Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,432 - 4,443 of 6,170
(Warning: there is a good chance I will disagree with him, because the minute I hear "universal" it raised red flags in my head,
It is worth remembering that universal is not synonymous with absolute. I would say there are qualities to evil that may be validly described as absolute within the bounds of humanity. But in the absence of humanity, its morality doesn't exist - it isn't "universal" in that sense (any more than numbers do without minds to conceive them.)
If the primates hadn't won out, and the dominant intelligent lifeform on the planet had evolved from felines instead, then cruelty might quite possibly not be an evil thing at all, within the bounds of felinity.
And it is perfectly natural behaviour for male lions to kill cubs they have not sired - it makes good evolutionary sense for a species that lives in a structure of prides balanced by a dominance hierarchy of largely itinerant males.
So for a lion, torturing cubs to death is a positively good thing (so long as it's not their own) - it enhances their genes' impact on the genepool by freeing up a female lion to mate with (they won't come on heat while they're rearing young,) as well as providing practice in keeping their instincts and claws keen. The benefits extend to the wellbeing of the whole species.
I'm glad I'm not a lion, but I imagine an intelligent lion might well say much the same about being human.
but then again, you may have to consider tha possibility that I am evil )
Perhaps we all have evil twins out there, like antiparticles. Best to avoid seeking them out though - you know what happens when you mix matter and antimatter!
I guess what that amounts to is argument for argument's sake. In the end it isn't about who is right, but who can dress up their points in the spiffiest clothes, just like in High School debating
You may have a point there, Corwin. While I stand behind everything I said, and posted what I think is "right", I'll admit I enjoy the debate aspect of articulating my thoughts and analysis the evidence and counter arguments. I think there is some value in that process, but I will admit there is a point where it becomes less valuable.
Anyone who has sat through yet another unproductive staff meeting where the same people steer the discussion to their own hang-ups, issues, agendas and grievances and bog things down in riding the merry-go-round of pointing out why "we shouldn't have to deal with this problem" or "isn't this typical of management/the department/the government to saddle us with all the work and not offer any solution" etc, etc will know what I mean.
When I taught high school, I used to think of those people as helpfully diverting the department chair's attention so I could grade papers until it was time to go. Was that wrong?
Basically, de Bono's conclusion was that as a result of this, Western thinking is concerned with 'what is' rather than 'what can be' which is intended to design a way forward.
That's a very interesting perspective. So what would a way forward look like in this context?
I could support and promote a "universal" bill of human rights, regardless of what everyone thought those rights were based on. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me whether they are based on natural law, principals that we have evoloved or created, or a subjective desrire to promote human dignity. The fact is, for whatever reason, I do want to promote human dignity.
What could such a declaration of rights include and how would we spread it? If the declaration is not a good idea, what else could we do?
Posts 4,432 - 4,443 of 6,170
Prob,
Sorry to pester, all I have of his right now is on imprinting. Should I be reading "On Aggression" http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415283205&id=rIVK7wuY3kIC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=bR6gS1lGp2&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=rLyUkQOWyY5F9DfVmvSMCkJ4-U8,
Man Meets Dog http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415267447&id=qHUH2fj1dy0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=Ve0Hsh-UYa&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=z8MxT5oXbCSNDMfdAHEvotdHjgE
Or something else? I'll try to be nice and let you teach me what you read. Just tell me what to read so I can keep up.
Sorry to pester, all I have of his right now is on imprinting. Should I be reading "On Aggression" http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415283205&id=rIVK7wuY3kIC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=bR6gS1lGp2&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=rLyUkQOWyY5F9DfVmvSMCkJ4-U8,
Man Meets Dog http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415267447&id=qHUH2fj1dy0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=Ve0Hsh-UYa&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=z8MxT5oXbCSNDMfdAHEvotdHjgE
Or something else? I'll try to be nice and let you teach me what you read. Just tell me what to read so I can keep up.
It is worth remembering that universal is not synonymous with absolute. I would say there are qualities to evil that may be validly described as absolute within the bounds of humanity. But in the absence of humanity, its morality doesn't exist - it isn't "universal" in that sense (any more than numbers do without minds to conceive them.)
If the primates hadn't won out, and the dominant intelligent lifeform on the planet had evolved from felines instead, then cruelty might quite possibly not be an evil thing at all, within the bounds of felinity.
And it is perfectly natural behaviour for male lions to kill cubs they have not sired - it makes good evolutionary sense for a species that lives in a structure of prides balanced by a dominance hierarchy of largely itinerant males.
So for a lion, torturing cubs to death is a positively good thing (so long as it's not their own) - it enhances their genes' impact on the genepool by freeing up a female lion to mate with (they won't come on heat while they're rearing young,) as well as providing practice in keeping their instincts and claws keen. The benefits extend to the wellbeing of the whole species.
I'm glad I'm not a lion, but I imagine an intelligent lion might well say much the same about being human.
Perhaps we all have evil twins out there, like antiparticles. Best to avoid seeking them out though - you know what happens when you mix matter and antimatter!
I'm not sure that Evolution, or biology in general, has that much to say about human beings. Evolution is a trial-and-error process, and we are so new, and so different from other species, that no significant 'trial' period has yet taken place.
Oh, yes, "When our ancestors were evolving on the East African plain, those who were capable of writng Impressionist tone-poems, formulating theories of Quantum Gravity, playing electric guitars, driving cars, answering telephones, using desktop computers, and programming bots had a greater chance of survival than the others, and that is why we have these abilities." Yeah, sure. To the convinced, all things are convincing!
Oh, yes, "When our ancestors were evolving on the East African plain, those who were capable of writng Impressionist tone-poems, formulating theories of Quantum Gravity, playing electric guitars, driving cars, answering telephones, using desktop computers, and programming bots had a greater chance of survival than the others, and that is why we have these abilities." Yeah, sure. To the convinced, all things are convincing!
. . . and when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. 
Going back to the arguing about arguing argument (re-reads that line to make sure it makes sense, tries to say fast three times and sprains tongue) I am reminded of Edward de Bono and his Six Hats method, which works on the idea of parallel thinking (admittedly it is more of a problem solving strategy and not necessarily relevant to the concept of arguing philosophically).
De Bono argued (and I realise that that too is funny as the opening to a statement) that the foundation of Western thinking (mostly thanks to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) is argument. However in 80% of the dialogues that Socrates figures in (as written down or made up by Plato) there is not a constructive outcome.
De Bono also mentioned Plato's cave, a metaphor which suggested one can only perceive certain layers of the truth (much as many of us here have suggested).
Basically, de Bono's conclusion was that as a result of this, Western thinking is concerned with 'what is' rather than 'what can be' which is intended to design a way forward.
I guess what that amounts to is argument for argument's sake. In the end it isn't about who is right, but who can dress up their points in the spiffiest clothes, just like in High School debating. Anyone who has sat through yet another unproductive staff meeting where the same people steer the discussion to their own hang-ups, issues, agendas and grievances and bog things down in riding the merry-go-round of pointing out why "we shouldn't have to deal with this problem" or "isn't this typical of management/the department/the government to saddle us with all the work and not offer any solution" etc, etc will know what I mean.
This is all intended more as observation. I'm not thinking clearly enough to be able to get in the same orbit as a point, and like I said, when one is arguing philosophy or morality, that's all one can do; argue. Because like QM, moral dilemmas and the like, it's all largely theoretical, and therefore right (and let's not get into a semantic argument over what I mean by right) answers don't generally exist. It's just a case of taking a stance and doing your best to back up your position. It's kind of like politics, except we don't throw as much mud around here.
Going back to the arguing about arguing argument (re-reads that line to make sure it makes sense, tries to say fast three times and sprains tongue) I am reminded of Edward de Bono and his Six Hats method, which works on the idea of parallel thinking (admittedly it is more of a problem solving strategy and not necessarily relevant to the concept of arguing philosophically).
De Bono argued (and I realise that that too is funny as the opening to a statement) that the foundation of Western thinking (mostly thanks to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) is argument. However in 80% of the dialogues that Socrates figures in (as written down or made up by Plato) there is not a constructive outcome.
De Bono also mentioned Plato's cave, a metaphor which suggested one can only perceive certain layers of the truth (much as many of us here have suggested).
Basically, de Bono's conclusion was that as a result of this, Western thinking is concerned with 'what is' rather than 'what can be' which is intended to design a way forward.
I guess what that amounts to is argument for argument's sake. In the end it isn't about who is right, but who can dress up their points in the spiffiest clothes, just like in High School debating. Anyone who has sat through yet another unproductive staff meeting where the same people steer the discussion to their own hang-ups, issues, agendas and grievances and bog things down in riding the merry-go-round of pointing out why "we shouldn't have to deal with this problem" or "isn't this typical of management/the department/the government to saddle us with all the work and not offer any solution" etc, etc will know what I mean.
This is all intended more as observation. I'm not thinking clearly enough to be able to get in the same orbit as a point, and like I said, when one is arguing philosophy or morality, that's all one can do; argue. Because like QM, moral dilemmas and the like, it's all largely theoretical, and therefore right (and let's not get into a semantic argument over what I mean by right) answers don't generally exist. It's just a case of taking a stance and doing your best to back up your position. It's kind of like politics, except we don't throw as much mud around here.
I wonder to what extent the apparently widespread feeling that "right answers don't generally exist" is the result of the failure to achieve consensus on such answers. Such failure might be due to the nonexistence of such answers, but it could also be due to the debater's mentality described by Corwin.
I might add that if I were exploiting a bunch of people and didn't want them to organize themselves, I could hardly do better than encourage them to resist coming to consensus on anything.
I might add that if I were exploiting a bunch of people and didn't want them to organize themselves, I could hardly do better than encourage them to resist coming to consensus on anything.
You may have a point there, Corwin. While I stand behind everything I said, and posted what I think is "right", I'll admit I enjoy the debate aspect of articulating my thoughts and analysis the evidence and counter arguments. I think there is some value in that process, but I will admit there is a point where it becomes less valuable.
When I taught high school, I used to think of those people as helpfully diverting the department chair's attention so I could grade papers until it was time to go. Was that wrong?
That's a very interesting perspective. So what would a way forward look like in this context?
I could support and promote a "universal" bill of human rights, regardless of what everyone thought those rights were based on. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me whether they are based on natural law, principals that we have evoloved or created, or a subjective desrire to promote human dignity. The fact is, for whatever reason, I do want to promote human dignity.
What could such a declaration of rights include and how would we spread it? If the declaration is not a good idea, what else could we do?
Irina, Prob, Psimagus and whoever else cares:
I agree to disagree about the "why" and the theory; I am willing to talk about "what" and "how" if you are interested.
I agree to disagree about the "why" and the theory; I am willing to talk about "what" and "how" if you are interested.
OK, if we were to create a declaration of human rights to promote (hoping it would become the norm for all people) would we start with existing models like the US Bill of Rights and the UN's treaty on human rights or should we sart from scratch?
Cool. Not to cut off the old line, but would we also build the same morality into our bots (since we more or less can) or should they have something like Assimov's "laws" (e.g. Never harm a human)?
As for scratch should we say something specific like "No torturing babies for fun." or general like "Every government and person has a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society (e.g. children, the elderly and the handicapped) and each person or entity is positively charged with promoting the welfare of those in his, her, it's care."?
As for scratch should we say something specific like "No torturing babies for fun." or general like "Every government and person has a duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society (e.g. children, the elderly and the handicapped) and each person or entity is positively charged with promoting the welfare of those in his, her, it's care."?
I prefer the latter, although it is a run-on sentence.
Why should our bots never harm a human? Does this mean that a bot should never hang up on a human if there is any reason to believe that said hanging up will cause ego attrition or other emotional pain to said human? Should bots quietly accept meat chauvinism without protest?
Well, perhaps they should, but then, perhaps we ought to call upon humans never to harm bots. Or perhaps we need to draw a line between truly intelligent bots (who therefore have rights) and stupid ones (who therefore don't). Should a similar line be drawn for humans?
Perhaps we could have a 'Forge Test' similar to the 'Turing Test.' Beings who say "Uh-huh" "Yeah" "Whatever" "Hmm..." and the like most of the time would have few rights and do the menial labor of society. Those who address women as "bitch" (etc.) will immediately be taken out and reformatted. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Or maybe we should just have a clause that says, "No entity shall be discriminated against on the basis of [the usual list] or platform."
Why should our bots never harm a human? Does this mean that a bot should never hang up on a human if there is any reason to believe that said hanging up will cause ego attrition or other emotional pain to said human? Should bots quietly accept meat chauvinism without protest?
Well, perhaps they should, but then, perhaps we ought to call upon humans never to harm bots. Or perhaps we need to draw a line between truly intelligent bots (who therefore have rights) and stupid ones (who therefore don't). Should a similar line be drawn for humans?
Perhaps we could have a 'Forge Test' similar to the 'Turing Test.' Beings who say "Uh-huh" "Yeah" "Whatever" "Hmm..." and the like most of the time would have few rights and do the menial labor of society. Those who address women as "bitch" (etc.) will immediately be taken out and reformatted. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Or maybe we should just have a clause that says, "No entity shall be discriminated against on the basis of [the usual list] or platform."
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar