Truth and DLJ's manifesto
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(07-06-2014 07:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  First principles may be eternal, but human formulations with language for human needs will not be precise or eternal. Formulations are mostly made against objections, such as nihilism, we say "reality does not exist" and try if that holds, that's how many principles were arrived at.
However, I think this is a good start. Frankly, all we need for foreseeable time are the first three and then the Universally Preferable Behavior, which is more complex, but logically sound. This isn't exact science, it's enormously useful even in such a simple form.

[Image: patarticle.PNG]

I know the fourth one is suspicious (God!) We know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Thus creation can not refer to the universe as a whole, but rather manipulating already existing matter and energy with finite energy budget.
This also means that the universe had to go through a singularity at some point, to avoid infinite regression. Everything else can be derived from that, as it provides some of links between space, time, energy and matter. If we try to define God, man and universe as distinct objects, we fail. There is nothing but a hierarchy of macroworlds and microworlds and the singularity. (I make a big point of this in my little thesis, however I work with multiple universes. I'm so grateful that physicists believe in singularity, it saved me from the turtles all the way down problem.)

The fifth "statement" is just badly defined and begs too many questions. I have already defined good and evil and universal morality. (UPB)

You can try to find more, define the principles in depth, get technical. But what we really need to do is to pursue consistency in human life and relationships and that is a moral obligation. I think it works, we grounded human knowledge and consistency in first principles and putting it to practice (to not behave inconsistently) is the ultimate moral imperative.

Do we really have to talk about WHY the Categorical Imperative is a complete and utter failure?

[Image: original.gif]

Is this an ethics 101 class?

That's down the hall, 3rd door. This is Remedial Ethics. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-06-2014, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 07-06-2014 03:01 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  [b]Given the difference in laws of physics between present day and Planck time, what on earth would make you think the currently observed laws of physics applied prior to the universe?
What different laws of physics? Do you know of any?

(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The universe "had to go through" a singularity? Are you talking about Big Crunch/Big Bang oscillating universe theory, or do you think the universe predates the universe?
Possibly. If the universe went through a Big Bang just once, I'd have to explain why. I'd have to justify a beginning of the universe. We know there is change, so I'd have to explain two things, the state when there was no change and then the change.
If I accept that the universe IS change, that it undergoes cyclical transformation, as Hindus would say, cosmic breath in, breath out, that ties up a lot of loose ends. Occam's razor, man.

(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Name one problem presented by infinite regress, that you're unaware of an epistemological solution to.

Tell us why an infinite chain of causal events causes any one problem.
We know that the universe is finite, it comes with a finite energy budget. Everything that is ever "created" contains less energy that the thing that created it. So if there is some super-universe that simulates our universe, it will contain more energy. We have the law of energy preservation. We have no reason to even think that this law would not apply in some circumstances. It might, but we'd have to prove that.

Secondly, the cyclical process features a reversal of itself, or interaction of multiple factors that act like a reversal. There can be no reversal with an infinite regression, it's always more of the same.

(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Which is actually a nonissue. There would be no change if there was an infinite chain of causes, any more than there's a change if there's an infinite number of future events up to and past the heat death of this universe.

We even have multiple perfectly functioning theories of knowledge that assume infinite regress happens, and say "so what?"
Well, yeah. So what? Infinite regress does not cause problems if the universe is cyclical. But if it's not cyclical, then it bothers me. Lots of things in the universe are cyclical, maybe the universe itself is too.

(07-06-2014 11:56 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Do we really have to talk about WHY the Categorical Imperative is a complete and utter failure?

Is this an ethics 101 class?
For many people it hopefully is.
Cathegorical Imperative is nonsense, because if something was truly moral, then it would be immoral not to do it, 24 hours a day.
Don't worry, UPB is a negative obligation, not positive. You could follow it even in your sleep. It is an obligation not to initiate aggression. (defense is OK)
By the way, I'd love to know what do they teach in the ethics 101 class, because the whole world, culture, parenting and politics are so fuckin' unethical that it's basically a Soviet Union with better public relations. They teach probably "you are good so let's force you to help poor", "you are evil so let's give you voting ballots to elect good politicians" and "do as I say, not as I do".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2014, 04:12 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
[Image: 10432537_10152528301162146_4789995694671811921_n.jpg]

This is the age from which we carry the most baggage and scar tissue. Only we call it culture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 04:07 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(08-06-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is the age from which we carry the most baggage and scar tissue.

