RE: computer pain
John Mikes writes: Stathis, your 'augmentded' ethical maxim is excellent, I could add some more 'except foe'-s to it. (lower class, cast, or wealth, - language, - gender, etc.) The last par, however, is prone to a more serious remark of mine: topics like you sampled are culture related prejudicial beief-items. Research cannot solve them, because research is also ADJUSTED TO THE CULTURE it serves. A valid medeval research on the number of angels on a pin-tip would not hold in today's belief-topic of curved space. (Curved angels?) Mey Christmas to you, too John I think the culture-independence test is actually a good test for whether something truly is part of science. How to build a nuclear bomb is culture-independent - it won't work if you decide to use U-328 just because there is more of it available where you live, for example. But whether and how to use the finished weapon is not a question that science can answer, although of course it is a question that scientists should ask and apply their own culture- -dependent values to. And a merry Christmas to you too, John Stathis Papaionnou On 12/21/06, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Jones writes: Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree. Let me see if I can summarise: Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents taught them, or what it says in a book believed to be divinely inspired. Perhaps all of these reasons can be subsumed under evolution if that term can be extended beyond genetics to include all the ideas, beliefs, customs etc. that help a society to survive and propagate itself. Now, we can take this and formalise it in some way so that we can discuss ethical questions rationally: Murder is bad because it reduces the net happiness in society - Utilitarianism Murder is bed because it breaks the sixth commandment - Judaism and Christianity (interesting that this only no. 6 on a list of 10: God knows his priorities) Ethics then becomes objective, given the rules. The meta-ethical explanation of evolution, broadly understood, as generating the various ethical systems is also objective. However, it is possible for someone at the bottom of the heap to go over the head of utilitarianism, evolution, even God and say: Why should murder be bad? I don't care about the greatest good for the greatest number, I don't care if the species dies out, and I think God is a bastard and will shout it from hell if sends me there for killing people for fun and profit. This is my own personal ethical belief, and you can't tell me I'm wrong! And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic. The psychopath is wrong. He doesn't want to be murdered, but he wants to murder. His ethical rule is therefore inconsistent and not really ethical at all. Who says his ethical rule is inconsistent? If he made the claim do unto others as you would have others do unto you he would be inconsistent, but he makes no such claim. Billions of people have lived and died in societies where it is perfectly ethical and acceptable to kill inferior races or inferior species. If they accept some version of the edict you have just elevated to a self-evident truth it would be do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless they are foreigners, or taste good to eat, or worship different gods. Perfectly consistent, even if horrible. In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere. Everything starts with assumptions. The questions is whether they are correct. A lunatic could try defining 2+2=5 as valid, but he will soon run into inconsistencies. That is why we reject 2+2=5. Ethical rules must apply to everybody as a matter of definition. Definitions supply correct assumptions. So you think arguments about such matters as abortion, capital punishment and what sort of social welfare system we should have are just like arguments about mathematics or geology, and with enough research there should be universal agreement? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)
Bruno marchal writes: Even if it is presented as good for society, the child may accept that because of feelings of empathy for others. OK. Note that such an empathy is hard wired in our biological constitution. Many mammals seems to have it at some degree. Some form of autism are described by pathological loss of that empathy. Perhaps Stathis could say more. Autism, psychopathy and psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia can all involve a loss of empathy. It is sometimes said that autistic children lack a theory of mind so that they can see others as being like themselves, with a similar view of the world to themselves. As they grow up, they realise intellectually that other people are like them but it seems that they lack the intuitive grasp of this fact that non- -autistic individuals have. People with schizophrenia can develop a blunting of affect, which perhaps is a different process but can have the same effect. They may be able to compare their feelings to when they were well and may say things like, I can longer feel things like I used to, I know I ought to feel happy when others around me are happy and sad when something sad happens, but I feel nothing, I just register the facts. Psychopaths are different again in that they usually have a full range of affect, understand that others may suffer as they do, but don't care and can't understand why they should care, other than to keep the legal authorities happy. Young children are all psychopathic: they refrain from behaving badly only because they might get punished. As they grow up, they internalise the good and bad behaviour paterns so that they seem to have these characteristics intrinsically. Autism and schizophrenia are almost always dysfunctional conditions, but intelligent psychopaths often do very well, in business and politics for example, because they can lie and manipulate people without compunction. In fact, they often seem unusually charming and likable when you first meet them, because they have learned to act the way that will best serve their selfish purposes. It is conceivable that an entire society of psychopaths might be able to function with rules of conduct similar to the moral rules that most normal societies live by, but arrived at in a practical and dispassionate manner. That is, thieves are punished because it is expedient to do so in the same way as it is expedient to take an umbrella with you if expecting rain, and saying theft is wrong is like saying rain is wrong. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
John Mikes wrote: Brent: let me start at the end: So why don't you believe it? because I am prejudiced by the brainwashing I got in 101 science education, the 'conventional' thinking of the (ongoing) science establishment - still brainwashing the upcoming scientist-generations with the same '101' - (which is also an answer to your 'conventional' quest:) It seems your answer is that it's just a convention that you happen to have learned - a mere artifact of culture as propounded by various post-modernists. Unconventional is a lot on this list many of them to my liking (personal!) and seemingly to yours, too. I leave it to the conventional(G) scientists to agree whether the Earth is spherical (if it IS?) and used this example from the precedent texts just as an 'unconventional' variant thinking. We (all, I suppose) are under a lot of influence from the 101 sciences and my point was exactly to raise another possibility (absurd as it may be). We are influenced by it because it has been very successful. I don't fly in airplanes designed by alternative engineering. Unconventional ideas interest me only in so far as they work as well or better than conventional ones. Brent Meeker They laughed at Bozo the Clown too. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
Brent: Brent: It seems your answer is that it's just a convention that you happen to have learned - a mere artifact of culture as propounded by various post-modernists. JM: In our culture and its predecessors primitive observations led to explanations at the level of the then epistemic cognitive inventory, which increases continually. Those simplistic ideas were retained and mended in later 'science' of better learning epochs but the basis has not changed: a physical view of facts and the way we still do value them as our reality. Composed into 'models' (groups) of their own. If you call a newer look - based upon newer epistemic enrichment - as propounded by various post-modernists - well, so be it, I don't consider it pejorative. Brent (on the 101): We are influenced by it because it has been very successful. I don't fly in airplanes designed by alternative engineering. Unconventional ideas interest me only in so far as they work as well or better than conventional ones. JM: I think I hear a mix up of the only one we have for the best one there is. Your airplanes fall off the sky sometimes (spare me the statistics, please, 1 is more than enough) contraceptives fail, houses burn down for electric failures, there are wars in the conventionally based social culture, our biosphere is going berserk because of our perfect scientific applications, we have technology-related diseases, nuclear fall outs, medical mishaps, politicians (oops) and food poisoning, bridge collapses and other innumerable examples of safety failures of our '101'-based perfect efficiency in this world. We live (and use) the ONLY one we have. Our pretension lists the benefits and deems it the best. For the caveman the BEST weapon was the hand-ax. For a priest the best science is HIS theology. For a monotheist the best god is his god. If you are not interested in the 'unconventional novelties' before they prove to be superior then our ongoing ignorance, you will never get to them. I go for it, not necessarily successful, but I try. And don't give up. I don't believe that you want to stay put in the science-religion of our axioms, emergence, 'givens', chaotic paradoxical beliefs and the cosmologists' Big Bang narrative. And all the other marvels based on '101'. Atoms, molecules, spin, energy, space, time, mass, gravitation, electricity, light, life, mind, etc. just to name some. They all are usable tools for some practical tasks as long as we have no better ones to use and explanation for them. In the meantime have a happy new year John M On 12/23/06, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Mikes wrote: Brent: let me start at the end: So why don't you believe it? because I am prejudiced by the brainwashing I got in 101 science education, the 'conventional' thinking of the (ongoing) science establishment - still brainwashing the upcoming scientist-generations with the same '101' - (which is also an answer to your 'conventional' quest:) It seems your answer is that it's just a convention that you happen to have learned - a mere artifact of culture as propounded by various post-modernists. Unconventional is a lot on this list many of them to my liking (personal!) and seemingly to yours, too. I leave it to the conventional(G) scientists to agree whether the Earth is spherical (if it IS?) and used this example from the precedent texts just as an 'unconventional' variant thinking. We (all, I suppose) are under a lot of influence from the 101 sciences and my point was exactly to raise another possibility (absurd as it may be). We are influenced by it because it has been very successful. I don't fly in airplanes designed by alternative engineering. Unconventional ideas interest me only in so far as they work as well or better than conventional ones. Brent Meeker They laughed at Bozo the Clown too. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: computer pain
