Seasons

Bev, who laughed at you? They had no idea...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2552973/Rats-brain-used-to-power-robot.html

Thank you my minions. I shall have a special filter to keep you from the Giant Dustbin of the Unworthy (TM). Just remember to carry some cheese, just in case. Also, do not confuse my great Roomba of Doom with the continuing work of that hack cyborg from the UK. I did not steal his idea. He stole mine. With a time machine. That he stole--from me!

Evil genius: Hitler.

He came to power entirely on his own account. He fooled an incredible number of people into thinking he was on their side. He got Germany out of the depression. He managed to re-arm Germany in spite of provisions to the contrary in the Treaty of Versailles. He came very close to winning the war.

Interzone writes:

Prob, evil as an emergant phenomenon is quite evident.

If it's emergent, there it is! It still exists.

Emergence may well be only a relative phenomenon anyway. If one starts one's exposition with properties A, B, and C taken for granted (primitive terms), then E, F, and G may be emergent. But if one starts with E, F, and G, then A, B, and C will be emergent.

Bev:

I'm inclined to agree that no human is ineradicably totally evil. If things had been different, Hitler might have turned out to be quite benign. On the other hand, I strongly suspect that sociopathy is partly hereditary, and it is known, I believe, that certain brain injuries make a person promiscuously homicidal.

It has been fashionable in recent decades to believe that all evil people are so because they were abused in childhood. But a lot of people have terrible childhoods and become saints, while others have privileged childhoods and become slimebags.

Irina, The source or evil from a nature verses nurture question is interesting, but it does not mean that absolute "evil" exists per se. In fact, if ones view of "evil" is dependent on certain biological components, then there is no universal "evil" is there? What is considered "evil" is relative and I personally think situational ethics makes more sense than absolute rules. Then again, I may have no problem embracing "evil" at times.

Sorry to but into these deep moral discussions with a change of subject but for all the robot nuts out there, I just saw the coolest robot today I've ever seen in my life (and after working with Hanson's Einstein that's saying something!)

I was wandering around the Haverfordwest Show today (rainy as ever,) and just came across "Titan" - 8 feet tall, self-powered, and built like a terminator! performing in one of the hangars. I managed to get some nice video, so I've put a clip up at http://www.be9.net/titan1_hi.avi for anyone who wants to be amazed and astounded like I was (it's 21.5Mb, so you'll need broadband or a great deal of patience!)

I also found a website with a few more videos and further details:
http://www.robotx.co.uk/video.php - the 4th video on that page (Titan Uncovered) is definitely the best

If I ever win the lottery, I'm gonna buy me one of those to mount Brother Jerome in!

TY Psi!! BTW Firefox 3 is making me DL it and not playing it directly through any of my players, but that could be my plug ins. Still sounds great.

If I win the lottery, I am getting one of those and one from Japan to care for me in my old age. Anyone suggesting nursing home will have to talk fast before my bots get him.

Bev:

What's the difference between saying

Absolute evil exists per se

and just saying

evil exists

?


Also: I have never understood what 'situational ethics' is supposed to be. Every ethicist agrees that there are ways of categorizing actions, such that a given category of action may be moral or immoral depending on circumstances. For example, if I crook my finger, it makes a lot of difference whether that finger is curled around the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a child. So certain kinds of actions -- say type A -- may be evil in context C1 but not in context C2. Very good, but then, an action of type A in context C1 is evil, isn't it?

I would say that if a person who knows better tortures a baby just for the fun of it, that action is evil.

Irina, the difference is whether there is an objective absolute evil outside of one's subjective experience, or merely a subjective judgment of evil (though some things are so bad that at this time most people would agree that they are, in fact, "evil"). Though you may think the ideas of naturalistic evil have been rebutted, and be so sure of it as to speak for every ethicist (always dangerous to try to speak for everyone as if they all thought the same way), I assure you some still believe in objective evil. You may think of them as more religious than philosophical because this natural objective source for what is good and evil tends to be "God" or "God's word", but nonetheless, they would argue that evil or sin is always wrong because of doing the act that is evil, and no set of circumstances can excuse it. This may not cause an issue if you take an extreme act that repulses almost anyone (baby torture) but when you start to more it to other "unnatural" and "evil" acts such as some would consider homosexuality, or women with their heads uncovered, or eating ham then you can see how it would cause conflicts. If you say there is an external natural basis for good and evil independent of the situation (and some do) or a supernatural divine source of good and evil (as many do), there is a tendency to look at things as a set of rules and go "No Tolerance". That being said, I have no problem trying to assert my own subjective standards through persuasion or my actions. Just because they are subjective doesn't mean they have no value or should not be honored. Many of my subjective ideas are actually pretty good and I will stick with them.

I think we just start out screaming "me me me me me" and go downhill from there.

Clerk, you can be an evil genius, anytime, no problem. I'm actually still waiting to see one, so, why not - you may just as well be the first

Evil Genius is a romantic notion, isn't it? Dr. Frankenstein is an archetypal evil genius, Mad Scientist vs superstitious 18th Century Folk who can't tell a difference between crazy and ingenious, between Satan and Lucifer. (I'm not saying the 20th Century Fox can)

I'm sure that your evil genius is/ would be as insightful, subtle and reflective, as your thoughts on spiritual are (post no. 5572). Keep in mind, though, that Evil Genius is by definition a Tragic Hero.

Were all the smart kids at your school the nicest ones?

Not all the smart ones were nice, but none was evil. I don't know what became of most of them... No news is good news..?

I just think it's POSSIBLE to be evil and a genius. Explain to me why it's not again?

You're right, I can't say it's absolutely impossible, but I think it's exception, rather than the rule. As I said, I'm still waiting to see a clear cut example of evil genius.

As for the rule, i.e. the mediocrity, instead of trying to explain why is it far more common, and far more decisive a factor, when it comes to manifest evil that we all know, I offer this link to an article titled "Adolf Eichmann: The Mind of a War Criminal":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/eichmann_01.shtml

It's a brief summary of Eichmann's life and the circumstances that shaped him. It shows (to my mind) that he was an accidental villain, a meat puppet, as much as he was anything else. And, he was most certainly no genius of any kind.

I would add that pathology, although not determinative, as the article rightly concludes, is nevertheless a very important factor, when it comes to understanding evil (deeds). That's what I had in mind when I said "being [emotionally] disconnected from larger reality" - this emotional "disconnectedness", extreme alienation, is where different pathologies originate.

What's your concept of evil genius in general, never mind specific examples?