On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 10:27:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > Dropping the question of the testability whether a particular action > contributes to your goal, which can definitely be debatable because of > the complexity of our civilization, I'd like to focus on a much more > fundamental question. What is the basis for Bank's culture being your > goal for morality? Why not the same goal as the antagonist in Earth?
I certainly admit that my choice is subjective. Out of all the futures I have imagined or read about, Banks' Culture is my favorite. This may be an accident of nature (the specific path evolution took, the randomness inherent in the gene formations of my ancestors, my environment, etc.). My morals are not real knowledge. > But, I'd argue that the correctness of this choice cannot be tested by > science. If you limit yourself to scientific knowledge, then right > and wrong are just subjective values. Yes, they are. Surely you don't mean to equate our worldviews? Mine is based on the subjective choice of the best of all possible worlds. One assumption, and that's it. Everything else is based on observation and empiricism. I may be wrong about the best way to achieve the goal, but it is possible, albeit difficult, for me to test my methods empirically. And it is possible I may change my fundamental assumption someday, if one that is subjectively better comes along. I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind would CHOOSE to have a god as depicted in the Bible when presented with an infinite number of possible choices (I'd rather have Bush in charge of the universe than the god in the bible, and from me, that is saying something). And I've never met anyone whose worldview was that they were trying to work towards bringing about the existence of a god that they read about in a religious book. Many religious people do NOT admit that their choice of god is subjective and arbitrary -- their god actually exists outside of their mind. Furthermore, most religions are untestable BY DESIGN. They are DESIGNED to be a useless sort of knowledge. If you've read "Songs of Earth and Power" by Greg Bear, it reminds me of the world Clarkham designed to be self-consistent and seamless. But it also lacked any sort of progress -- it was static. It was a trap. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
