[wEvil]

I really don't think it's that good - and I stick to my statement that if you think this travesty of a society is fine and is in any way acceptable there's something wrong with you (not you personally, of course)

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil
I really don't think it's that good - and I stick to my statement that if you think this travesty of a society is fine and is in any way acceptable there's something wrong with you (not you personally, of course)

What I meant was, could it be better? Yah of course. Could it be worse? Oh it could be a lot worse.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Blue Lion


What I meant was, could it be better? Yah of course. Could it be worse? Oh it could be a lot worse.

It could be orders of magnitude better as well.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil



It could be orders of magnitude better as well.

Well now that we've somewhat agreed on that o.O


What exactly would you have people do?

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Blue Lion



Well now that we've somewhat agreed on that o.O


What exactly would you have people do?

What i've been arguing all along - to start caring about each other.

And I don't mean this in an effeminate touchy-feely way, the problems facing the species are insurmountable if tackled as one block but if tackled on a smaller scale they become manageable.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil


What i've been arguing all along - to start caring about each other.

You're asking a lot, you're asking people to change how they think and live, that's no small feat

[wEvil]

would you?

have you?

I don't think its to ask when it is not only in their own self interest but every being around them too.

It all comes down to wether they will stick to old ways for no reason whatsoever.... in which case they should not be allowed to weigh the rest of us down.

Anyway...i'll have to continue this at a later date - i've got a big drive and a nice week of work waiting for me at the end of it.

Maybe next week?

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by wEvil


I don't think its to ask when it is not only in their own self interest but every being around them too.

And people will argue that

Where are you going?

[wEvil]

I work away from home but this is my last week (at last!!) so it sucks escecially that I have to go back up north (well..to me milton keynes is north) at all.

[Kellan]

Originally posted by wEvil
I work away from home but this is my last week (at last!!) so it sucks escecially that I have to go back up north (well..to me milton keynes is north) at all.

You're working up here in MK? Where, exactly?

(Inside joke - now I really can hunt you down.)

(BTW, if anyone is curious about which side I support in the abortion debate, I'm pro-choice and proud of it.)[/b]

1. Thank you for answering my question before I could pose it.
2. Good man.

3. Su-tehp, your posts on morality and history have been articulate, understandable and intelligent. Thank you for them; I've found them both interesting and encouraging.

[Levyathan]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
No, you should talk to this woman and ask why she is having more children when clearly she can't support them and they_are_dying.

She probably wouldn't know, because if she is in such a situation it means she didn't have proper education. If she did have proper education, she would at least know how to keep her children alive. Now let me see, you'll say this is caused by misgovernment. Don't even bother.

Originally posted by Blue Lion
That isn't Americans putting their noses where it don't belong? I thought we weren't supposed to be meddling with other nations governments?

Unless they have a good deal of some black oily liquid-type substance, you surely mean.

Originally posted by CP5670
That's not what I am saying; how is following the ethics like a super religion helping us in our objective of attaining knowledge?

How can you assume our objective is to attain knowledge? It's obvious that out objective is to survive. If attaining knowledge helps that cause, great, but it doesn't mean it's our new objective. If we didn't have to survive, we should just kill ourselves as soon as we are born.

Originally posted by CP5670
Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing. I said this many times before.

Tell me, then, why attaining knowledge isn't contraditory if it's not for the objective of keeping us alive.

Originally posted by Bobboau
"Because all other objectives are far more contradictory and logically inconsistent (including the survival of the species by itself), and we cannot do nothing."
why do we have to do anything then, why not just kill ourselves to keep from being an illogical inconsistancy

Exactly.

Now the fun part begins.

Originally posted by CP5670
Okay, I am back.

Logically speaking you didn't have to say that, as the single fact of something new being posted by you makes it obvious.

Originally posted by CP5670
I had already pretty much decided that already (anyone who uses something like your second post in this thread in place of an argument is not really worth my, or anyone else's time) but you did not start arguing more until later.

I only argue when it's necessary. Most of the time I just try to have and make fun. I should be the one saying that you're not worth it, it's obvious that nothing can change your disturbed mind, with the possible exception of a drastic personal experience. You don't believe in what people with more experience than you in this area say, even though they live right next to the problem and don't spend their lives at the comfort of their homes going from the computer to the fridge endlessly. By this I'm not implying I'm one of those people, clearly.

