Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem is
that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it is
irreversible
if a mistake is made,
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and stronger one is just the
Jamie Rose writes:
Stathis,
As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
computations.
In a
Brent meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I would say that many complex mechanical systems react to pain in a way
similar to simple animals. For example, aircraft have automatic shut
downs and fire extinguishers. They can change the flight controls
Hi Colin,
I thought you'd react in this way. It is a prediction of computationalism that
running certain lines of code should generate pain (and every other type of
experience). I realise it seems absurd when put like this, but there you have
it.
I very much doubt that a superficial or
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary.
So you say. I don't agree.
I believe that capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
1Z wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
In my view, your motivation is not large enough. I am also motivated
Yes Stathis, you are right, 'noxious stimulus' and
'experience' are indeed separable - but - if you want to
do an analysis of comparing, its important to identify
global parameters and potential analogs.
My last post's example tried to address those components.
I've seen stress diagrams of
Le 14-déc.-06, à 11:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But there is no true/false in saying that torture is bad, unless there
is another
hidden assumption such as causing gratuitous suffering is bad, in
which case
the question becomes, why is causing gratuitous suffering bad?
Ultimately
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Tom,
The question I am interested in is not whether it would be a *good thing* for
a
personal God to exist, but whether it is *the case* that a personal God
exists.
There are all sorts of things that people would like to be true, but that
does not
make them
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it is
Hi Stathis,
RE: Zombie Room
The zombie room is now in a paper on solipsism and is in review and I
expect will be rejected in due course! :-) Over XMAS I hope to catch up on
all my mail. It's proven to be a really useful cross-modal thought
experiment because it renders a human 'methodologically
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Bruno Marchal writes:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
OK, but the point is that the basic definition of bad is arbitrary.
Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
platonist) notion of bad. The simpler and
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I would say that many complex mechanical systems react to pain in a way
similar to simple animals. For example, aircraft have automatic shut
downs and fire extinguishers. They can change
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:59 -0800
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject
Bruno Marchal writes:
Not in any normative sense. But once we bet on a theory (like comp),
then we get mathematical tools which can provide general explanation
of
what is bad, and also explain why such definition cannot be normative,
making the bad/good distinctions an ideal goal for
Brent Meeker writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the
problem is that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the same
rules
of
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
on
the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
is
that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly
20 matches
Mail list logo