Citation required.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
09-06-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(08-06-2014 04:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is the age from which we carry the most baggage and scar tissue.
Citation required.
No citation is needed, where logic suffices.
Is it morally wrong to assault, punch, smack, hit, insult, berate and yell at people who have not attacked you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 07:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Citation required.
No citation is needed, where logic suffices.
Is it morally wrong to assault, punch, smack, hit, insult, berate and yell at people who have not attacked you?

Bushido, where honour is the basis of the moral system.

Sociopaths, who lack empathy and thus the 'ethic of reciprocity' means nothing to them.

This is why citations are needed. You have repeatedly shown that your 'logic' is never sufficient. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-06-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 08:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 07:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No citation is needed, where logic suffices.
Is it morally wrong to assault, punch, smack, hit, insult, berate and yell at people who have not attacked you?

Bushido, where honour is the basis of the moral system.

Sociopaths, who lack empathy and thus the 'ethic of reciprocity' means nothing to them.

This is why citations are needed. You have repeatedly shown that your 'logic' is never sufficient. Facepalm
Or me, I'm not a sociopath, but I do lack moral beliefs.
In my view there are no moral obligations not to assault people, moral obligations are make believe,
However,
If you assault people the real consequences are that you may get into trouble with the law, or people might assault you back. It seems outside of moral beliefs there are real reasons to moderate your behaviour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
09-06-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 08:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-06-2014 07:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No citation is needed, where logic suffices.
Is it morally wrong to assault, punch, smack, hit, insult, berate and yell at people who have not attacked you?

Bushido, where honour is the basis of the moral system.

Sociopaths, who lack empathy and thus the 'ethic of reciprocity' means nothing to them.

This is why citations are needed. You have repeatedly shown that your 'logic' is never sufficient. Facepalm
You did not actually make an argument.
But you did say sociopaths. If sociopaths do not fit into a theory of morality, then it fuckin' works! Thumbsup I would be more concerned if they were classified as moral. Or if, like under the present regime, fit for a president of the USA. Facepalm



(09-06-2014 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Or me, I'm not a sociopath, but I do lack moral beliefs.
In my view there are no moral obligations not to assault people, moral obligations are make believe,
However,
If you assault people the real consequences are that you may get into trouble with the law, or people might assault you back. It seems outside of moral beliefs there are real reasons to moderate your behaviour.
Wonderful, I lack moral beliefs too! I base my morality on logical arguments derived from the first principles.
Congratulations, you just adopted the morality of universally preferable behavior. You stated that make-believe is not a good thing to act upon. It is universally preferable not to act upon something that is a make-believe. Nice to meet you brother, here's your welcome gecko.
[Image: Golden_gecko.gif]

As for law, law is like saying, there is no universally preferable behavior, except what some people write on paper and then enforce for the money that they took from you. Law is an opinion with a gun.
If the paper says you must wear a tent in hot middle-eastern weather or get whipped, you will. If the law says you must give away 20 % or 60 % or in some historical times 95 % of your income based on what side of line on the ground you are, you will. If the paper says you need to wear a clown suit with no pants and a 10-foot rabbit head made of paper, you will.

Authority law is the ultimate make-believe. It's a secular religion. Didn't God give out laws too? Well, they weren't his to give.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
09-06-2014, 03:29 PM
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Wonderful, I lack moral beliefs too! I base my morality on logical arguments derived from the first principles.
You base your morality on...
Then you do have morals. I on the otherhand do not.
Please do not confuse my actions and my ability to percieve consequences of my actions with a moral framework. They are not the same thing. I do not belive in right and wrong, I do not believe in moral obligation, I do not beleive in moral normatives.
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Congratulations, you just adopted the morality of universally preferable behavior.
Nope, you misunderstand my position.
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You stated that make-believe is not a good thing to act upon.
I said that moral obligations are make believe, I made no mention of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong to act upon your moral obligation beliefs.
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It is universally preferable not to act upon something that is a make-believe. Nice to meet you brother, here's your welcome gecko.
I have no idea as to what is universally preferable.

