anything outside ourselves is truly what it seems?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2024 12:33:27
Quote
What are anti-realists and why do they deny objective reality? What we know of the world must come through our senses and be processed by our brains. Both can be unreliable; illusions can fool our senses and illness or injury can disrupt our brains. Therefore, can we ever be sure that anything outside ourselves is truly what it seems?
J.L. Schellenberg - Realism vs. Anti-realism
Quote
What are anti-realists and why do they deny objective reality? What we know of the world must come through our senses and be processed by our brains. Both can be unreliable; illusions can fool our senses and illness or injury can disrupt our brains. Therefore, can we ever be sure that anything outside ourselves is truly what it seems?
This is one of the commentary to the video.
Quote
I like to think of the problem of realism as being analogous to signal processing.
A signal is being received, and it's being decomposed to extract all order from it. What's left over is noise.
The signal being received is the direct evidence of the universe. It's not that one can precisely know its properties in advance, as the decomposition always yields some leftover noise. But, it does seem overwhelmingly likely that the signal is received rather than internally generated, by its complexity, unpredictability, and verifiability from multiple perspectives.
This is a kind of realism whereby theories of the universe necessarily yield some leftover noise, and the unpredictability it implies is fundamental and universal.
A deterministic universe, from this perspective, is the purest expression of idealism.
Also, it should be noted that there is a social element to realist constructions. In absence of a consistent physical theory of everything, it should be assumed that all assumptions about the true nature of reality are at least a little contingent. The game of realism, then, is to convince others that your fabrications are the most plausible!
The mostly likely answer, however, is that we're all at least a little bit wrong.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/03/2024 12:50:37
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2024 18:14:45
virtually all religious channelsGarbage in, garbage out. But that's true for all philosophy.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/03/2024 18:18:30
Science doesn't suppose to be subjective. But it did change over time.Science is a process, which hasn't changed. Scientific knowledge has changed be cause the process is intentionally dynamic.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 03:32:47
Scrolling through Youtube videos, virtually all religious channels I found defend moral realism, while all defenders of moral anti-realism tend to be non-religious. Some defenders of moral realism are also non-religious.Moral Realism: Defended
Quote
In this video we offer several arguments in defense of moral realism, the position that objective moral values and duties exist.
Moral Anti-Realism Defended: A Response to @InspiringPhilosophy
Quote
0:00 - Moral realism
1:48 - Epistemic facts
8:19 - Moral experience
12:51 - Moral disagreement
18:20 - Moral progress and convergence
22:39 - Moral intuition
The Best Argument For Moral Realism?
Quote
A clip of Hilary Putnam giving a "Reductio Ad Rortyan" argument for moral realism (or against moral anti-realism) and then Nathan Nobis provides a similar such argument, a version of a companion in guilt argument. Note, this is a version of an upload from the previous channel of something that I put together awhile ago.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 03:40:15
The same thing can also be said about morality. Some moral rules are more flexible to cultural changes due to advancement in technology, some of them are more rigid/static.Science doesn't suppose to be subjective. But it did change over time.Science is a process, which hasn't changed. Scientific knowledge has changed be cause the process is intentionally dynamic.
With more data and accumulated knowledge, sciences and moralities has tendency to converge. Some just adopt the new knowledge faster than the others.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 05:27:13
Quote
Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics can be used to inform claims to moral truths.
What does mathematics have to do with the nature of human thought? In what ways does it change how philosophers think of reality? Philosopher and author of 'Ineffability and its Metaphysics', Silvia Jonas explains how mathematics has come to shape our politics, ethics and our very ideas what the world is.
IMO, morality, philosophy, logics, mathematics, science and technology are all tools to achieve the universal terminal goal. There are many known societies in the past, some went extinct, while some are still exist today. Their survival depends on how they use those tools in alignment with the survival of their successors according to their internal and environmental conditions.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 10:13:40
The business of science thrives on progress and understanding. The business of philosophy is conflict.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 12:41:23
The process of science is intentionally dynamic.Not necessarily. Science is intended to describe physical reality in the most accurate and precise way possible, based on known observations. It's unreasonable to make it inherently dynamic when new observations can still be explained by existing scientific models.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/03/2024 12:51:29
The business of science thrives on progress and understanding. The business of philosophy is conflict.Science was once a branch of philosophy, specifically looking for the explanation of natural phenomena.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 14:58:33
Post by: alancalverd on 28/03/2024 15:05:51
Science was once a branch of philosophy, specifically looking for the explanation of natural phenomena.That's just in the minds of philosophers, who once asserted that ducks are fish and heavy things fall faster than light ones.
It has been clearly recognised for the last 700 years that there is a difference between scientific knowledge and philosophical assertion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 14:17:41
You don't seem to realize that Newton's book on mechanics has Natural Philosophy in its title.Science was once a branch of philosophy, specifically looking for the explanation of natural phenomena.That's just in the minds of philosophers, who once asserted that ducks are fish and heavy things fall faster than light ones.
It has been clearly recognised for the last 700 years that there is a difference between scientific knowledge and philosophical assertion.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/03/2024 14:19:06
The recursive procedure "observe, hypothesise, predict, test" is inherently dynamic because it doesn't include an endpoint. It does occasionally produce robust hypotheses that have survived several iterations and these are called "knowledge", but there's nothing inherently or intentionally static about them.What makes you think that the same process can't take place in philosophy?
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2024 16:50:20
Post by: alancalverd on 30/03/2024 16:52:02
You don't seem to realize that Newton's book on mechanics has Natural Philosophy in its title.Like the only newspapers in Soviet Russia were titled "Peace" and "Truth".
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 31/03/2024 07:55:00
The fact that it doesn't. Observe (or in the case of theology, don't observe), hypothesise, move on. Revile and persecute anyone who disagrees. Same as economics and politics.If your science don't work, then you are using the wrong science. The same goes for philosophy, economics and politics.
Post by: alancalverd on 31/03/2024 10:06:20
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 03/04/2024 13:37:25
There are no wrong answers in religion, philosophy, politics or economics. As any parasite will tell you, other people just ask the wrong questions.If their answer makes them lose followers, it's a wrong answer.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/04/2024 15:46:40
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2024 15:54:13
But the converse is not true. Popularity is not correlated with accuracy.There's at least a weak correlation, which is not zero. Especially when the accuracy determines the survival in a society.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/04/2024 17:05:13
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/04/2024 17:22:57
No taxes, free beer for all. Massively popular, zero chance of success.They are not popular among lawmakers and beer makers, because their livelihood depends on them. Which is why they are never realized.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/04/2024 00:16:05
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 08/04/2024 13:44:16
There are far more people wanting free beer and no taxes, than the sum of brewers and lawmakers. So popularity does not determine survivability. As many revolutionary governments (including that of Liz Truss) have discovered!It's the other way around. Survivability determines popularity, although there might be a long period between the cause and effect.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/04/2024 19:28:04
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 14/04/2024 08:17:59
moderatorDoes he survive?
For how long?
Post by: alancalverd on 14/04/2024 16:56:14
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 19/04/2024 11:34:05
Communist dictators and the heads of theocracies do not need to be popular as long as they pay the army, secret police, or whoever they use to suppress dissent. And since the said enforcers also collect the taxes, there is no theoretical limit to their reign.At least they are popular among the army and secret police.
There is a technical/biological limit though.