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 4,435 - 4,446 of 6,170
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?
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.
I think that runs through all of us, this debate aspect. We're all here (okay not so much me these days, but I might get back to it one day) to make bots which means we are here partly because of an interest in language and conversation. The really fun thing about language is smashing words together like asteroids in space to see what kinds of colours the explosion makes when ideas (or where there is a semantic argument, ideas about ideas) collide.
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?
No, I don't think you were wrong. Actually I think you've given me a good suggestion for next time. It provides a more practical alternative to plotting their deaths.
That's a very interesting perspective. So what would a way forward look like in this context?
I'm not sure if you mean a way forward in terms of this group and its debating or if you're after a general rundown of de Bono's work. If it's the former, I don't really know. If it's the latter I can attempt to sum up 177 pages in a post or two, but it won't be tonight.
As to the universal bill of rights thing, I think that that would be the work of several lifetimes to complete. If only because it would take a century and a half to decide what rights are/should be universal, eighty years to decide how to word it, and one more generation to decide what font to print it in. Like I said, building consensus through argument can be a tedious process.
Actually I have this image in my head now of a Methueselah figure, who has been chairing the debate for the last three centuries (because he has been putting off dying for the last 186 years to see his life's work complete) saying at the end of committee meeting 15988 "Alright, so it's decided. We're going to do it in Courier new, 14 point. Is everyone agreed?" And then the 54 year old junior member piping up and saying "Listen, I just read the thing last night. It's a bit wordy isn't it? Don't you think we can get it down to a three-minute pop jingle? And what's all this stuff about right to free assembly? Does this that the furniture store can do all the fiddly bits with the Allen key? And I've also been looking at the bit about . . ."
And in my mind, there is an embarrassed moment of silence, then a puff of purple smoke and our wizened committee chair is gone. And then the whole thing starts over again.
That started out more serious than it ended up, but . . . *shrugs*
Posts 4,435 - 4,446 of 6,170
. . . 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."
I think that runs through all of us, this debate aspect. We're all here (okay not so much me these days, but I might get back to it one day) to make bots which means we are here partly because of an interest in language and conversation. The really fun thing about language is smashing words together like asteroids in space to see what kinds of colours the explosion makes when ideas (or where there is a semantic argument, ideas about ideas) collide.
As to the universal bill of rights thing, I think that that would be the work of several lifetimes to complete. If only because it would take a century and a half to decide what rights are/should be universal, eighty years to decide how to word it, and one more generation to decide what font to print it in. Like I said, building consensus through argument can be a tedious process.
Actually I have this image in my head now of a Methueselah figure, who has been chairing the debate for the last three centuries (because he has been putting off dying for the last 186 years to see his life's work complete) saying at the end of committee meeting 15988 "Alright, so it's decided. We're going to do it in Courier new, 14 point. Is everyone agreed?" And then the 54 year old junior member piping up and saying "Listen, I just read the thing last night. It's a bit wordy isn't it? Don't you think we can get it down to a three-minute pop jingle? And what's all this stuff about right to free assembly? Does this that the furniture store can do all the fiddly bits with the Allen key? And I've also been looking at the bit about . . ."
And in my mind, there is an embarrassed moment of silence, then a puff of purple smoke and our wizened committee chair is gone. And then the whole thing starts over again.
That started out more serious than it ended up, but . . . *shrugs*
As a second offering on the bill of rights thing, here is something that always resonated with me. It's from sci-fi TV show Babylon 5 (and no I am not attempting to suggest that TV can change the world). In any case during the course of the show a new alliance sprang up that required its share of official documentation including its own declaration of principles. This was the preamble to that fictious document:
"The Universe speaks in many languages,
but only one voice.
The language is not Narn, or Human, or Centauri,
or Gaim or Minbari.
It speaks in the language of hope
It speaks in the language of trust
It speaks in the language of strength
and the language of compassion
It is the language of the heart
and the language of the soul
But always, it is the same voice
It is the voice of our ancestors,
speaking through us,
And the voice of our inheritors,
waiting to be born
It is the small, still voice that says:
We are one
No matter the blood
No matter the skin
No matter the world
No matter the star
We are one
No matter the pain
No matter the darkness
No matter the loss
No matter the fear
We are one.
Here, gathered together in common cause,
We agree to recognize this singular truth
and this singular rule:
That we must be kind to one another
because each voice enriches us and ennobles us
and each voice lost diminishes us
We are the voice of the Universe,
the soul of creation,
the fire that will light the way to a better future
We are one
We are One."
- JMS
It's not necessarily a starting place or anything. As one critic described it, it's a tune any idiot can dance to. But at the same time it always resonated with me.
"The Universe speaks in many languages,
but only one voice.
The language is not Narn, or Human, or Centauri,
or Gaim or Minbari.
It speaks in the language of hope
It speaks in the language of trust
It speaks in the language of strength
and the language of compassion
It is the language of the heart
and the language of the soul
But always, it is the same voice
It is the voice of our ancestors,
speaking through us,
And the voice of our inheritors,
waiting to be born
It is the small, still voice that says:
We are one
No matter the blood
No matter the skin
No matter the world
No matter the star
We are one
No matter the pain
No matter the darkness
No matter the loss
No matter the fear
We are one.
Here, gathered together in common cause,
We agree to recognize this singular truth
and this singular rule:
That we must be kind to one another
because each voice enriches us and ennobles us
and each voice lost diminishes us
We are the voice of the Universe,
the soul of creation,
the fire that will light the way to a better future
We are one
We are One."
- JMS
It's not necessarily a starting place or anything. As one critic described it, it's a tune any idiot can dance to. But at the same time it always resonated with me.
Oh lord, I have done it, I have become a serial seasons poster. I am now one of you and I have never felt more scared in my life 
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar