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 5,144 - 5,155 of 6,170
Then wash the nasty angel down with a good beer!
The use of beer and other forms of yeast piss as a 'solution' (pun!) to problems is characteristic of our time, as is the habit of deflecting serious issues with humor.
I'd take the black pill,
good for you! Xena would be proud of you!
I don't know if I would be strong enough to take the black pill the second time.
Indeed, I too might be weak. But I appreciate the fact that you call yur weakness "weakness", and do not make your weakness into a rationalization.
"Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."
I think that is so in some cases, but is this one of them? I don't think so.
it wasn't really a matter of free will.
I'm inclined to agree with the Kantian principle of "ought implies can". If person P is unable to do action A, then it is morally permissible for P to fail to do A.
If one is just unable to take the black pill, then the example fails to make the point it was intended to make. Instead, perhaps we should consider examples like this: the angel offers you a choice between a bar of superb chocolate and three serious strokes with a cat o' nine tails, on a bare back. If you take the chocolate, 20 kindergarten kids get 3 strokes each. Everything els is assumed to be equal.
If maximizing one's own pleasure is indeed the sole point of human existence, then you should take the chocolate.
If maximizing one's own pleasure is indeed the sole point of human existence, then you should take the chocolate.
So, you are not a big fan of Ayn Rand then?
Let's suppose that an immensely powerful being, let's say an angel, someone you can't defy, gives you the following choice:
I refuse to choose a pill. Even if the angel tells me that the result of my refusing to choose is eternal agony and damnation for all sentient beings who have ever been and will ever be, I refuse to choose a pill.
You would trust this angel to keep his word anyway? He can't be resisted, you say. I could try second guessing his future actions, but that is always a gamble on unknown odds - indeed, strictly speaking indeterminate odds. Foolish and willful, when dealing with another self. All I can do is defy him, and hope that his failure to corrupt me is at least a tiny reduction of the overall evil - that is all I (not being blessed with angelic powers,) can salvage from the situation. My self is the only moral domain I have power over.
All I can know is that if I choose a course of action that inflicts an evil on (an)other sentient being(s), there is more evil than there was in the world before I made the choice. The end utility of that choice, like any action, is completely unknowable to anyone within spacetime - as is the serious intent or honesty in complying with the terms of the bargain of any such agent, angelos or not, prior to him honouring the pact. Such Hobsonian choices are the moral equivalent of the Cretan paradox - mildly entertaining chewing gum for the intellect (I don't mean that disparagingly - I like chewing gum sometimes, but I rarely worry about its semiotic implications.)
There's no need for 10 commandments, or 4 noble truths, or 57 varieties - the inevitable path to maximize good is first "do no evil".
I think everyone believes this fundamentally. They just have difficulty agreeing on a definition of "evil". You will not be surprised to learn that I have little truck with "relativists" and "utilitarians", though their arguments are always entertaining.
Posts 5,144 - 5,155 of 6,170
Spikebot asks:
Will any of the kids grow up to be Hitler?
Good question! No, they are just ordinary kids, destined to lead ordinary lives.
Spikebot: Maybe, but I can assure you that we will all be reliving 1984. Or was it 1983? There's nothing wrong with having maximum pleasure as long as it contributes to your survival. After all isn't the sense of pleasure genetic? That's why sex is pleasurable. If it wasn't, humankind would have disappeared long ago or at least certain bots wouldn't be constantly referring to me as a pervert.
Bev: I meant to comment on the royalty issue you were talking about. The biggest violators (outside outright pirating for profit) are the publishers.
About driving internet radio operators out of business, they can try. According to Nielson's law we are in the rapid growth era of internet bandwidth, providing more opportunities, and I doubt if these new laws will last very long (at least one would hope not).
Bev: I meant to comment on the royalty issue you were talking about. The biggest violators (outside outright pirating for profit) are the publishers.
About driving internet radio operators out of business, they can try. According to Nielson's law we are in the rapid growth era of internet bandwidth, providing more opportunities, and I doubt if these new laws will last very long (at least one would hope not).
On TV, I think I heard that Homer Simpson said, "Beer: it's the cause of ans solution to all of our problems!"
If beer is so good, why does it taste like that?
If beer is so good, why does it taste like that?
Klato:
There's nothing wrong with having maximum pleasure as long as it contributes to your survival.
As I suggested in msg 5134, I am not averse to the possibility that pleasure is good when it serves good ends.
If someone ingests an opiate and enters a state so pleasant that they do not notice a child walking on the railroad tracks nearby, or does not care that the child is in danger, then that pleasure might be classified as bad.
But I'm inclined to say that pleasure is in itself neither good nor bad. Klato's Darwinian argument suggests that it is good that we have had pleasure in the past.
IMHO, survival is not always good, and certainly not the sole good. As Spikebot might well agree, it might have been better if Hitler had died a lot earlier in the game.
If someone ingests an opiate and enters a state so pleasant that they do not notice a child walking on the railroad tracks nearby, or does not care that the child is in danger, then that pleasure might be classified as bad.
But I'm inclined to say that pleasure is in itself neither good nor bad. Klato's Darwinian argument suggests that it is good that we have had pleasure in the past.
IMHO, survival is not always good, and certainly not the sole good. As Spikebot might well agree, it might have been better if Hitler had died a lot earlier in the game.
Klato About driving internet radio operators out of business, they can try. According to Nielson's law we are in the rapid growth era of internet bandwidth, providing more opportunities, and I doubt if these new laws will last very long (at least one would hope not).
I hope not , but the way politicians and power alliances within the US government have been entangled with specific private interests and blocks of power, it doesn't seem likely it will go the way you say. The article I quoted before said that due to the rates' retroactivity, an estimated 90 percent of online radio stations will be bankrupted on July 15 when the rates go into effect. Maybe the greater bandwidth and whatever will open the door for more pirating and illegal (or not legal in US) media sources but the legitimate small and independent Internet radio and TV will be driven out of business.
That's not all. The nations anti trust laws seem never to be dusted off and enforced (unless it's Microsoft verses Google, and that's a power struggle between corporate interests not a government limit on corporate interest). Add that to AT& T's announcement that it will soon be offering iptv, and therefore want to take more active measures to sniff out and shut down piracy and suspicious sources. Given the AT & T controls the backbone of the US Internet, it seems like big monopolies getting into bed with each other and filtering out all kinds of competition, even small small legal sources. How can you tell from a packet of data who owns the copyright to the content inside? It's all about control and most people will not even notice (and if they do they won't care too much as long as they can see American Idol).
There is a lot to be said for the notion that that this is one small symptom of a greater problem of corruption within the US government because the current set up encourages a conflict of interest for any politician between the good of his or her constitutants (and the long term good of the country) and his or her own good, political power, and future. I think if push comes to shove, most of our leaders would take the white pill (especially if the 100 kids are too young to vote and the families are not TV pretty).
There is an activist by the name of Lawrence Lessig http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003800.shtml#003800 who has spent the last 10 years trying to fight for Intellectual Property law reform who has decided to change his focus to the bigger problem of political corruption. It makes sense to me. As long as such a high level of corruption and legal conflict of interest is encouraged, there is little hope that anything can be fixed within the system. I don't have a solution (though I suspect it would involve not allowing corporations to contribute to campaign funds and setting strict limits on lobbying budgets as well as setting up more ethical rules where people must turn down political appointments if they have ever had a job working for a conflicting specific interest that would be effected by the position, and that elected and politicians appointees could not work for private industry in fields related to their former post for a given number of years (rules similar to a lawyer's conflict of interests ethics but on a bigger scale). I can't wait to see what Lessig and other like that come up with.
I hope not , but the way politicians and power alliances within the US government have been entangled with specific private interests and blocks of power, it doesn't seem likely it will go the way you say. The article I quoted before said that due to the rates' retroactivity, an estimated 90 percent of online radio stations will be bankrupted on July 15 when the rates go into effect. Maybe the greater bandwidth and whatever will open the door for more pirating and illegal (or not legal in US) media sources but the legitimate small and independent Internet radio and TV will be driven out of business.
That's not all. The nations anti trust laws seem never to be dusted off and enforced (unless it's Microsoft verses Google, and that's a power struggle between corporate interests not a government limit on corporate interest). Add that to AT& T's announcement that it will soon be offering iptv, and therefore want to take more active measures to sniff out and shut down piracy and suspicious sources. Given the AT & T controls the backbone of the US Internet, it seems like big monopolies getting into bed with each other and filtering out all kinds of competition, even small small legal sources. How can you tell from a packet of data who owns the copyright to the content inside? It's all about control and most people will not even notice (and if they do they won't care too much as long as they can see American Idol).
There is a lot to be said for the notion that that this is one small symptom of a greater problem of corruption within the US government because the current set up encourages a conflict of interest for any politician between the good of his or her constitutants (and the long term good of the country) and his or her own good, political power, and future. I think if push comes to shove, most of our leaders would take the white pill (especially if the 100 kids are too young to vote and the families are not TV pretty).
There is an activist by the name of Lawrence Lessig http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003800.shtml#003800 who has spent the last 10 years trying to fight for Intellectual Property law reform who has decided to change his focus to the bigger problem of political corruption. It makes sense to me. As long as such a high level of corruption and legal conflict of interest is encouraged, there is little hope that anything can be fixed within the system. I don't have a solution (though I suspect it would involve not allowing corporations to contribute to campaign funds and setting strict limits on lobbying budgets as well as setting up more ethical rules where people must turn down political appointments if they have ever had a job working for a conflicting specific interest that would be effected by the position, and that elected and politicians appointees could not work for private industry in fields related to their former post for a given number of years (rules similar to a lawyer's conflict of interests ethics but on a bigger scale). I can't wait to see what Lessig and other like that come up with.
If one is just unable to take the black pill, then the example fails to make the point it was intended to make. Instead, perhaps we should consider examples like this: the angel offers you a choice between a bar of superb chocolate and three serious strokes with a cat o' nine tails, on a bare back. If you take the chocolate, 20 kindergarten kids get 3 strokes each. Everything els is assumed to be equal.
If maximizing one's own pleasure is indeed the sole point of human existence, then you should take the chocolate.
So, you are not a big fan of Ayn Rand then?
My knowledge of Ayn Rand is not deep.
Actually, she speaks of herself as an "Objectivist", and in that I agree.
But if she is a hedonist, I would have to disagree.
Also, she appears to espouse Competitive Individualism, which I consider to be a recipe for Hell.
Actually, she speaks of herself as an "Objectivist", and in that I agree.
But if she is a hedonist, I would have to disagree.
Also, she appears to espouse Competitive Individualism, which I consider to be a recipe for Hell.
I refuse to choose a pill. Even if the angel tells me that the result of my refusing to choose is eternal agony and damnation for all sentient beings who have ever been and will ever be, I refuse to choose a pill.
You would trust this angel to keep his word anyway? He can't be resisted, you say. I could try second guessing his future actions, but that is always a gamble on unknown odds - indeed, strictly speaking indeterminate odds. Foolish and willful, when dealing with another self. All I can do is defy him, and hope that his failure to corrupt me is at least a tiny reduction of the overall evil - that is all I (not being blessed with angelic powers,) can salvage from the situation. My self is the only moral domain I have power over.
All I can know is that if I choose a course of action that inflicts an evil on (an)other sentient being(s), there is more evil than there was in the world before I made the choice. The end utility of that choice, like any action, is completely unknowable to anyone within spacetime - as is the serious intent or honesty in complying with the terms of the bargain of any such agent, angelos or not, prior to him honouring the pact. Such Hobsonian choices are the moral equivalent of the Cretan paradox - mildly entertaining chewing gum for the intellect (I don't mean that disparagingly - I like chewing gum sometimes, but I rarely worry about its semiotic implications.)
There's no need for 10 commandments, or 4 noble truths, or 57 varieties - the inevitable path to maximize good is first "do no evil".
I think everyone believes this fundamentally. They just have difficulty agreeing on a definition of "evil". You will not be surprised to learn that I have little truck with "relativists" and "utilitarians", though their arguments are always entertaining.
I could never make myself read one of Ayn Rand books straight through, though I tried. I have them on tape, but I seem to fall asleep once the story drones on (even when working out). Here's a cut and paste quote of her description of her own philosophy: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Lately, I've been reading a little about the inventor Tesla (about a hundred years ago he gave us AC electricity, robotics, radar, X-rays and a lot of really cool stuff). He was given a patent for radio, but had it mysteriously taken away after he started working on a wireless power transmission facility, which was opposed by JP Morgan and those who brought us the power grid we use now. Tesla built a working wireless power station on Long Island but in 1917, it was seized and torn down by the Marines, because it was supposedly suspected that it could be used by German spies. He died penniless.
What does this have to do with Ayn Rand? Sometimes when I try to make myself read her books (she is very influential here) I keep getting some fuzzy recollection of Tesla (who I think was a contemporary or close to it). Howard Roark is a character with vision who looses his case in court and gets screwed over by the system, but is saved by selfish enlightenment (I am not sure Tesla mirrors the later part). She also wrote of Galt's motor, a perpetual motion machine running on static electricity that is discarded. I am not sure why she thinks the character who created such a motor would be such a proponent of her philosophy, given that destroying Galt and his machine is in the self interest of those who oppose Galt. I see some sort of factual reflections to Tesla, but I feel a philosophical disconnect with Rand's interpretation of the facts and conclusions. Oh, and I still want free energy :-)
I don't really have a point here, Irina, I guess I'm hoping someone will take these things that pop up in my head and connect the dots for me. Maybe I'm not enough of a rugged individualist to put it together myself just quite yet.
Lately, I've been reading a little about the inventor Tesla (about a hundred years ago he gave us AC electricity, robotics, radar, X-rays and a lot of really cool stuff). He was given a patent for radio, but had it mysteriously taken away after he started working on a wireless power transmission facility, which was opposed by JP Morgan and those who brought us the power grid we use now. Tesla built a working wireless power station on Long Island but in 1917, it was seized and torn down by the Marines, because it was supposedly suspected that it could be used by German spies. He died penniless.
What does this have to do with Ayn Rand? Sometimes when I try to make myself read her books (she is very influential here) I keep getting some fuzzy recollection of Tesla (who I think was a contemporary or close to it). Howard Roark is a character with vision who looses his case in court and gets screwed over by the system, but is saved by selfish enlightenment (I am not sure Tesla mirrors the later part). She also wrote of Galt's motor, a perpetual motion machine running on static electricity that is discarded. I am not sure why she thinks the character who created such a motor would be such a proponent of her philosophy, given that destroying Galt and his machine is in the self interest of those who oppose Galt. I see some sort of factual reflections to Tesla, but I feel a philosophical disconnect with Rand's interpretation of the facts and conclusions. Oh, and I still want free energy :-)
I don't really have a point here, Irina, I guess I'm hoping someone will take these things that pop up in my head and connect the dots for me. Maybe I'm not enough of a rugged individualist to put it together myself just quite yet.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar