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 4,416 - 4,427 of 6,170
The upside to all this is, that we have done our moral duty if we did our best.
I agree. But our best to... what?
I would say our best to avoid committing any evil acts ourselves, since this is the only choice that is truly within our power to make.
It seems you would advocate doing our best to minimize the net evil and maximize the net good by gambling on probable outcomes. But if you employ evil means in this pursuit, you're playing a game you can't know the odds on. And if you play it long enough, you are bound to lose - that's just the nature of gambling.
Given his beliefs at the time, it would have been morally wrong not to have tried to throw the switch.
I agree - he did his best, and throwing a switch with the intention of preventing evil is not only justifiable, but failing to do so would be of itself an evil act. The outcome is not the determining factor - the intention is. The choice here is between killing lots of people or none at all, and if he makes an honest mistake, that does not detract from his good intention (though he will probably still blame himself - that's human nature.)
A choice between good and evil is not the same as a choice between two evils.
would say our best to avoid committing any evil acts ourselves, since this is the only choice that is truly within our power to make.
Well, I imagine that everyone would agree with this. It's hard to believe that someone is going to say, "No, you should commit evil acts now and thhen!" But if two people disagree about what acts are evil, this principle is not going to be of much use, since it does not give any specific criteria. If two people disagree about what is evil, they will disagree about what this principle entails.
It seems you would advocate doing our best to minimize the net evil and maximize the net good by gambling on probable outcomes.
Actually I don't accept minimax as a general rule in morality, although it does apply in some cases.
There is a famous thought experiment called the "Inhospitable Hospital." A man, X, comes in to have his tonsils out. The operation goes well, and he is sleeping in a hospital bed, still knocked out by anesthesia.
5 people are brought into the emergency room: they have been in a terrible auto accident (not their fault). One of them needs a heart transplant, two need kidney transplant, a fourth needs a liver, and the fifth a pancreas. Otherwise they will die.
Unfortunately, the hospital is entirely out of stock on these items!
Then someone says, "But we have Mr. X! He has healthy organs of all those kinds! Let's just use his!" Appealing to maximization, he continues, "If we distribute X's organs, 5 people will live, and one will die. If we don't, one person will live and 5 will die." Clearly the arithmetic is against the survival of Mr. X!
But many people, including myself, have strong intuitions that it would be morally wrong to use Mr. X's organs this way (let us assume that his consent cannot be obtained).
So, since maximizing gives the wrong answer in at least one case, it is not a universaly valid principle.
Well, I imagine that everyone would agree with this. It's hard to believe that someone is going to say, "No, you should commit evil acts now and thhen!"
I would agree that torturing a baby to death is, of itself, evil. But you seem to be saying that if there is a greater good you consider to be achieveable (saving the other babies,) it might under certain circumstances be permissible to torture a baby to death.
I'm just very suspicious of the "greater good" and "lesser of two evils"
if I think they are not useful, that is 'true for me', and if you think they are useful, that is 'true for you',
With respect to morals, you are correct, although I do not like the the phrase "true for you" because it seems to imply that subjective truths are on par with the outside common reality of things that exist with or without humans. When your actions effect others in a common reality of what we think of a the real world, however, I can say that I will work according to what moral or useful in my own view. My view is subjective. I will act on it anyway.
As far as I can see, we don't have the slightest control over whether 2+2=4. How would we go about arranging that 2+2=5
One of my favorite physics/math theorems is 2+2=5 for very large values of 2. It illustrates two principles very well.
On a more serious note, 2+2 is NOT always 4. Mix together 2 gallons of water with 2 gallons of alcohol, and you won't get 4 gallons of liquid. The molecules slide by one another somehow, so that the resulting liquid takes up less space. (I think it's alcohol; it's been a while since I read up on this) On the other hand, the weights will add as expected. So, say, 2 pounds of water plus 2 pounds of alcohol will yield 4 pounds of liquid.
What about 2+2=1? This could easily apply in a situation with interlocking parts, that won't stay interlocked until all have been connected together. Sure, you can count the four separate parts, but the resulting...thing...is a single unit in its own right.