Mark Peaty writes: Sorry to be so slow at responding here but life [domestic], the universe and everything else right now is competing savagely with this interesting discussion. [But one must always think positive; 'Bah, Humbug!' is not appropriate, even though the temptation is great some times :-] Stathis, I am not entirely convinced when you say: 'And the psychopath is right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point of logic' That would only be right if we allowed that his [psychopathy is mostly a male affliction I believe] use of words is easily as reasonable as yours or mine. However, where the said psycho. is purporting to make authoritative statements about the world, it is not OK for him to purport that what he describes is unquestionably factual and his reasoning from the facts as he sees them is necessarily authoritative for anyone else. This is because, qua psychopath, he is not able to make the fullest possible free decisions about what makes people tick or even about what is reality for the rest of us. He is, in a sense, mortally wounded, and forever impaired; condemned always to make only 'logical' decisions. :-) The way I see it, roughly and readily, is that there are in fact certain statements/descriptions about the world and our place in it which are MUCH MORE REASONABLE than a whole lot of others. I think therefore that, even though you might be right from a 'purely logical' point of view when you say the following: 'In the *final* analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere' in fact, from the point of view of practical living and the necessities of survival, the correct approach is to assert what amounts to a set of practical axioms, including: * the mere fact of existence is the basis of value, that good and bad are expressed differently within - and between - different cultures and their sub-cultures but ultimately there is an objective, absolute basis for the concept of 'goodness', because in all normal circumstances it is better to exist than not to exist, * related to this and arising out of it is the realisation that all normal, healthy humans understand what is meant by both 'harm' and 'suffering', certainly those who have reached adulthood, * furthermore, insofar as it is clearly recognisable that continuing to exist as a human being requires access to and consumption of all manner of natural resources and human-made goods and services, it is in our interests to nurture and further the inclinations in ourselves and others to behave in ways supportive of cooperation for mutual and general benefit wherever this is reasonably possible, and certainly not to act destructively or disruptively unless it is clear that doing so will prevent a much greater harm from occurring. It ought to be clear to all reasonable persons not engaged in self deception that in this modern era each and everyone of us is dependent - always - on at least a thousand other people doing the right thing, or trying to anyway. Thus the idea of 'manly', rugged, individualism is a romantic nonsense unless it also incorporates a recognition of mutual interdependence and the need for real fairness in social dealings at every level. Unless compassion, democracy and ethics are recognised [along with scientific method] as fundamental prerequisites for OUR survival, policies and practices will pretty much inevitably become self-defeating and destructive, no matter how well-intentioned to start with. In the interest of brevity I add the following quasi-axioms. * the advent of scientific method on Earth between 400 and 500 years ago has irreversibly transformed the human species so that now we can reasonably assert that the human universe is always potentially infinite, so long as it exists and we believe it to be so * to be fully human requires taking responsibility for one's actions and this means consciously choosing to do things or accepting that one has made a choice even if one cannot remember consciously choosing * nobody knows the future, so all statements about the future are either guesswork or statements of desires. Furthermore our lack of knowledge of times to come is very deep, such that we have no truly reasonable basis for dismissing the right to survive of any persons on the planet - or other living species for that matter - unless it can be clearly shown that such killing or allowing to die, is necessary to prevent some far greater harm and the assertion of this is of course hampered precisely by our lack of knowledge of the future This feels incomplete but it needs to be sent. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ I agree with you as far as advice for how to live a good life goes, but I guess where I disagree is on the technical matter of what we call
RE: computer pain
Brent Meeker writes: [Mark Peaty] From the foregoing it can be seen that while there can be no objective morality, nor any absolute morality, it is reasonable to expect increasing agreement on the relative morality of actions within an expanding context. Further, similar to the entropic arrow of time, we can conceive of an arrow of morality corresponding to the ratcheting forward of an increasingly broad context of shared values (survivors of coevolutionary competition) promoted via awareness of increasingly effective principles of interaction (scientific knowledge of what works, extracted from regularities in the environment.) [Stathis Papaioannou] What if the ratcheting forward of shared values is at odds with evolutionary expediency, i.e. there is some unethical policy that improves the fitness of the species? To avoid such a dilemna you would have define as ethical everything improves the fitness of the species, and I'm not sure you want to do that. If your species doesn't define as unethical that which is contrary to continuation of the species, your species won't be around to long. Our problem is that cultural evolution has been so rapid compared to biological evolution that some of our hardwired values are not so good for continuation of our (and many other) species. I don't think ethics is a matter of definitions; that's like trying to fly by settling on a definition of airplane. But looking at the long run survival of the species might produce some good ethical rules; particularly if we could predict the future consequences clearly. If slavery could be scientifically shown to promote the well-being of the species as a whole does that mean we should have slavery? Does it mean that slavery is good? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: computer pain
Oops, it was Jef Allbright, not Mark Peaty responsible for the first quote below. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: computer pain Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:31:03 +1100 Brent Meeker writes: [Mark Peaty] From the foregoing it can be seen that while there can be no objective morality, nor any absolute morality, it is reasonable to expect increasing agreement on the relative morality of actions within an expanding context. Further, similar to the entropic arrow of time, we can conceive of an arrow of morality corresponding to the ratcheting forward of an increasingly broad context of shared values (survivors of coevolutionary competition) promoted via awareness of increasingly effective principles of interaction (scientific knowledge of what works, extracted from regularities in the environment.) [Stathis Papaioannou] What if the ratcheting forward of shared values is at odds with evolutionary expediency, i.e. there is some unethical policy that improves the fitness of the species? To avoid such a dilemna you would have define as ethical everything improves the fitness of the species, and I'm not sure you want to do that. If your species doesn't define as unethical that which is contrary to continuation of the species, your species won't be around to long. Our problem is that cultural evolution has been so rapid compared to biological evolution that some of our hardwired values are not so good for continuation of our (and many other) species. I don't think ethics is a matter of definitions; that's like trying to fly by settling on a definition of airplane. But looking at the long run survival of the species might produce some good ethical rules; particularly if we could predict the future consequences clearly. If slavery could be scientifically shown to promote the well-being of the species as a whole does that mean we should have slavery? Does it mean that slavery is good? Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: computer pain
Peter Jones writes: (1) Although moral assessment is inherently subjective--being relative to internal values--all rational agents share some values in common due to sharing a common evolutionary heritage or even more fundamentally, being subject to the same physical laws of the universe. That may be so, but we don't exactly have a lot of intelligent species to make the comparison. It is not difficult to imagine species with different evolutionary heritages which would have different ethics to our own, certainly in the details and probably in many of the core values. It isn't difficult to imagine humans with different mores to our own, particularly since the actual exist... the point is not that they might believe certain things to be ethical; the point is , what *is* actually ethical. There is a difference between mores and morality just as their is between belief and truth. When I say I believe an empirical fact, I mean that if you go out and have a look and a poke, you will see that the empirical fact is so; and if you don't, tell me and I'll change my belief. Ethical beliefs are not like that because they are ultimately dependent on values. You can say you don't like someone's values, you can say that his values are contrary to evolution or whatever, but you can't say he is wrong about his values in the way he might be wrong about an empirical fact, because the only empirical claim he is making is about how he thinks and feels. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: computer pain
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Brent Meeker writes: [Mark Peaty] From the foregoing it can be seen that while there can be no objective morality, nor any absolute morality, it is reasonable to expect increasing agreement on the relative morality of actions within an expanding context. Further, similar to the entropic arrow of time, we can conceive of an arrow of morality corresponding to the ratcheting forward of an increasingly broad context of shared values (survivors of coevolutionary competition) promoted via awareness of increasingly effective principles of interaction (scientific knowledge of what works, extracted from regularities in the environment.) [Stathis Papaioannou] What if the ratcheting forward of shared values is at odds with evolutionary expediency, i.e. there is some unethical policy that improves the fitness of the species? To avoid such a dilemna you would have define as ethical everything improves the fitness of the species, and I'm not sure you want to do that. If your species doesn't define as unethical that which is contrary to continuation of the species, your species won't be around to long. Our problem is that cultural evolution has been so rapid compared to biological evolution that some of our hardwired values are not so good for continuation of our (and many other) species. I don't think ethics is a matter of definitions; that's like trying to fly by settling on a definition of airplane. But looking at the long run survival of the species might produce some good ethical rules; particularly if we could predict the future consequences clearly. If slavery could be scientifically shown to promote the well-being of the species as a whole does that mean we should have slavery? Does it mean that slavery is good? Note that I didn't say promote the well-being; I said contrary to the continuation. If the species could not continue without slavery, then there are two possible futures. In one of them there's a species that thinks slavery is OK - in the other there is no opinion on the subject. Of course slavery implies the coercive use of our fellow members of society against their desires. So it logically entails that at least those enslaved will not be pleased with their situation. But note that in ancient times one had an absolute right to one's life - including selling oneself into slavery, or contracting to be a slave for a certain time. So someone (maybe a radical libertarian) might argue that you should be able to risk your own enslavement in exchange for some gain desirable to you. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
