Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Norondor]

See above post.

[Classic]

Umm. Assuming some control over your decisions is almost essential to a moral or legal system. It's not quite as essential as contradiction and causality, but it is functionally assumed.

I mean, if you want to take that route, it's fine. But I think you're basing your conclusions based on a world that's entirely illusory. Like shadows projected on a cave wall. Etc. Etc.

[Alex]

Free will is but an illusion, gentlemen.

Take it from me.  I know all about that.

[Royal☭]

Let's just say that everybody has a choice of whether to believe in free will or not.

[Transportation]

The quote box is officially too big. Also please note the use of the subject 'you' is referring to your hypothetical actions, if I am using the proper context.

Game theory tangent: I wasn't going to bring it up it's rather situation dependent. I brought up as reference as to why selfishness propagates, as it is useful in the short term on occasion. This was also in reference to scenarios where the altruistic case is, overall, superior but is typical not taken. There was some AI contest that I forget the name of where, by the rules established, altruism was applied to those who reciprocated consistently and those who backstabbed were backstabbed back. There was also a factor where the program just randomly backstab people to see if it could get away with it.

I feel this is an adequate summary of human interactions, but I digress.

There, of course, thousands of other scenarios and strategies, which is why I just left it out.

Utilitarianism: Please explain to me why killing the poor and weak is a good plan. This will inevitable generate paranoia amongst the populace as these are rather fluid conditions, meaning they could be purged too.

As for supporting the 'weaker' elements of society, from a pragmatic perspective it is a matter of diminishing returns as there is A: a bunch of money sitting around and B: lots of unused Turing machines that require some cost N to function in society. Ergo, it would be sensible to invest some money to receive some amount of labor from them. Human minds are ludicrously valuable from an objective standpoint.

As for your more Eugenics like concerns, the concept has been shown to be pointless in the longterm. Maintaining expression of 'good' genes, when compared to all the recessive instances of 'bad' genes that would remain, would mean thousands of years of constant vigilance.

Or we could spend this money quicker solutions. That establishes a larger workforce.

And a happier workforce is a more productive workforce since misery tends to promote inattentiveness, poor health, shortened lifespan, etc.

I should've been more specific and said rule utilitarianism which takes the longterm view of things (hence rules). Your examples would be more pertinent to act utilitarianism which values the individual promoting his immediate happiness. Hedonism would be more appropriate really, but eh.

Societal Debt:

I'm not really sure what your point is here as I already mentioned that taxes are the minimum required amount and are what I would consider 'net neutral' societal contribution, assuming good actions thereafter.

ZE NERV:

I have no idea what neuroplasticity has do with my comment of 'ridiculously similar brains'. The commonalities between societies is astounding, with culture being nothing but window dressing. The design of hierarchies, religion, responses to stimulus, etc.

The brain is an organ in the body and is effected by numerous and widely distributed glands, not to mention drugs and other things. Monism wins QED. I am curious as to what argument for Dualism you're considering valid, though.

Please note that I did not say altruism was some kind of an absolute and not a scale.

The topic Kazz actually posted:
The answer to the question depends on the strength of the local government. I see no reason to kill a man for theft if the government will just catch them anyway and my insurance will pay for it. If I lived in the 1800s Wild West I would shoot him soooo many times. Ditto in times of famine and other crises.

[Kashan]

Umm. Assuming some control over your decisions is almost essential to a moral or legal system. It's not quite as essential as contradiction and causality, but it is functionally assumed.

I mean, if you want to take that route, it's fine. But I think you're basing your conclusions based on a world that's entirely illusory. Like shadows projected on a cave wall. Etc. Etc.

I don't see why you need the assumption of free will to have a moral or legal system. Predestination or fate or whatever you want to call it has been a common belief in many societies which had moral and legal systems.

Also, tell me what you think free will does. The closest I've been able to get to what I think is the common belief is that free will is the ability to make decisions regardless of either social influences, or genetic pre-disposition. In short, the ability to choose something regardless of either nature or nurture.

[Mongrel]

I will step back in (briefly) to make this one point:

I don't believe that any system can be found to reliably guide a person's actions. I think that various moral and ethical codes can provide some (very rough) guidelines, but that every single decision is a personal responsibility.

For good, for ill, or for whateverthefuck, you must make your own decisions. Any attempt to rely on an ideology, moral code, or philosophy for your decisionmaking is an abdication of the responsibilities and privileges that come with sentience - whether or not you believe in Free Will.

[Kashan]

I will step back in (briefly) to make this one point:

I don't believe that any system can be found to reliably guide a person's actions. I think that various moral and ethical codes can provide some (very rough) guidelines, but that every single decision is a personal responsibility.

For good, for ill, or for whateverthefuck, you must make your own decisions. Any attempt to rely on an ideology, moral code, or philosophy for your decisionmaking is an abdication of the responsibilities and privileges that come with sentience - whether or not you believe in Free Will.

I hold pretty much the opposite view. I think if you don't seek out a reasoning system with which to guide your decision making then you're pretty much abdicating the responsibilities of cognizance. Also the major issue most ethical systems have is user side, not system side. I mean it's hard to say that consequentialism is wrong, it's just hard to figure out what it the right action under consequentialism sometimes, though I suppose that could be what you mean by systems not being able to "reliably guide a person's actions."

[Cannon]

The quote box is officially too big. Also please note the use of the subject 'you' is referring to your hypothetical actions, if I am using the proper context.

Does this refer to just this post from now on, or several previous as well? I'll be a touch embarrassed if I've somehow misconstrued you in the past because of this.

Before I continue, I think I should settle something. I think we may have miscommunicated, or are arguing in different directions. I'm just now quite grasping your terms, which have empirical observation as a basis (with some conceits), and I've been citing non-physical philosophical points (with some axioms). So there have been category errors, it seems (if I've used that term properly). It's not my intent to be intellectually dishonest, or to obfuscate.

Utilitarianism: Please explain to me why killing the poor and weak is a good plan. This will inevitable generate paranoia amongst the populace as these are rather fluid conditions, meaning they could be purged too.

It's more efficient, and it can be done in secret if paranoia is a major issue. Failing that, they can be rendered sterile. My point is that if the emphasis is on survival, the tragically unmotivated, disabled, and dying are more of a pressing drain on resources than they are efficient producers. If culling or sterilization aren't applied, they can just be sent elsewhere, or be granted fewer rights. Less panic, but the damage to an equal society is done.

As for supporting the 'weaker' elements of society, from a pragmatic perspective it is a matter of diminishing returns as there is A: a bunch of money sitting around and B: lots of unused Turing machines that require some cost N to function in society. Ergo, it would be sensible to invest some money to receive some amount of labor from them.

If you say so. Just a matter of doing the math to see if it's cheaper to hire assassins or buy them a plane ticket, if the emphasis is on cost effectiveness. If they only offer diminishing returns, they can probably go away or get with the literal program.

As for your more Eugenics like concerns, the concept has been shown to be pointless in the longterm. Maintaining expression of 'good' genes, when compared to all the recessive instances of 'bad' genes that would remain, would mean thousands of years of constant vigilance.

Noted, but that's ultimately limited to just genes. The conclusion that we should push for overall happiness and/or survival is both a short-term and long-term goal, and has a farther reach than genetic predisposition towards being happy and producing happy, hard-working children. Though that would help, it's just a matter of math and probability when deciding what to emphasize in the program.

And a happier workforce is a more productive workforce since misery tends to promote inattentiveness, poor health, shortened lifespan, etc.

Well, yes. My point is that if one's priorities are 1). survival and 2). happiness, give me the cure for flesh-eating viruses before you give me the Orgasmatron.

I should've been more specific and said rule utilitarianism which takes the longterm view of things (hence rules). Your examples would be more pertinent to act utilitarianism which values the individual promoting his immediate happiness. Hedonism would be more appropriate really, but eh.

Thanks again for the tidbit. I'm here to learn just as much as I'm here to reason. Have I really been arguing for hedonism? Hmm. I should think about this.

Societal Debt:

I'm not really sure what your point is here as I already mentioned that taxes are the minimum required amount and are what I would consider 'net neutral' societal contribution, assuming good actions thereafter.

My point is that a wealthy person can casually make a greater contribution to charity/society than I can.

ZE NERV:

I have no idea what neuroplasticity has do with my comment of 'ridiculously similar brains'. The commonalities between societies is astounding, with culture being nothing but window dressing. The design of hierarchies, religion, responses to stimulus, etc.

Then I committed a bit of a category error. Your observation was anthropological rather than purely empirical. My mistake. However, I think you're being too simple and general. Ancient collectivism is different than modern individualism, animism is not monotheism, etc.

The brain is an organ in the body and is effected by numerous and widely distributed glands, not to mention drugs and other things. Monism wins QED. I am curious as to what argument for Dualism you're considering valid, though.

Well, brain plasticity is a nice start. Differing brain activity from different people doing the same things also helps, but that can be more tied into brain plasticity. That strongly implies a "mover" connected to the brain.

The mind needs to be more than the brain to know anything about anything, because logic and reason need to override the fundamental sense data to be of any force at all. So the mind is connected to the non-physical by intellectual necessity.

From the personal, subjective angle, I realize I am conscious after ten seconds of thought. I am aware of my own choices and my own thoughts. Observations about activity in my brain do not change my subjective knowledge of my own consciousness.

Please note that I did not say altruism was some kind of an absolute and not a scale.

So noted, then. I've obviously tended towards absolutes here, so maybe I've missed some of your points.

[JDigital]

We either have free will or the illusion thereof. You post in this thread, or you do not. There are decisions that the world makes for you, but to argue that you have no free will at all is to abdicate personal responsibility for that much of the world that your actions affect.

[Kashan]

We either have free will or the illusion thereof.

No we don't. There are many cultures where determinism is the dominant belief. Also, you're still not telling me what free will is.

There are decisions that the world makes for you, but to argue that you have no free will at all is to abdicate personal responsibility for that much of the world that your actions affect.

That doesn't logically follow. Not believing in free will just means that I don't think an alternate choice could have been made (or that I think the choice I made wasn't based on anything outside of quantum probability depending on whether I'm determinest or non-determinest.) it doesn't mean that I think an action is free of consequences.

[Mongrel]

Well, if you don't have Free Will all this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you do.

But if you DO have Free Will, your choices DO matter.

Givene that we cannot know which of the two is correct, don't any of you think it might be best to err on the side of caution?

[Kashan]

Well, if you don't have Free Will all this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you do.

But if you DO have Free Will, your choices DO matter.

Givene that we cannot know which of the two is correct, don't any of you think it might be best to err on the side of caution?

I think I've heard that argument used in relation to Christianity before.   

Assuming a lack of free will, I will still pursue ethical right and try to be a good person, because that's my nature/nurture. Why does everything have to have meaning to you guys. 

[François]

Where one says "beauty is meaningless", I will say "beauty is meaning". And then we will both get mad and scream "just open your eyes for once in your life you retard" at each other.

And then they will say "this argument is meaningless" and I will agree.

[Mongrel]

I think I've heard that argument used in relation to Christianity before.   

Bully for them. 

[Transportation]

It's more efficient, and it can be done in secret if paranoia is a major issue. Failing that, they can be rendered sterile. My point is that if the emphasis is on survival, the tragically unmotivated, disabled, and dying are more of a pressing drain on resources than they are efficient producers. If culling or sterilization aren't applied, they can just be sent elsewhere, or be granted fewer rights. Less panic, but the damage to an equal society is done.

You're saying something should be done in secret to alleviate paranoia? Really?

If you say so. Just a matter of doing the math to see if it's cheaper to hire assassins or buy them a plane ticket, if the emphasis is on cost effectiveness. If they only offer diminishing returns, they can probably go away or get with the literal program.

Relative economic prosperity makes it profitable? If there is X demand and less than <X optimum works you will use sub-optimal ones. Same things with machines, clothes, etc.

To be fair to your point, this prosperity does not always exist.I believe there was some precedent in the Dark Ages where the elderly or infirm were left to die during winters in bad harvests. Similar with the practice of infant exposure.

Your technically correct but economic conditions don't favor it at the moment.

Noted, but that's ultimately limited to just genes. The conclusion that we should push for overall happiness and/or survival is both a short-term and long-term goal, and has a farther reach than genetic predisposition towards being happy and producing happy, hard-working children. Though that would help, it's just a matter of math and probability when deciding what to emphasize in the program.

I have no idea what your point is here.

Well, yes. My point is that if one's priorities are 1). survival and 2). happiness, give me the cure for flesh-eating viruses before you give me the Orgasmatron.

It's a bit difficult to enjoy the Orgasmatron if you're dead. Survival and happiness go hand in hand most of the time as surviving ensures much more happiness in the future versus a bit of hedonism followed by extinction.

My point is that a wealthy person can casually make a greater contribution to charity/society than I can.

This is true individually. However, as an aggregate, the lower quartiles contribute far more to civilization than the first.

Then I committed a bit of a category error. Your observation was anthropological rather than purely empirical. My mistake. However, I think you're being too simple and general. Ancient collectivism is different than modern individualism, animism is not monotheism, etc.

The argument was more based on the preset neurons that determine societies fundamentals. The window dressing comment was a reference to the differences you just mentioned. This window dressing is certainly important but saying they are some how unique concepts is stretching things.

And ancient collectivism was ruled by kings and priests who had quite a bit of 'freedom'. Modern individualism extends this to everyone. Economically this has been possible since, what, the Greeks? That's the oldest example that comes to mind. The resistance to such changes is somewhat ironical the fault of neural plasticity in the form of cultural inertia.

Well, brain plasticity is a nice start. Differing brain activity from different people doing the same things also helps, but that can be more tied into brain plasticity. That strongly implies a "mover" connected to the brain.

The mind needs to be more than the brain to know anything about anything, because logic and reason need to override the fundamental sense data to be of any force at all. So the mind is connected to the non-physical by intellectual necessity.

From the personal, subjective angle, I realize I am conscious after ten seconds of thought. I am aware of my own choices and my own thoughts. Observations about activity in my brain do not change my subjective knowledge of my own consciousness.

You are separating the patterns from their physical form? Fair enough. But would you subscribe such a non-physical existence to a logic gate in a circuit? Your wording just makes me think of 'souls' instead of 'mathematical function', which would be a better way to put it.

[Transportation]

I think I've heard that argument used in relation to Christianity before.   

Bully for them. 

It's a reference to Pascal's Wager. tl;dr* You should believe in God because believing in something else is too risky. I'm not really seeing the risks myself. Given that freewill is not a universal concept, how do you think it improves the legal system?

Anyway, I'd say freewill comes from humans not understanding their own brains. An AI would just look at its logs and see every deterministic series of logic that caused its 'choice'.

*Me using this is ironic.

[Mongrel]

I think I've heard that argument used in relation to Christianity before.   

Bully for them. 

It's a reference to Pascal's Wager. tl;dr* You should believe in God because believing in something else is too risky. I'm not really seeing the risks myself. Given that freewill is not a universal concept, how do you think it improves the legal system?

Anyway, I'd say freewill comes from humans not understanding their own brains. An AI would just look at its logs and see every deterministic series of logic that caused its 'choice'.

*Me using this is ironic.

I don't think there's any risk involved per se (risk of what?). Merely that without Free Will, personal agency has no meaning, no point.

Or: I assume I have free will because life is infinitely less boring that way. If I'm dead wrong... who cares?

[Mongrel]

Say, any of you guys ever read the Pyhrronian Skeptics?

...as complete inactivity would have been synonymous with death, the skeptic, while retaining his consciousness of the complete uncertainty enveloping every step, might follow custom in the ordinary affairs of life.

Those guys were good times. 

[Thad]

It's a reference to Pascal's Wager. tl;dr* You should believe in God because believing in something else is too risky.

The logical fallacy of Pascal's Wager is the number of religions who say you're going to Hell if you don't believe in THEIR SPECIFIC VERSION of God.