"Mathematical objects, such as numbers, are not particularly mental. If numbers were mental entities, then they could not have existed before there were any minds." (Irina)
BTW, my color tags have been working intermittently--I put them there but they may not be in red now. I hope you know your quotes.
Objects existed regardless of human existence. "Numbers" as such, did not (though it's possible others non humans may develop a concept of numbers just as it is possible non humans may develop a concept of language). We created numbers to describe the word as we see it. They are a mental construct, though we can write symbols for these ideas down just as we can write down symbols for words.
Mathematics is an axiomatized deductive system. You can start with a set of postulates, say Peno's axioms,
"P1. 0 is a number
P2. The successor of any number is a number
P3. No two numbers have the same successor
P4. 0 is not the successor of any number
P5. If P is a property such that (a) 0 has the property P, and (b) whenever a number n has the property P, then the successor of n also has the property P, then every number has the property P."
From there we can define various operations such as addition, subtractions, multiplication and division. We could make some adjustments to this system, but in essence, all math can be deprived form these primitives and rules, and it is not dependent on empirical evidence.
"But there was a whole number between 2 and 4 long before there were any minds in the universe."
What makes you think that is so? Numbers are tools created by humans to describe various aspects, objects and relationships, but they only describe things, they are not things themselves.
"According to Physics, the universe obeyed certain mathematical laws from the first moment of its existence."
No. Physics gives us the means to describe various principles and relationships, but it only describes what is going on, it doesn't dictate what happens.
"Likewise, if all minds in the universe were to die out, not one truth of mathematics would disappear. Pi was a transcendental number long before anyone had the concept of pi or the concept of a transcendental number."
I disagree. The label "transcendental" or "pi" or "number" does not exist unless a mind defines and applies it. These may describe various aspects of reality, but they are not reality. They may be useful for our understanding (subjectively useful to me or others as we judge it) but they do not exist outside of our minds.
Posts 4,416 - 4,427 of 6,170
I agree. But our best to... what?
I would say our best to avoid committing any evil acts ourselves, since this is the only choice that is truly within our power to make.
It seems you would advocate doing our best to minimize the net evil and maximize the net good by gambling on probable outcomes. But if you employ evil means in this pursuit, you're playing a game you can't know the odds on. And if you play it long enough, you are bound to lose - that's just the nature of gambling.
I agree - he did his best, and throwing a switch with the intention of preventing evil is not only justifiable, but failing to do so would be of itself an evil act. The outcome is not the determining factor - the intention is. The choice here is between killing lots of people or none at all, and if he makes an honest mistake, that does not detract from his good intention (though he will probably still blame himself - that's human nature.)
A choice between good and evil is not the same as a choice between two evils.
There is a famous thought experiment called the "Inhospitable Hospital." A man, X, comes in to have his tonsils out. The operation goes well, and he is sleeping in a hospital bed, still knocked out by anesthesia.
5 people are brought into the emergency room: they have been in a terrible auto accident (not their fault). One of them needs a heart transplant, two need kidney transplant, a fourth needs a liver, and the fifth a pancreas. Otherwise they will die.
Unfortunately, the hospital is entirely out of stock on these items!
Then someone says, "But we have Mr. X! He has healthy organs of all those kinds! Let's just use his!" Appealing to maximization, he continues, "If we distribute X's organs, 5 people will live, and one will die. If we don't, one person will live and 5 will die." Clearly the arithmetic is against the survival of Mr. X!
But many people, including myself, have strong intuitions that it would be morally wrong to use Mr. X's organs this way (let us assume that his consent cannot be obtained).
So, since maximizing gives the wrong answer in at least one case, it is not a universaly valid principle.
I would agree that torturing a baby to death is, of itself, evil. But you seem to be saying that if there is a greater good you consider to be achieveable (saving the other babies,) it might under certain circumstances be permissible to torture a baby to death.
I'm just very suspicious of the "greater good" and "lesser of two evils"
With respect to morals, you are correct, although I do not like the the phrase "true for you" because it seems to imply that subjective truths are on par with the outside common reality of things that exist with or without humans. When your actions effect others in a common reality of what we think of a the real world, however, I can say that I will work according to what moral or useful in my own view. My view is subjective. I will act on it anyway.
??? As far as I can see, we don't have the slightest control over whether 2+2=4. How would we go about arranging that 2+2=5?
2 plus 2 equals 5 because of how we define numbers, addition and equal. I am basing my views primary on the works of Hempels' "On the Nature of Mathematics"
http://www.ditext.com/hempel/math-frame.html. Hemple said, for example, "In the light of this remark, consider now a simple "hypothesis" from arithmetic: 3 + 2 = 5. If this is actually an empirical generalization of past experiences, then it must be possible to state what kind of evidence would oblige us to concede the hypothesis was not generally true after all. If any disconfirming evidence for the given proposition can be thought of, the following illustration might well be typical of it: We place some microbes on a slide, putting down first three of them and then another two. Afterwards we count all the microbes to test whether in this instance 3 and 2 actually added up to 5. Suppose now that we counted 6 microbes altogether. Would we consider this as an empirical disconfirmation of the given proposition, or at least as a proof that it does not apply to microbes? Clearly not; rather, we would assume we had made a mistake in counting or that one of the microbes had split in two between the first and the second count. But under no circumstances could the phenomenon just described invalidate the arithmetical proposition in question; for the latter asserts nothing whatever about the behavior of microbes; it merely states that any set consisting of 3 + 2 objects may also be said to consist of 5 objects. And this is so because the symbols "3 + 2" and "5" denote the same number: they are synonymous by virtue of the fact that the symbols "2," "3," "5," and "+" are defined (or tacitly understood) in such a way that the above identity holds as a consequence of the meaning attached to the concepts involved in it."
2 plus 2 equals 5 because of how we define numbers, addition and equal. I am basing my views primary on the works of Hempels' "On the Nature of Mathematics"
http://www.ditext.com/hempel/math-frame.html. Hemple said, for example, "In the light of this remark, consider now a simple "hypothesis" from arithmetic: 3 + 2 = 5. If this is actually an empirical generalization of past experiences, then it must be possible to state what kind of evidence would oblige us to concede the hypothesis was not generally true after all. If any disconfirming evidence for the given proposition can be thought of, the following illustration might well be typical of it: We place some microbes on a slide, putting down first three of them and then another two. Afterwards we count all the microbes to test whether in this instance 3 and 2 actually added up to 5. Suppose now that we counted 6 microbes altogether. Would we consider this as an empirical disconfirmation of the given proposition, or at least as a proof that it does not apply to microbes? Clearly not; rather, we would assume we had made a mistake in counting or that one of the microbes had split in two between the first and the second count. But under no circumstances could the phenomenon just described invalidate the arithmetical proposition in question; for the latter asserts nothing whatever about the behavior of microbes; it merely states that any set consisting of 3 + 2 objects may also be said to consist of 5 objects. And this is so because the symbols "3 + 2" and "5" denote the same number: they are synonymous by virtue of the fact that the symbols "2," "3," "5," and "+" are defined (or tacitly understood) in such a way that the above identity holds as a consequence of the meaning attached to the concepts involved in it."
One of my favorite physics/math theorems is On a more serious note, 2+2 is NOT always 4. Mix together 2 gallons of water with 2 gallons of alcohol, and you won't get 4 gallons of liquid. The molecules slide by one another somehow, so that the resulting liquid takes up less space. (I think it's alcohol; it's been a while since I read up on this) On the other hand, the weights will add as expected. So, say, 2 pounds of water plus 2 pounds of alcohol will yield 4 pounds of liquid.
What about 2+2=1? This could easily apply in a situation with interlocking parts, that won't stay interlocked until all have been connected together. Sure, you can count the four separate parts, but the resulting...thing...is a single unit in its own right.
BTW, my color tags have been working intermittently--I put them there but they may not be in red now. I hope you know your quotes.
Objects existed regardless of human existence. "Numbers" as such, did not (though it's possible others non humans may develop a concept of numbers just as it is possible non humans may develop a concept of language). We created numbers to describe the word as we see it. They are a mental construct, though we can write symbols for these ideas down just as we can write down symbols for words.
Mathematics is an axiomatized deductive system. You can start with a set of postulates, say Peno's axioms,
"P1. 0 is a number
P2. The successor of any number is a number
P3. No two numbers have the same successor
P4. 0 is not the successor of any number
P5. If P is a property such that (a) 0 has the property P, and (b) whenever a number n has the property P, then the successor of n also has the property P, then every number has the property P."
From there we can define various operations such as addition, subtractions, multiplication and division. We could make some adjustments to this system, but in essence, all math can be deprived form these primitives and rules, and it is not dependent on empirical evidence.
What makes you think that is so? Numbers are tools created by humans to describe various aspects, objects and relationships, but they only describe things, they are not things themselves.
No. Physics gives us the means to describe various principles and relationships, but it only describes what is going on, it doesn't dictate what happens.
I disagree. The label "transcendental" or "pi" or "number" does not exist unless a mind defines and applies it. These may describe various aspects of reality, but they are not reality. They may be useful for our understanding (subjectively useful to me or others as we judge it) but they do not exist outside of our minds.
Irnia, no doubt we have. 
I was just thinking that this was starting to sound like the quantum physics debate because we are returning to similar issues involving whether mechanism merely describes a phenomenon, or is itself the phenomenon. Not that I want to start that again.
Don't worry, soon we'll be able to upload again and I'll leave the boards alone.
I was just thinking that this was starting to sound like the quantum physics debate because we are returning to similar issues involving whether mechanism merely describes a phenomenon, or is itself the phenomenon. Not that I want to start that again.Don't worry, soon we'll be able to upload again and I'll leave the boards alone.
Ever since my frustrating experience with discussing Quantum Mechanics a few weeks back, I have been intrigued by the process of discussion as it appears here (and presumably elsewhere). I had (rather naively) thought that the purpose of such discussions was to reveal truth, or some fragment of approximate truth, or at least to build consensus. Instead, I found that, in spite of the fact that Psimagus and I are both quite intelligent and fairly polite, and in spite of the fact that we had the resources of the entire net at our fingertips, including numberless articles on Quantum Mechanics, we were unable to achieve any consensus at all about even the most basic principles of the discipline.
This was very striking to me. It was as if two able-bodied adults had been unable to lift a table fork.
Is there perhaps a centrifugal force in our culture, or perhaps in human nature generally, that leads people away from consensus, instead of guiding them towards it? At times it seems to me that we are each following a program something like this:
1. Find something to disagree about and make your position known.
2A. If others disagree with you, then argue with them.
2B. If others agree with you, goto 1.
This was very striking to me. It was as if two able-bodied adults had been unable to lift a table fork.
Is there perhaps a centrifugal force in our culture, or perhaps in human nature generally, that leads people away from consensus, instead of guiding them towards it? At times it seems to me that we are each following a program something like this:
1. Find something to disagree about and make your position known.
2A. If others disagree with you, then argue with them.
2B. If others agree with you, goto 1.
Yes, it seems strange to me that you can't get a consensus, 'that it's wrong to torture babies'. I know that rabbits eat their young, but most rabbits pull out their own hair to keep the young warm. I know that man has always tortured babies, but The fact that we are here shows it wasn't the norm. I also know during the times that man was torturing babies, someone came in and tried to save one (baby). I think that it is easy to talk about it academically, but I wonder if any of us could look at such a thing and not vomit. I don't apologize for my beliefs. I don't expect anyone to believe as I do. When It comes to the psycho guy going to let the many live for the one I torture. I am sorry, I woundn't do deals, I wouldn't pity him. I would fight him tooth and nail until he killed me. (which he no doubt had planned anyway).With luck I will take him by surprise, and rip his heart out. Yes, this is killing, if I succeed, but I will claim self defense, and go eat a Big Extra with cheese.
» More new posts: Music & Movies