Originally posted by CP5670
And you must be having fun too, or you would not be posting.

You want to know why Im posting this? I'm posting this because I'm trying to help you. Help you change your biased opinion about certain things and how they work. Someday you might even be thankful for my intentions.

If I wanted to have fun I'd be spending my time on the internet playing Ultima Online or talking about fun stuff. This thread is serious, not fun. If you consider this subject fun, it tells us something else about you. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

Originally posted by CP5670
That depends on whether or not there is something to learn in the first place. You could, for example, type in a bunch of random characters into your keyboard and try to find some meaning in that, but you probably would not get anywhere soon.

I couldn't care less if you think like that. I know how much sense my posts in that thread made, and I'm not the only one. Keep believing it isn't true, it would be just one more fantasy in your mind.

Originally posted by CP5670
As I see it, you posted some inside joke that would also make sense to some people, but was not really related to the argument.

It might not have been related to the argument, but it did show how much thought you put into your statements. And it was funny.

Originally posted by CP5670
And why would the organism need all the existing people to join when it can simply manufacture new people that are much better suited to it? Once it is started up, it can progress very rapidly. And I doubt that it would need more people beyond a certain point anyway, namely, the maximum value that best balances rapid scientific progression and low maintenance.

If it could make existing people join and manufacture new people at the same time it would gain power at a much higher rate. People would be resources which would go to waste if didn't join. And the maintenance mention brings up a whole new area of discussion. How would it work in order to need external maintenance? Wouldn't it, having more members, create much more resources?

Originally posted by CP5670
And I have played SS2; very nice game.

Oh, so in one thing we both fully agree! It did seem to me like some of your ideas (the concept of joining specifically - "Are we joined?") were based on The Many. And I have to agree it does seem like a perfectly reasonable system, and freaking cool too, but I'm not sure if it's viable and doable. Even if it is, I don't know if it's the best option.

Originally posted by CP5670
That is not important; the rate and direction of change is what counts, and the rule remains that they are quite ready to forsake any freedom for material gain.

Wait, wait. Who says they're ready to forsake any freedom? They might be ready to forsake some amount of freedom, but if they lost all of their freedom they wouldn't have the power to take advantage from this material gain, thus making it useless.

Originally posted by CP5670
The individuals do not need any commitment but to themselves to do this, and it would work in the same way the current civilization formed, where they join in out of a mutual interest alone.

The current civilization formed out of a mutual interest, of course, but in order to attain its objectives each individual needed a commitment to the others, to respect and be respected by them. The ones who didn't agree to this commitment were left out, and represent the criminals of today's society. They broke that commitment, and had to suffer the consequences.

You have to agree that it would be much easier (if not the only possible way) for this organism to be formed if not only the initial individuals shared a mutual interest, but also a commitment with one another. So it seems more likely to me that the ones commited to the species by ethics and morals would take the initiative to create this new system, and the ones who didn't accept it would be left out.

Originally posted by CP5670
Besides, I already said that this is not going to happen for all the people, or even a thousandth of them, but 10 would be enough to get it started, and considering the diversity of opinion in the world, that would be easy to obtain.

If one thousandth of the species decided to form a new being to compete with the other 999 thousandths, I don't think it would survive a very long time, in all seriousness. At its initial stages of development it would be very vulnerable, a good time to be eliminated by a force a thousand times greater than its own.

Originally posted by CP5670
Also, if this is the "foundation of every government", how is it that there exist governments today that do not abide by many of these morals...

You stated it correctly. They do not abide by many of these morals, but certainly do abide by a lot more. The point is, governments need some level of ethics, they can't work in the total absence of morals. If an already formed government lost all of its ethics and morals, the people wouldn't accept the old laws anymore, as there wouldn't exist anything that made them act like they did before. New laws would be created to reflect these changes, and at some point all of them would disappear, leading to anarchy and the end of government.

Originally posted by CP5670
...and still do fine in the material world?

They might do fine, but do they do great? Governments with a higher level of morals do better than the ones with lower levels, as you might have noticed.

Originally posted by CP5670
Next, you will tell me that religion is a "natural survival strategy."

I never said anything about religion, as each individual chooses what he or she should or shouldn't believe in. Religion is not a natural survival strategy, at least not as much as ethics and morals are. Some religions do provide a great deal of support for the continued existance of society, by spreading concepts such as loving not only yourself, but all the others as well. This prevents people from causing harm, and that's beneficial to the species.

Originally posted by CP5670
(and yes, ethics in the sense you speak of is a religion, and stronger and more restrictive than all the others out there combined)

You got it completely wrong, and you exagerated just a little bit in the last part. Morals and ethics represent the mutual objective of a species to survive. Religions spread beliefs that may or may not be of mutual interest, there are so many differences from one another that it's not possible to generalize as much as ethics and morals.

Originally posted by CP5670
Uncommon, maybe, but confusing?

Just tell me how they would become gods and how they didn't have a free will from the first place. It didn't seem like a very serious argument anyway.

Originally posted by CP5670
Depends on whether or not their ancestors and ours were descended from the same species.

Right, so imagine this. Humankind, after a lot of research, is able to make monkeys evolve into a much more advanced race than itself is. Would this new race of monkeys become the true humans?

Originally posted by CP5670
Look at my previous post; they and only they understand what is best for them. How in the world is your conclusion about this being good for them more accurate, or even as accurate, as theirs?

Because their conclusion would result in their death, my conclusion would result in a peaceful productive life. Unless you want to discuss what makes something good or bad, in which case I'd have to ask you (again), why we shouldn't all just kill ourselves.

Originally posted by CP5670
Well, how are the parents more knowledgable about the child's objectives than the child is? Only the child knows what he/she wants and unless the parents are contributing to that objective, they are not helping the child.

The parents are helping the child because they know that the child wouldn't be benefitted in any form by eating dirt. It's the child the one who doesn't want to help him/herself, not the parents. The child's objectives are to cause harm to him/herself, which wouldn't be helpful at all. Not eating dirt offers more advantages than actually eating it, so it's better not to eat it, no matter what the objectives are. By providing the best situation to the child, the parent's are helping him/her.

Originally posted by CP5670
You cannot help someone unless you are contributing to their objective, since that is necessary to define te concepts of good and bad in the first place (suppose a guy wants to kill himself and tried to jump off a cliff, but you try to stop him, it is hurting him, not helping);

Same thing as in my previous paragraph. Would, then, the man be helping himself by commiting suicide? Would death be the best situation in which he could find himself? Are his objectives beneficial to himself?

The proper help in that case would be making him not want to kill himself anymore, not just stopping him from doing it. That's the concept of good and bad.

Originally posted by CP5670
I cannot see why you are having such a hard time understanding this.

Ask yourself, is letting the child eat dirt helpful for him/her? And answer by your real opinion, not trying to prove the point you're making so far, that'd be like cheating yourself.

Originally posted by CP5670
The simple conclusion to this is that individual objectives are meaningless on a social scale, and thus there is no reason to help out individuals.

No reason to help them attain their objectives, you mean. Plenty of reason to actually help them.

Originally posted by CP5670
It is not better for them for the reasons stated above, and I cannot see how it would be better for society either. If you simply kill all the criminals, you will not have to worry about them at all and you will also discourage further crime. Problem solved, no ethics needed.

You would indeed be solving the problem, but would it be the best solution? If the criminals are no longer criminals, but regular working citizens, isn't it better than having a few more corpses in the cemetary, or ashes in the sea? Wouldn't they, by working, contribute to the society? Wouldn't that be a better example for the others?

[Carl]

none of this matters, because the sun will go red giant in 5 billion years, and all life on earth will die.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Levyathan

She probably wouldn't know, because if she is in such a situation it means she didn't have proper education. If she did have proper education, she would at least know how to keep her children alive. Now let me see, you'll say this is caused by misgovernment. Don't even bother.

No, that's her own stupidty Look, if your children are dying, you don't need a college degree to grasp the concept that you shouldn't be having more. You're trying to tell me she should keep having children that will die?

Unless they have a good deal of some black oily liquid-type substance, you surely mean.

No, I meant period, isn't that what everyone is telling us? Or do you mean that we're only allowed to meddle with nations when it isn't in our best interests?

[CP5670]

Let's see what we have here this time...

How can you assume our objective is to attain knowledge? It's obvious that out objective is to survive. If attaining knowledge helps that cause, great, but it doesn't mean it's our new objective. If we didn't have to survive, we should just kill ourselves as soon as we are born.

Tell me, then, why attaining knowledge isn't contraditory if it's not for the objective of keeping us alive.

I did not assume this one; I derived it from a list of other goals and propositions. I will not go into all of the details of the argument concerning knowledge itself (it's very long), but I can quickly tell you why survival alone is insufficient. Survival cannot be the objective alone, because what exactly defines "us" anyway? At the most fundamental level, there is and can be no difference between us and the nearest particle carrying energy until specifically proven otherwise due to the principle of induction. Since we know it is not possible for the particles to be completely destroyed, we do not need to do anything specifically to survive; anything we do will guarantee it. This means that no options have been exhausted yet despite our attempts at reasoning. Now you will probably say that we need to survive and still retain our current form of existence, but is that even possible? If we examine it more carefully, it can be seen that it is not. On one side, remember that change is always there, and probably inevitable; if we stay completely static, at some point, we would have evolved into something new anyway. (it has been scientifically shown that our civilization, or rather, our rate of change, is primarily what has allowed us to stall the progress of evolution) On the other hand, if we continue progressing as we are today, we will still keep evolving, except in the other direction, because this progress of science/technology and knowledge in general is itself a form of evolution. At some point we would have become as completely different and unrecognizable as being actual humans as the humans of today are from, say, rocks, and so it would make no difference which evolutionary path we take unless we consider further objectives. Now how does distinguish between the different "forms" of existence? You will see that it is not possible to lay down anything other than randomly-chosen arbitrary boundaries between one form and another, which have no meaning in the absolute material reality. This completes the deduction. (I dropped the details, but you can get a general idea)

Logically speaking you didn't have to say that, as the single fact of something new being posted by you makes it obvious.

Alright, I will agree there. I was trying to throw in a bit of humor into an otherwise serious-sounding post to balance things out.

I only argue when it's necessary. Most of the time I just try to have and make fun. I should be the one saying that you're not worth it, it's obvious that nothing can change your disturbed mind, with the possible exception of a drastic personal experience. You don't believe in what people with more experience than you in this area say, even though they live right next to the problem and don't spend their lives at the comfort of their homes going from the computer to the fridge endlessly. By this I'm not implying I'm one of those people, clearly.

And the necessity arises from the objective of having fun; what's your point? Unless you can logically argue your point, it is for all purposes incorrect. I could just as easily say that you are the one with the "disturbed mind" without changing any of the words around and so it is effectively a petty insult. When people resort to such arguments as "more experience" and "comfort of home" (trust me, I have heard this many, many times), it is because they are running out of other, more sensible arguments. I have no reason to think that this case is any different. Better think up of some new arguments...

You want to know why Im posting this? I'm posting this because I'm trying to help you. Help you change your biased opinion about certain things and how they work. Someday you might even be thankful for my intentions.

Okay, I was laughing for some time when I saw this one. And I suppose bin Laden is also helping everyone in the world by killing them in the name of Allah. Regarding bias, why don't you practice what you preach?

If I wanted to have fun I'd be spending my time on the internet playing Ultima Online or talking about fun stuff. This thread is serious, not fun. If you consider this subject fun, it tells us something else about you. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

If that is more fun, why are you not doing it? Nobody is telling you to come here instead. I do indeed consider this subject fun, which is why I am into general philosophy in the first place. And tell me what exactly defines this distinction you are making between serious things and fun things; I try to take everything in life with the same amount of seriousness/humor, and so it means nothing to me. (hey, even your brother Styxx doesn't take these arguments seriously; follow his example)

I couldn't care less if you think like that. I know how much sense my posts in that thread made, and I'm not the only one. Keep believing it isn't true, it would be just one more fantasy in your mind.

In other words, you concede my point. Now get someone else who understood your one-sentence posts and have them explain it.

It might not have been related to the argument, but it did show how much thought you put into your statements. And it was funny.

If it was not related to the argument, why was it in there in the first place? The very likely reason as stated above is that you ran out of other arguments to put in.

If it could make existing people join and manufacture new people at the same time it would gain power at a much higher rate. People would be resources which would go to waste if didn't join. And the maintenance mention brings up a whole new area of discussion. How would it work in order to need external maintenance? Wouldn't it, having more members, create much more resources?

I am not talking about external, but internal maintenance. It would need more resources to keep running, but humans, while providing for the objective, also take up resources to operate. Besides, I am not sure that after a point it would even use humans anymore, or it would use a different kind of sub-organism (a "new" human) and produce more as necessary. (and upgrading an existing one might actually be more costly than just cloning an existing one from scratch, just like personal computers today) Eventually, the super-organism may indeed end up engulfing the entire universe, but by that time it would have grown powerful enough compared to the individuals that there would really be nothing to stop it.

Oh, so in one thing we both fully agree! It did seem to me like some of your ideas (the concept of joining specifically - "Are we joined?") were based on The Many. And I have to agree it does seem like a perfectly reasonable system, and freaking cool too, but I'm not sure if it's viable and doable. Even if it is, I don't know if it's the best option.

State your better option and reasons, then. Although actually, I had these ideas before I ever heard of the game.

Wait, wait. Who says they're ready to forsake any freedom? They might be ready to forsake some amount of freedom, but if they lost all of their freedom they wouldn't have the power to take advantage from this material gain, thus making it useless.

And how does losing all freedom imply the absence of that power? I say they are ready to forsake any and all freedom, because they have already forsaken a lot, and if only these variables are taken into account, the induction procedure of science would suggest it as so.

The current civilization formed out of a mutual interest, of course, but in order to attain its objectives each individual needed a commitment to the others, to respect and be respected by them. The ones who didn't agree to this commitment were left out, and represent the criminals of today's society. They broke that commitment, and had to suffer the consequences.

The commitment grew over time as people got used to it and thus started to believe it was the only "natural thing" to do; they did not have any commitment when the system first started, but a mutual interest and a mutual interest alone.

You have to agree that it would be much easier (if not the only possible way) for this organism to be formed if not only the initial individuals shared a mutual interest, but also a commitment with one another. So it seems more likely to me that the ones commited to the species by ethics and morals would take the initiative to create this new system, and the ones who didn't accept it would be left out.

That might be the case, but the hard truth is that the individuals did not have this commitment to each other, and no amount of simple coaxing is going to get them to do it today either. (that is, everyone)

If one thousandth of the species decided to form a new being to compete with the other 999 thousandths, I don't think it would survive a very long time, in all seriousness. At its initial stages of development it would be very vulnerable, a good time to be eliminated by a force a thousand times greater than its own.

Yes it would, and it would come out victorious. Think of this: suppose a group of ten or fifteen scientists get together and try to build a new super-weapon to take out the planet, along with a super-shield that can fully stand up to the weapon. They work in total secrecy, and when they are finished, they give all world governments an ultimatum to surrender unconditionally to their purposes in X number of days or they will detonate the superbomb and destroy everything else on the Earth. Nobody knows where they are, and time is running out; whether or not they give in to the demands or not, they will lose. (either way) I have said this many times before here: one man with the appropriate technology is a god compared one without it, and this man can take on the entire remainder of the world.

You stated it correctly. They do not abide by many of these morals, but certainly do abide by a lot more. The point is, governments need some level of ethics, they can't work in the total absence of morals. If an already formed government lost all of its ethics and morals, the people wouldn't accept the old laws anymore, as there wouldn't exist anything that made them act like they did before. New laws would be created to reflect these changes, and at some point all of them would disappear, leading to anarchy and the end of government.

They might do fine, but do they do great? Governments with a higher level of morals do better than the ones with lower levels, as you might have noticed.

That is not exactly the case; look at all of human history, not just that of today. And the only reason they have the "absolute morals" is that the people are moralistic and will take it better if the ideas exist in the laws as well. (in the same religious form) Suppose, over a period of many decades, you change around the existing culture with heavy propagandic conditioning so that no morals exist. The people then will not like the morals anymore in that sense and will not care if they are removed from the government as well.

I never said anything about religion, as each individual chooses what he or she should or shouldn't believe in. Religion is not a natural survival strategy, at least not as much as ethics and morals are. Some religions do provide a great deal of support for the continued existance of society, by spreading concepts such as loving not only yourself, but all the others as well. This prevents people from causing harm, and that's beneficial to the species.

If ethics is a "natural survival strategy," then so it must be for religion as well, or at least certain religions, because quite frankly, ethics in taken in the absolute is a religion, and of the worst sort too. And now each individual chooses what they "should" believe in, eh? This ties in to another sub-argument below; what if the child "believes" in eating dirt?

You got it completely wrong, and you exagerated just a little bit in the last part. Morals and ethics represent the mutual objective of a species to survive. Religions spread beliefs that may or may not be of mutual interest, there are so many differences from one another that it's not possible to generalize as much as ethics and morals.

Morals and ethics taken in a religious sense may represent whatever, but they simply do not work so nicely in reality. They will only contribute to the survival of the species if everyone without exception abides by them, and even then only as a general rule and not an absolute limitation. (they need to be ready to break all the moral rules at any time) They will not work otherwise; in fact, they will lead to the destruction of those who do abide by them (1930s India, anyone?), and so they are actually an impairment in any such situation. Since the condition stated earlier of having everyone go by the morals reliably while still retaining "individual choice" is next to impossible, the morals can go out the window. And if ethics can be "generalized" so nicely, why cannot other religions as well?

Just tell me how they would become gods and how they didn't have a free will from the first place. It didn't seem like a very serious argument anyway.

They become gods compared to everyone who is not part of the large unit since they can leave behind much of their lives' cares and can concentrate on pursuing a common objective, and they do not have free will because their so-called will is completely determined by their surrounding culture as they live their lives along with the laws of science. And the last statement depends on how you define a "very serious" argument.

Right, so imagine this. Humankind, after a lot of research, is able to make monkeys evolve into a much more advanced race than itself is. Would this new race of monkeys become the true humans?

Actually, these guys would technically be an amalgamation of both humans and monkeys and thereby retain characteristics of both, although they would still predominantly be monkey descendants because materially speaking, that is what they came from.

Because their conclusion would result in their death, my conclusion would result in a peaceful productive life. Unless you want to discuss what makes something good or bad, in which case I'd have to ask you (again), why we shouldn't all just kill ourselves.

See below for the top part; see above for the bottom part.

The parents are helping the child because they know that the child wouldn't be benefitted in any form by eating dirt. It's the child the one who doesn't want to help him/herself, not the parents. The child's objectives are to cause harm to him/herself, which wouldn't be helpful at all. Not eating dirt offers more advantages than actually eating it, so it's better not to eat it, no matter what the objectives are. By providing the best situation to the child, the parent's are helping him/her.

Who are we to decide that what we consider an advantage is also considered as such by the child? The parents are helping themselves here, because they are attaining their own objective of keeping the child safe.

Same thing as in my previous paragraph. Would, then, the man be helping himself by commiting suicide? Would death be the best situation in which he could find himself? Are his objectives beneficial to himself?

Yes they are, because the whole concept of benefit (and loss) only has any meaning when an objective is first defined.

The proper help in that case would be making him not want to kill himself anymore, not just stopping him from doing it. That's the concept of good and bad.

And how is this any more "proper" than letting him die?

Ask yourself, is letting the child eat dirt helpful for him/her? And answer by your real opinion, not trying to prove the point you're making so far, that'd be like cheating yourself.

No, I would not say that, because the child's objective might be to eat everything he/she sees, so he/she is working towards attaining the objective by eating the dirt. Therefore, it is beneficial. And yes, this is my "real opinion;" note that I also said that individual objectives/benefits have no meaning in an absolute sense.

No reason to help them attain their objectives, you mean. Plenty of reason to actually help them.

And how would you be helping them otherwise?

You would indeed be solving the problem, but would it be the best solution? If the criminals are no longer criminals, but regular working citizens, isn't it better than having a few more corpses in the cemetary, or ashes in the sea? Wouldn't they, by working, contribute to the society? Wouldn't that be a better example for the others?

Is it worth all the trouble of explaining all this to them to have a few more lower-class job positions filled up, where they would still not really be reliable and trustworthy citizens due to their previous records and thus would need to be kept under constant surveillance? I think not.

I suppose that if you were alive 60 years ago, you would have also tried to "convince" Hitler that he is "wrong" while he goes about destroying everything.

Keep those arguments coming!

(this has to be one of the longest posts I have ever written, even by my standards)

[Bobboau]

do you think that you, or more acurately, the human race is "better" than every other speces on the planet?
I am not meaning this in a sence of more intelegent, or more powerful or best suited to survival, but more of a being above the rest on some sort of psudo spiritual level,
that there is something speacal about us

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Kellan


You're working up here in MK? Where, exactly?

(Inside joke - now I really can hunt you down.)



1. Thank you for answering my question before I could pose it.
2. Good man.

3. Su-tehp, your posts on morality and history have been articulate, understandable and intelligent. Thank you for them; I've found them both interesting and encouraging.

Its not actually MK, its closer to Bedford (biggleswade, in fact ;p )
Before you say its nowhere near there - my geography is useless!

2.

I have to side with the pro-choice band.  If you want to pump the world full of unwanted kids then you're either one yourself and want everyone to be subjected to the same pain when they found out and are thus a sadist or you haven't thought it through properly.

You cannot balance a bundle of cells, no matter what it might grow into, against the possibility the adult host could not give the child a "good existance".  

I define "good existance" in relative terms.

[CP5670]

do you think that you, or more acurately, the human race is "better" than every other speces on the planet?
I am not meaning this in a sence of more intelegent, or more powerful or best suited to survival, but more of a being above the rest on some sort of psudo spiritual level,
that there is something speacal about us

You talking to me? It depends on the purpose, i.e. better for what...on any truly objective level, we are of course not just plain better, but yeah, I could say we are better suited to the completion of certain goals.

[Bobboau]

yes well you seem to be defineing the meaning of our exsistance as the persuit of knowlege,
and you are saying that evolutionary survival is not sufishant indicating that you see our race as being somehow better than anything that has ever exsisted and ever will exsist on our world

I on the other hand make no assertions that we must have any perpose, or that we are destand for anything greater than any  other animal, I do not view humanity as being much if any "better" than a chimp or a rat or a microbe, sure were smarter, we can do things other animals can't, we're more rational than any other organisim knowen, but this does not make us better as there are trade offs,
as there are for warm blooded animals needing more food,
being smarter requires many suportive factors, including a number of pychological ones,
such desires as being part of something bigger, having a perpose,
these are the things that religons have used to controle people for thousands of years, and just now it seems like there is enough understanding of the situation that at least part of the world may be able to get out
have you ever considered that you're vision of a perfict human culture is in fact nothing more than a religon in and of it'self,
you are specifying a goal, you are subverting humans into a larger whole, if you look at the behavior of this beast it will act in almost an identical manner as any of the major world religons

you seem to be advocating a world of perfict logic as a good thing,
while at the same time saying that there is no "good",
you also seem to be ignoring the fact that you are an animal, subject to the same instinctive behavors as every other animal,

by the way you are talking, you seem to be asserting that we have a sole, but that the sole is rational thought, that there is a moral imperitive in seeking a logical state, when in fact there is no logical advantage to exsistance over non exsistance,
 and you also seem to think that we can survive in a socal environment without an internal preset standards of right and wrong, wich exsist only in our minds, but we are human so these consepts do effect us and will always effect us,
the only way you would be able to remove ethics from humanity is by ripping out nearly all preprogramed instinct, wich would leave only a unmotivated uncareing (about anything, including logic and knologe) and nonsocal animal that would probly die of starvation as soon as you stoped forceing food down it's throught

[CP5670]

Some good points this time around...

yes well you seem to be defineing the meaning of our exsistance as the persuit of knowlege,
and you are saying that evolutionary survival is not sufishant indicating that you see our race as being somehow better than anything that has ever exsisted and ever will exsist on our world

eh...what does knowledge have to do with a master species? We are probably better suited to it that anything that has existed so far (based on how far back our understanding goes, at least), but there could well exist far more superior species in the future. These could grow right out of the various divisions of humans themselves, or from another species, or from whatever else. But in the end, all species are the same thing, so it would not make any difference if we are being this generalized.

I on the other hand make no assertions that we must have any perpose, or that we are destand for anything greater than any other animal

That makes perfect sense actually, but this is one of these annoying aspects of this particular problem: we literally cannot hold a state of indeterminacy here, as we can in some other problems. If we could somehow do nothing (nothing that is not something; almost logically contradictory) in life, I would of course advocate doing absolutely nothing, but we have no choice here.

I do not view humanity as being much if any "better" than a chimp or a rat or a microbe, sure were smarter, we can do things other animals can't, we're more rational than any other organisim knowen, but this does not make us better as there are trade offs, as there are for warm blooded animals needing more food,
being smarter requires many suportive factors, including a number of pychological ones

Exactly, that is what I mean when I say that "good" and "bad" do not mean anything except in relation to specific logical propositions, and even then it is not always true.

such desires as being part of something bigger, having a perpose,
these are the things that religons have used to controle people for thousands of years, and just now it seems like there is enough understanding of the situation that at least part of the world may be able to get out
have you ever considered that you're vision of a perfict human culture is in fact nothing more than a religon in and of it'self,
you are specifying a goal, you are subverting humans into a larger whole, if you look at the behavior of this beast it will act in almost an identical manner as any of the major world religons

Actually, the purpose is whatever you make of it. For example, you could use a math book not only to learn math, but also to throw at people, as a paperweight, as a doorstop, to write on, and so on. Which is the "true" purpose? All of them are. Same goes for individual people, as well as the society. All of this is of course not something that I want or need anyone to do; I couldn't care less where the world or humanity goes in the future on a personal level. We are talking more about what is, not what we want, and why it is so; this is precisely what defines ideas of science and sets them apart from religions. We do not want them to do this; they will do this. Now, given the circumstances so far, it is likely that humanity will follow a path that will eventually culminates in what I said earlier. Of course, another possibility is that they will all die out by any of a number of reasons. Or they might evolve into something similar to one of the other animals on the planet. Or something else. If that happens, then so be it; I don't care. I just want to know.

you seem to be advocating a world of perfict logic as a good thing,
while at the same time saying that there is no "good",
you also seem to be ignoring the fact that you are an animal, subject to the same instinctive behavors as every other animal,

Actually, I don't think that there is any good or bad in a universal sense, i.e. for all purposes, but one can sometimes get a "good" or "bad" for specific purposes using the logic rules. In the end, one could say (and many have said) that all deduction boils down to the validity of the axioms or assumptions, but of course, all of science is unfortunately like this, and we must assume if we want to discover. (this is a basic principle of scientific philosophy) Of course, it is a good idea to generalize the assumptions as much as possible so to keep them at a minimum number.

I am indeed just another human and I have the same ethical "disease" that you all do, but as I said earlier, I can still think hypothetically with rationality, as can anyone else. I simply am unable to actually do anything according to that in reality, but that hardly matters in this case.

by the way you are talking, you seem to be asserting that we have a sole, but that the sole is rational thought, that there is a moral imperitive in seeking a logical state, when in fact there is no logical advantage to exsistance over non exsistance

A soul? If there is any "soul," it must boil down into matter in the end (or the other way around, which amounts to the same thing), since that would not fit with the holistic principle implied by induction. There is no "moral imperative" in seeking a logical state, but the logical state is unfortunately a necessary assumption (and more than that: a self-implying assumption that "proves itself"), because without it, all thoughts or deductions of any kind would be meaningless, and we would not be able to get anywhere. Even the very action of searching for a rule to start our deductions requires some logic. I cannot think of how deductions would be without logic, and there probably would not be anyone who can go by something aside from logic, but if there is, and they still get results (and the concept of a result is itself logical) then they are equally correct. (noting that correctness is logical as well)

and you also seem to think that we can survive in a socal environment without an internal preset standards of right and wrong, wich exsist only in our minds, but we are human so these consepts do effect us and will always effect us,
the only way you would be able to remove ethics from humanity is by ripping out nearly all preprogramed instinct, wich would leave only a unmotivated uncareing (about anything, including logic and knologe) and nonsocal animal that would probly die of starvation as soon as you stoped forceing food down it's throught

What would the concepts have to do with "being human?" As I said, the human in theory could do anything, all of which could be considered human. Suppose the prehistoric humans had deduced that it is "good" to bash their heads against a rock exactly three times every day (I'm just making up an example). Then today, doing exactly this would have been considered "human" and anything else would be "inhuman." Same goes with the morals. There is very little preprogrammed instinct, and it all has to do with personal survival, not the survival of the species; everything else comes in later as the brain acquires information. (the brain starts its assimilation procedure the moment the human is born)

[CP5670]

I have to side with the pro-choice band. If you want to pump the world full of unwanted kids then you're either one yourself and want everyone to be subjected to the same pain when they found out and are thus a sadist or you haven't thought it through properly.

You cannot balance a bundle of cells, no matter what it might grow into, against the possibility the adult host could not give the child a "good existance".

I define "good existance" in relative terms.

By the way, on this point, guess what side I am on.