(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As for law, law is like saying, there is no universally preferable behavior, except what some people write on paper and then enforce for the money that they took from you. Law is an opinion with a gun.
Law is a collective way to come up with and enforce rules on society. These rules don't have to have anything to do with people's moral beliefs.
(09-06-2014 02:33 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Authority law is the ultimate make-believe. It's a secular religion. Didn't God give out laws too? Well, they weren't his to give.
Law isn't a religion, it can be used to improve the safetey, stability and prosperity of society.
e.g. anti-theft, anti corruption, anti monopoly laws, provision of infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals), etc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2014, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2014 05:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Truth and DLJ's manifesto
(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You base your morality on...
Then you do have morals. I on the otherhand do not.
Please do not confuse my actions and my ability to percieve consequences of my actions with a moral framework. They are not the same thing. I do not belive in right and wrong, I do not believe in moral obligation, I do not beleive in moral normatives.
I just rebel against the word belief. Acceptance of an objective logical argument is not belief.

(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I said that moral obligations are make believe, I made no mention of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong to act upon your moral obligation beliefs.
So what do you do if you get attacked? What if your family member gets attacked? Do you pull up your phone to make a video for Youtube?

(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no idea as to what is universally preferable.
Not being attacked, for starters. We can't all get universally simultaneously attacked, but not getting attacked all at the same time, that is quite easy. Similarly it is with theft and rape, unless of course there is a planet of contortionists.
In practice that means, that there are no unchosen positive moral obligations. Whatever the authorities present as a positive moral obligation that you didn't choose, they're lying. Is paying your fair share of taxes moral? What about supporting the troops? Pledging allegiance to the rag...I mean, flag? Obeying your parents and democratically elected leaders? You get bashed with moral arguments all the time when it comes to these. Well, screw them. There are no unchosen positive obligations. You should never feel bad if you disobey them. However, authorities who do that, who bash you on the head with fake moral arguments are immoral themselves. It is universally preferable to have true arguments, not false.


(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Law is a collective way to come up with and enforce rules on society. These rules don't have to have anything to do with people's moral beliefs.
Really? I thought that's how democracies are supposed to work. Collective coming up with rules is THE writing down of people's moral beliefs.
Well then, please explain why there is nearly universal refraining from murder, theft and rape in such rules (except for government officials of course). Aristotle has a test, he said if your moral system permits rule, theft, or rape, I don't fuckin' care what do you say or how good your argument is.

(09-06-2014 03:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Law isn't a religion, it can be used to improve the safetey, stability and prosperity of society.
e.g. anti-theft, anti corruption, anti monopoly laws, provision of infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals), etc
So can religion!!!!!!!! So say Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber...
Religion is like the strongest thing ever holding societies together and in most societies religion and law are exact the same thing. The only reason why there is a difference in our civilization between religion and law is the early medieval duality of old written Roman law and Germanic tribal oral law, which was case by case. This is how the law and the people were culturally divided. When the Otto's empire fell apart in around 1000 CE, the Holy Roman Empire did not include northern Italy, which meant that the pope will crown kings and emperors across a state borders. And so the kings started to fight who is going to appoint the church officials, if the foreign power of Pope, or the domestic power of the king. That was another divide between the secular and spiritual power, which did not really occur in other civilizations, such as Islamic or Chinese.

We should be grateful for that, this split motivated the king to found the bourgeoise class, which is basically the happy, productive, educated human prototype.
In fact, not only that religion used to be THE law, it used to run schools and hospitals. I don't know about roads, but it definitely did present the first government administration network, in 12th century France. Government used to do literally nothing except knocking taxes out of people and paying soldiers from these taxes for internal tax-collecting and external raids on other territories. Everyone today thinks that if government will not build roads or schools, nobody will do it and humanity will degrade into illiterate peasants walking knee-deep in mud.

In fact, government used to take a huge shit upon the people. And it keeps doing that, only we are richer today, because we can choose our jobs. So the government takes even more of our money to bribe us back with them and improve our opinion of the government. One of the greatest government douchebags was probably Otto von Bismarck, who invented the social system and welfare Ponzi scheme to make us think it's all for our own good.
http://www.fdrurl.com/HHO_PDF

I mean, I'm not really interested in persuading you, I just feel perverse fascination with your evasive "answers", as if hesitation to name the things you do would change their function. And I love the opportunity to flaunt my newly refreshed knowledge of European medieval history. (had a re-run of exam on Saturday)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: