From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 22:15:28 MDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Brett Paatsch
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:35 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: To thine ownself be true?
> Paul Grant <shade999@optonline.net> writes:
> > the limit on this line of reasoning though, is in the duration of
> > the act .... for instance, say you were prescient, and saw a man
> > who was going to mug you (with a knife) 10 minutes
> > from now, and hit him over a head; then you would be
> > acting morally (given ur prescience). Lets say you are
> > not prescient, and you hit him over the head on the
> > possibility that he might mug you; than you are acting
> > immorally.
>
> <brett> In the real world, where our moral judgement is supposed to
> assist us, (or at least that is my contention) we are
> *never* fully prescient and so there is always *some*
> chance the suspected or likely mugger may not in fact
> mug us.
>
> <me> perhaps; in real life, I generally prepare for the attack, rather
> than instigate a pre-emptive attack.
<brett> There a couple of ramifications to this. First you leave your
opponent with more degrees of freedom and more power than if you take
the initiative. So you take on more risk.
<me> hardly; practically speaking, it means knowing when to attack, and
when not to attack (based on your enemies movements).
It is a fallacy to think that because you are reacting you are
necessarily @ a weaker advantage; more often than not the
one moving with "more degrees of freedom" is at the disadvantage because
so little is known (certain). I just started
reading sun tzu (a recent translation) the art of war, and I am
impressed with the clarity of his understanding of warfare.
he reaches a similar conclusion; that most warfare is decided prior to
the actual conflict, generally by skillful manipulation
of the situation (by a talented general) and by not rushing foolishly
into a situation where there are too many unknowns.
<brett> Second would you not agree that the circumstances change when
one has others under ones authority or
control like a leader, a military commander, or a president who has to
be able to think in terms of minimising loss
of life sometimes when the other is clearly intending on taking life.
<me> no :) I run my life like I would run an army :) that is to say that
my personal decisions affect all those
around me, and so, I take my actions seriously. I take pains to avoid
unnecessary suffering, intentional
or otherwise.
> <brett> Assuming one values oneself, how can we do
> otherwise than weigh up the chances as best we can?
> My answer - we can't. Therefore the point becomes
> how best we can.
>
> <me> learn to recognize (and avoid) abuse and abusive behaviors..
> that includes learning not to abuse others in an attempt to prevent
> said abuse.
<brett> Where this works and it often would its laudable. Sometimes
though the abusive behavior cannot be avoided. Such is the human
condition. Some folks will go out of their way to remove the option of
avoiding them.
<me> I'll agree with this statement; but they're attempt to impose their
presence on you despite your attempts to avoid them is in and of itself
a declarative action;
I have no problem scratching an itch, preferably with a 10 pound
sledgehammer. I hate dealing with annoyances.
<brett> The irony of being free is that others are two and the person
who decides to compete or predate on one immediately reduces ones
degrees of freedom. The reactor has less practical choices than the
actor. The actor can compete, cooperate or ignore. The reactor can be
forced to compete (or be defeated), cooperate or not, but hardly ignore
a person determined to compete.
<me> hahaha :) I think that this is a fundamental difference between me
and
other people; I believe you can sedate the things you hate; others do
not. Its
come up on several occassions.... Suffice it to say that in my case, I
never ever
have to deal with people I don't want to deal with (law
enforcement/violent
crime excepted sans prep time).
> <brett> At this point I think its worth distinguishing between a moral
> code, which may be a preconsidered framework that one uses to help
> reach a particular moral judgement and moral judgements per se.
>
> <brett> There are *no* moral codes that provide definitive answers to
> all the moral dilemmas that arise just as there are no maps on a scale
> of 1:1, therefore whenever a particular moral judgement is required
> there is no dodging that the subjective individual must make it
> which or without the benefit of a more or less
> sophisticated moral code.
>
> <me> I see things in black and white; I don't have
> a particularly sophisticated moral code; just a
> sophisticated world-view. The rules themselves are
> quite easy. I might add that you can generate a complex world view
> from an array of black/white values... and if it is a matter of black
> and white values, then my moral code does have a 1-to-1
> correspondence.
<brett> Then if you've codified to 1-to-1 (ie. predecided what you
will do in all possible moral dilemnas) then can the future
not throw you a curly one at all that will require you to
make a new judgement?
<me> It isn't predecided; it is partitioned what is good
and what is bad in reference too different axis; the
actual selection of my own responses happens according
to a simple ruleset that operates on these states. So throwing
me into different situations isn't a big deal; I'll identify whether
or not the situation sucks (by my standards), what available options
are there (from my skillset, materials, and the environment), what the
projected state would be for each of those actions, and whether or
not they would satisfy my own needs (which may or may not depending
on the severity of my situation, include the welfare of others) or that
of others. practically speaking, I am very rarely thrust into
situtations
that can't be analyzed as such and yield a satisfactory action. In
fact,
I am fully capable of generating (apparent) conflicting actions when
dealing with seperate parties which are in reality, united under a
general
operating principle.. Generally such instances are preceded by, "if I
was
in your shoes..." The closest I come to moral crisis is what I would
term
"games"; generally they are very abstract points that have not had
resolution yet based on my experiences; they fundamentally alter the
set of possible outcomes :)
<brett> For instance say that IVF technology was improved to
the point that a given embryo was more likely to go
through to a health birth than the more than 70% from
memory that naturally abort.
<brett> What would be your moral position if you were a
superior court judge and a state governement wanted
to pass a law that all reproduction should be via IVF
as that wasted less embryos than reproduction by the
natural method. Would your moral code cover that
- with the consequence that all sex for pleasure must
involve careful steps to avoid reckless and risky
procreation or would you have to think anew guided
by your moral code perhaps but not being able to do
a one to one look up to say point 356 of your specific
code?
<me> it depends; are you asking me as a person,
or me as a citizen responsible for crafting
policy to be inflicted (and I choose inflicted
on purpose) on others...
<me> if you ask me as a person; I would say present
your evidence and I *may* choose to do as u wish;
in this case I am *already* planning on procreating
through IVF :) If you ask me as a citizen crafting
policy, I would say, nobody has a right to limit how
you choose to procreate, short of physical rape (e.g.
date rape is crap IMHO).
> > Lets say you are not prescient, and he is mugging
> > someone else (as it is apparent to you from your
> > vantage point), and you intervene by hitting him
> > over the head... Then you're actions may or may
> > not be immoral, on the basis that he may not be
> > the one doing the mugging, but rather, may be the
> > muggee.
>
> <brett> Actually I'd say in the circumstances you describe the person
> *has* acted morally, but with poor judgement, so poor in fact that
> they may be found to have acted illegally.
>
> <me> you would; I would not; the reason being that the
> proper action is to act to separate them, without harming
> one party or the another precisely because you are ill-informed.
<brett> Hmm. I'm around 6 foot, weight around 90 kilo and
am a former state karate champion. Yet there are some
males that are so much stronger than me that I would not
be able to separate them as you say.
<me> we have a saying in egyptian; "the army teaches
you to improvise".... can't seperate them, locate
resources that will enable you to seperate them;
this may be police, threatening to run them both down
if they don't stop, or calling for nearby passengers :)
I am a firm believer that the reason why life sucks is
that most people do not do their duty in establishing a
reasonable operating environment; sometimes the police
are not available, and you have a duty in ceasing harmful
activities in progress.
<brett> Yet as a third
party coming onto the scene with them grappling with
other I would in all likelihood be able to render on or
the other unconscious having the advantage of the
element of surprise (as indeed could my youngest
sister, who is much lighter and has no special training
in any martial arts, if she kept her wits about her).
<brett> Your scenario contains details for you that I didn't
see. Those details change the context. One must
act in real time within the context with the options
that one has. If the two protagonists were school
boys then separating them might be relatively easy
and involve only words. It depends.
<me> well I've been thrust into that situation on several
occassions :) and I've never had a problem... granted
no weapons were involved. That also included random
strangers btw :) The point is to stop the escalation
without being partial to either of the combatants, because
you realize that you are *NOT* in full possession of the
facts.
> You should have a duty (under your moral code)
> to negotiate in good faith, and having said that,
> you have an obligation to do due diligence in an
> attempt to (as completely as possible) understand
> the situation. Properly exercised restraint is a
> remarkeably under-appreciated quality.
<brett> Agreed. But "due" diligence depends on the
circumstances. Too much diligence, too much
forebearance is also a risk.
<me> agreed; there is a time for action; I would say
err on the side of too much diligence than too less.
The beauty of it is, though, that with more experience
enforcing a rigid structure as such, the better you as
an individual will be in recognizing (gauging accurately)
exactly when you have reached that point of due
diligence :) I believe that the worst thing you can do as
a person (both for yourself (directly, and indirectly) and others)
is adopt an inconsistent enforcement of any particular policy.
<brett> The weighting of the
risks is a moral judgement that the individual
cannot get away from as no code can fully
anticipate all contingencies.
<me> I shift the preponderance of the work towards
establishing the environment you are in (accurately);
so my moral code is simple and complete :) [ergo sophisiticated
world-view statement above].
> you can't have a good moral code if you're judgement
> is consistently unable to judge according to that moral code..
<brett> I think I see your point. A better code, one that endorses
reasoning rather than believing as a means to making decisions, is a
better guide to moral behavior, but we can never have a code so good
that the need for moral judgments disappear altogether unless there are
no new challenges thrown at us, like the challenges that technologies
might throw up.
<me> its more basic than that; its an age-old systems problem; if a
system is theoretically perfect, but always implemented poorly (due to
agent errors),
can it really be considered theoretically perfect? would not a system
that inherently compensated for agent errors be even better? What if
you
could implement this uber-algorithm, but couldn't gaurantee its
compensations... would you still consider it theoretically perfect
because it
explicity addressed the tendency towards agent (human) error and sought
to correct them? What if you could gaurantee that system did
[eventually] correct said behaviors, but no time frame was given in
regards to its convergence to optimal corrections, would be even better
than ur uber-algorithm? All important aspects to be considered when
choosing to adopt or reject any particular moral system....
<brett> [snip]... But the brighter more abstract thinkers that are
likely to rise to positions of power are more likely to be better
abstract thinkers and reasoners. (They may also be better rationalizers
on occassion but a rationalization is a deceit one practices on
oneself). Your rationalisation won't convince me and vice versa. You or
I can have a moral discussion and seek to change each others views using
reason and a common language but if either of us held that we were
absolutely right to believe what we believe then there would be little
possibility of communication and cooperation between us.
<me> first; I would say that abstract thinkers do not have a tendency to
rise to positions of power anymore than anyone else;
second; I would say it depends on whether or not the agent "thinking
that they were absolutely right" thought that naturally
implied that the search for disproof was pointless or not... for
instance, if you asked me to hold a conversation on
whether or not 2+2 = 4 in decimal arithmetic as its currently defined, I
would probably not choose to engage in such a
conversation; if you asked me if 2+2 = 4 in all cases, I would, because
their you *may* be talking about some unifying principle
irrespective of any particular algebra (ergo 2+2 may not be equal to 4
in all cases is a true (and absolutely correct) statement,
but you may be discussing a particular aspect of it that may be at a
higher level than the statement itself).
> <brett>If one is running around in 2003 holding that the 10
> commandments are all the moral code that is needed one is going to
> come up against some particularly curly challenges in interpreting how
> to operationalise the directive that though shalt not kill.
>
> <brett>Even this simple edict is subject to interpretation. Life in
> 2003 is known to take place on more than the organismic level. Cells
> are alive. And human cancer cells are human life.
>
> <me> sure if you don't consider that human cancer cells replicate
> through meisos rather than fertilization. of course (and this would be
> VERY interesting); what would happen if a cancer colony was able to
> generate say sperm.... would it be considered life... intriguing
> thought.
>
> <brett>Clearly it is absurb to argue that a cancer cell or a multiples
> of them are of moral weight with a person dying of cancer. Yet this is
> not much of an exaggeration beyond the proposition that say all
> embryos are a form of human life when by human life what is obviously
> meant is personhood.
<me> trust me, I understand the distinction between women as life
support
for a fetus and a fetus as collection of foreign cells in a parasitic
arrangement
with its hosts :) suffice it to say that in certain cases, a cancer
cell may
actually be more valuable than the host it is living on... but that
follows
from my (reasonable) assumption that we're all going to die anyway :)
For instance, there is a line of skin cells that are cancerous that are
actually harvested for skin grafts on burn victims.. they are
particularly
interesting because they don't raise any immune response from
individuals
(thus making them extremely valuable for their intended use).
> <me> I say tear it out of the womb and see if it survives unaided. if
> it does, boom, human being. if it doesn't, well then, at best it was
> an incomplete human being who died. There is no inherent reason to
> relegate women to the equivalent of biological life carriers.
>
> <brett>
> Before laws can be set that codify legally what may and
> may not be done it is prudent to have a moral disucssion where the
> words we use do not obfuscate the reals issues at hand. Issues such as
> how does a civil society weight the rights or potential persons
> (embryos, fetus etc at different stages). When we do not decide or
> address these questions public policy continues to be made on
> the basis of outdated moral and legal codes. And persons
> suffer needlessly.
<me> I would agree :) ergo my suggestion for a clear, unambivalent
test,
tending towards reserving the right for any person to make their own
moral decisions rather than a state. If it lives, its a human being...
if it dies, it is not. If god wanted it to be considered a human being,
he would have helped it live :) I see no conflict between that and any
of the traditional moral codes currently running amok. God never said,
thou shalt not maim; he said, thou shalt not kill. Any damage done to
the fetus after being ripped out of the womb would be incidental to
the "moral" <smirk> ethic currently employed.
> <me> Oh I would agree :) regarding a code of laws being unduly
> influenced by any one particular moral code. Personally, I don't think
> laws should attempt to legislate morality. It is up to people to do
> that.
<brett> Yes. And if we consider that each of us is a person
we get to "to thine ownself be true".
<me> well we agree on that part :)
> <brett> Do you think there is a moral sphere separate from the legal
> sphere? Some apparently don't. I think the legal sphere is smaller
> than the morals sphere.
>
> <me> I think the two are completely seperate systems; that is not to
> say a legal code cannot borrow from an established moral code (or vice
> versa in cases where moral codes are not derived from an unchangeable
> word of god).
<brett> Agreed. Interestingly though legal systems do seem to put a
higher or more
formal emphasis on reasoning and the processes by which conclusions are
reached.
<me> thats incidental; legal systems generally attempt to be
accountable; that requires consistency,
and consistency can only come from particular formal systems (past
draconion kill everyone statements) :)
<brett> Juries work to beyond "reasonable" doubt standards not to mere
"belief".
<me> but fundamentally juries decision of reasonable doubt or not is a
belief on their parts..
> > > In relation to your secondary point (stated in this letter); I
> > > really don't think morality has anything necessarily to do with
> > > self-delusion, or the acknowledgement thereof. Or rather, there is
> > > no truth that states necessarily you have to be honest, ergo an
> > > act
>
> > > of dishonesty (as it relates to self-delusion) does not violate
> > > any particularly great truth.
> >
> > <brett> First the status of morality and the rationality of ethics
> > is pretty widely regarded at least so far as I am aware in
> > philosophical circles as being almost a matter of opinion.
> > (eg. Bertrand Russell. History of Western Philosophy).
> >
> > <me> I'm sure it is; until you run into an event that requires faith
> > or belief outside of rationality.
>
> <brett> Actually I think BR would hold the line even in the face of
> your example. But BR overlooked a few things as Godel pointed out.
> Maybe he abandoned the search for a rational ethics too early.
>
> <me> I never read BR so I can't really comment on his particular
> philosophical bent. my circuit on philosophy keeps getting delayed; I
> can't stand wading through stuff
> thats no relevant (given my stripped down operating assumptions). I
> think someday
> I'll get bored enough to get to the juicy parts [probably in some
> condensed
> version of all the philosophies].
<brett> Its been argued that all academic disciplines are descendants of
philosophy.
I am interested in philosophy not because it it esoteric though it can
be but
because it can suggest solutions to problems.
<me> historically speaking, likely :) theoretically speaking, math is
more important than
philosophy (IMHO, but only because I would like to be accurate) :) I'm
interested
in philosophy in that I think philosophy is a commoners pursuit just as
much as its
an academics or nobles. Or rather it *should* be :) As it is
practiced now, most
philosophy discussions end up invoking the thoughts of long-dead people
rather
than concentrating on using available resources (cognitive, historical)
to identify
key problems.
<me> put another way, I would rather talk to a person who has rederived
the philosophers
works independantly, rather than someone who has adopted them based on
extensive
reading of said philosophers (and ergo, has not really contributed to
them).
<brett> My interest in morality and ethics for instance pretty much goes
back to a desire to
build stronger societies and more effective cooperatives because in this
way I can do more,
be more and enjoy doing it better.
<me> for me it was a search for policy :) it is an active attempt to
remove the crap currently
floating in my environment (from my point of view, of course) :)
<brett> On the specific point I would say that my code would
say that self delusion is immoral. Thats what I'd endeavor
to teach children but I'd also point out that its nature
and in some circumstances moral judgements that take
in the fuller context and detail than any moral code
(that is codified) are going to be refinements.
<me> I would endeavor to teach children above all else, make sure its
functional;
always search for an objective measure to test for ur situation, and
alwas attempt
to find optimal solutions that do not unnecesarily inflict needless
suffering for
others, nor impose needless limitations on urself. And have fun :)
> and yes, you can make a decision to hallucinate...
> same as you can wake up (out of the equivalent
> of a dream) when you are rescued.
<brett> Perhaps we have different concepts of what
constitutes an hallucination. I don't think
fantasy = hallucination. I think hallucination is
likely to have a medical/physiological cause and
not be volitional.
<me> hallucinations may have a physiological cause;
however they are not necessarily the only cause. There
is a whole subfield of perception devoted to determining
how u think affects (internal mental states) how you perceive
stimulus... If you can manipulate your own (or anothers)
internal environment, you can achieve real hallucinations
(equivalent to one that is induced by a somatic condition, or drug).
> <brett>
> Whether it would in fact yeild the best outcome for
> you is not the point as the facts of the outcome are
> not knowable to you at the time you decide.
>
> <me> I would say that they are; I would say that the
> only reason to willing self-delude yourself via fantasy
> or whatever is specifically because you have examined
> the outcomes and decided that reality sucked and you could do better.
<brett> I see. You are interchanging fantasy and self-delusion. I
tend to think of fantasy as suspension of disbelief. One
knows one is doing it and one is doing it for fun.
<me> no :) I'm not :) I'm saying that some people can subsume themselves
into their fantasies, effectively hallucinating.
Self-delusion on the other hand - one probably suspects
one is doing it at some level unless ones rational aspects
are completely shut down - but delusons I think of as
things we don't have for fun, but for other perhaps
more serious pyschological basis.
> I would say that you would end up having to constantly
> (subconsciously)
> moniter reality to decide when you would come out of ur protective
> insanity.
>
> <brett> Now thats the moral code. The reason for the moral code is
> that usually judgements will be required in real life which one cannot
> anticipate and the better, the more sophisticated your moral code the
> better, (the more enlightened) your judgement of your own best
> interests will be.
>
> <me> again I balk at the requirement for a sophisticated moral code;
> you can have an incredibly simple moral code; but apply it through the
> use of a sophisticated world view (ergo ur judgement).
A person who is reasoning at level 1 on Kohlburgs scale (the
simplest) may not do something that is good for society in general but
for far more basic reasons, than a person who is reasoning at level 5.
But the higher up in the levels one goes the more levels or abstraction
and nuance are likely to influence your code. I would think that a
person would have a hard time having a complex moral code without having
the ability to use language for instance.
Our leaders must make judgements that will have impacts
on lives other than their own. The more of us that are reasoners and
critical thinkers and the fewer of us that are mere believers the better
(the healthier) we will be as a society in my opinion.
>
> <brett> In this particular case I don't think there is much latitude
> for immoral action as you really would be alone on the desert island
> in the situation you stipulate. Of course the situation you stipulate
> could not arise. One would never know one was going to be marooned
> for sixty years AND CHOOSE to hallucinate. Hallucinations for
> the most part are going to be dysfunctional even on the
> island.
>
> <me> .. for the most part?
Fair catch that does look like a slippery phrase doesn't it?
> and I do dispute ur choosing
> to hallucinate;
> ever hear
> of self-hypnosis?
No. I am an open minded sceptic when it comes to
conventional hypnosis. I have never experienced it
and those that I have seen ostensibly hypnotised on
stage seemed to me to be substantially "hamming"
or playing it up for the attention. I think some of
us sometimes like not having to be analytical all
the time and to have others tell us what to do
and just follow alone can be pleasant.
> If you can get urself into a deep enough trance, you
> can suggest
> post-hypnotic suggestions that trigger when you wake... including the
> post hypnotic suggestion to renew itself until you are rescued. And
> you can cause hallucinations
> in a deep enough trance btw. And thats not even calling upon the
> experience
> of mystics, or people who have sufficiently advanced manipulation
> techniques...
I don't know if I can get into a trance as you put it. I guess I can its
just not something I am very familiar with.
I suppose when it comes to my mind I am a bit of a control freak, I
don't like it when the captain is not on the bridge.
>
> > I tend towards a function and dysfunctional definition of sanity;
> > if its dysfunctional, then you are not being ethical.
>
> <brett> This seems to be confounding sanity with ethics.
>
> Not really :)
>
> <brett> Which is problematic if the insane cannot make
> sound judgements in their own interests by virtue of being insane.
>
> <me> ergo my distinction between function and dysfunctional insanity.
Is there a functional form of insanity? As I understand it insanity is
usually diagnosed on the basis of behavior. If is inferred rather than
experimentally verified. Insanity is apparently easy to fake. Sanity on
the other hand - now theres a challlenge :-)
>
> > if its functional, you are being ethical.
> > and since functionality is related to the environment you are
> > operating in, ergo my comment about self-delusion not really having
> > anything to do with morality.
> >
> > I definately think everyone is engaged in it to some degree
> > (self-delusion), and to the extent that it helps you, its ethical
>
> <brett> So do I. The human condition is mortal. It would hardly
> behoove us to dwell on it excessively and abandon hope when there was
> none. Perhaps the illusion of a life after death only becomes
> dysfunctional when it gets in the way of the realisation of longer
> life in practice.
>
> <brett> In the vast majority of cases self-delusion *is* going to be
> harmful. In those circumstances where it is not harmful to anyone
> including the person who is self-deluded then I'd agree it not
> immoral.
>
> <me> ok well then we've settled that line of logic :)
Hooray :-)
>
> > <brett> I find this conclusion (Bertrand Russell's) powerful,
> > dangerous and deeply unsatisfying so I am keen to have at it.
> >
> > <me> I was just telling my little sister yesterday about one of the
> > classical issues in my life (at one point during my younger years);
> > at
>
> > what point does being too intelligent start to harm you (the classic
> > form being, if you could trade intelligence for gauranteed
> > happiness, would you do it)... most intelligent people say no; I
> > think the really
>
> > intelligent people though, when they consider it, say yes.
>
> <brett> I think this is pure speculation. Would a less intelligent you
> be you?
>
> <me> does it make a difference if you are gauranteed to be happy?
>
> <brett> If you think so there may be possibilites for you
> to chart a life for yourself that involves more happiness
> and less intellect. But personally I don't think so. How do you aim at
> happiness without identifying something that will make you happy.
> Happiness is not itself a thing that can be persued.
>
> <me> ergo my point :) if you can't gaurantee happiness by method of
> intelligence, and some mythical blue genie (whom to the best of your
> abilities to discern is capable of granting) is willing to gaurantee
> ur happiness at the cost of your intelligence than any sane, rational
> person of sufficient intellect would not think twice. This assumes
> that everyone wants to be happy[maiximized utility table]... which I
> don't think is an unreasonable...
I must be failing to follow what you mean by maximizing your utility
table of something because it still seems to me that happiness cannot
really be a target that one aims at it is a consequence that arise as a
desired and hoped for side effect of something else one aims at.
There is a saying "man is the only animal that laughs
and weeps, because he is the only animal that sees
what is, and what might have been".
> > This is of
> > course, assumes that people intuitively seek to maximize their
> > utilities, and said maximization of utility defines a state of
> > happiness [which is, I think, reasonable]...
>
> <brett> I don't I think its premature at best and problematic at
> worst. One cannot be happy without a cause. Happiness per se is not
> persuable. Pleasure is. Lesser levels of sentience are. But I doubt
> these are what appeal to you as an alternative.
>
> <me> take a look at a little kid sometime :)
Hey I grew up in a catholic family - I've seen the old
kid of two :-)
I reckon they are very active little hypothesis testers
and experimenters. Just because we may look in from
the outside an think they are "playing" doesn't change
that they are playing at something. If they are happy
playing they probably declared they were going out
to play (something specific) rather than going out to
be happy.
>
> <snip happiness is a sideeffect>
>
> > Any moral system you build on that
> > premise is doomed to fail because it does not take into account
> > actions by that subpopulation of people (antisocial individuals who
> > are operating on a different ethical system). I would state that ur
> > assumption that there is a propensity to reason is a reasonable one
> > in
>
> > that it is necessary for the ability to recognize other autonomous
> > agents actions for what they are; expressions of their own
> > moral/ethical systems..
>
> <brett> Ah I think you missed my point. The potential to persuade
> using the sociability aspect *is* far stronger when individuals are
> powerless and my point is that the all those who are mortal are now
> becoming
> *aware*
> that they possess a poor form of wealth and power if it can't extend
> their life and health.
>
> <me> ... and these are the only people you're interested in
> approaching?
Yeah only all those who are *mortal* and have a self-interest ;-)
>
> <brett> There is an opportunity there to get them to revisit the
> social compact. But these cagey old survivers will not fall for bs.
> When arguments are put to them
> that are not in their interest they will not buy into them.
>
> <me> its been my experience that people who are very wealthy
> generally don't give a shit about social compact. They got (and
> preserve) their wealth at the cost of other individuals... I would
> agree that you need to put it in terms that involve greed.
Well self interest will do.
>
> <brett> So in my view a moral argument cannot be put to a rich or
> powerful individual unless it is couched in terms of offering
> *something* for them. We live in an
> historic period. In this period it might be possible to promote a
> policy of more
> life for all or more life for none.
>
> <me> good luck getting the rich to give a shit about the poor (past
> the ones making off with their valuables)....
No I'd aim to get the rich to care more effectively for the rich by
recognizing their relationship with the poor. My emphasis is not be
charitable to the poor my emphasis is on how would you life be better if
the poor were not so poor? If they had more to loose. If they were able
to cooperate with you to make both you and them wealthier in absolute
terms rather than relative terms.
Would you rather be healthy and active at 130 or have a
very expensive funeral and a prestigiously looking burinal
plot at 80?
>
> <brett> The alternative may be cabals of the powerful working to
> 'immortalise' themselves. Such a scenario may restart "history" whose
> demise was greatly exaggerated.
>
> <me> probably :) I hope to be part of a successful cabal :) but only
> if quality of life is high...
Beware the dark side Luke :-)
>
> > <brett> Further those
> > who do not know endeavour to understand themselves,
> > what manner of creature they are, are not going to be
> > in a position to know what the most optimal compromises
> > for them are when compromises need to be made.
> >
> > <me> I've met several people who are extremely intuitively, but
> > unable
>
> > to verbalize (form coherent sentences) expressing their
> > viewpoints...they just know what is right for them, and what is
> > not...
>
> > how does your system encompass them?
>
> <brett> They learn to reason and they learn to use language to
> persuade.
>
> They learn to understand what they want. This gives them the best
> chance to make their way and improve their situation as they go. It
> does not guarantee them success.
>
> <omd> and if the overall performance of this new system ends up being
> worse than their intuitive model? what then?
I have no magic. If my moral code is adopted by others it will because
they see merit in it. If they see merit in it and I see merit in it I'm
prepared to work on the assumption that their is merit in it. - That a
bit simplistic but this thread is very long.
>
> <brett> The universe in which hard work gurantees success is not this
> one in my view.
>
> <omd> work smarter, not harder has always been my motto...
Makes sense. But leveraging your efforts with others can be a
particularly effective way of working smart.
>
> > <brett> A person
> > that deludes themselves that they are a different sort of creature
> > with different sets of drivers and needs than they actually have is
> > precluded from sitting down at table to negotiate for their own best
> > interests because they do not know their own best interests. A
> > person that deludes themselves willingly can hardly be a person that
> > others would want to engage in a moral compacts with.
> >
> > <me> according to you :) to me its fine :) In fact, i rather like
> > space cadets :)
>
> > It not the space cadets that you have to worry about.
> > Its the wizened old cynics and manipulators that figure that life is
> > a bitch and that they are not going to join the ideological idiocy
> > of submission. These guys have the power to fuck up all your plans
> > and irronically shortchange themselves in their cynicism too. They
> > are not greedy enough for life (according to this theory). There is
> > a fatal foolishness in their cynicism. They may be happy to have
> > ten more years of power in the forms that they have
> > become accustomed too. They may rate their progress
> > not against what it possible but against how big a differenc
> > there is between them and the common man.
>
> <me> that is common btw; in people from all walks of life (competition
> versus a neighbor) versus global competition... it seems (given the
> broadness) that it is inherent to peoples point of views... besides
> the trick to manipulations is to learn how to do it urself.
I think your right it comes to us naturally. But what also comes
naturally to us homo-saps is reasoning. We can see that win wins are
possible, that it is possible through cooperation to do what we cannot
do alone. We can choose to measure ourselves against what is possible
rather than against each other.
>
> > The logical consequence of this line of thinking unchecked is the
> > formation of power cabals and starker separations between the haves
> > and the have nots (in which ironically even the haves will have less
> > than they may have had).
>
> <me> that assumes there is no such thing as a steady accretion of
> knowledge in the hands of a few. there is no reason to limit it to
> the life of any one
> person (or collection); you can consider your lineage for instance.
The few will be aware of the condition of the many, and some
of the few will be uneasy in their relationships with others of the few
if those others are too harsh or cruel in the treatment of the many. We
know well enough how easy it is to go from in-group to out-group.
>
> <snip of antisocial/sociopathic stuff>
>
> > > [Brett]
> > > This is where I think it becomes important
> > > to acknowledge to oneself that one can be rational and that one is
> > > by nature social. If one does not acknowledge that one is social
> > > one is not (by my reckoning) being true to oneself and one does
> > > not have the sort of maturity that will enable one to be on good
> > > terms with oneself and to form real compacts that have a chance of
> > > being honored with others.
> > >
> > > <me>
> > > Ooooh I don't know about that :) You seem to take
> > > that people are by nature, social creatures. I don't necessarily
> > > think thats the case. Or to qualify, people are social by a matter
> > > of degree.
> >
> > <brett> Sure but there is a baseline.
> >
> > <me> go tell that to the unibomber.
>
> <brett> I would have been happy to point out to the unibomber that he
> was born social, so much so that he couldn't raise his head to feed.
>
> <me> granted :) but that doesn't really nullify the fact that he did
> become extremely antisocial afterwards...
Granted. But there is value in knowing why and how. The value is in the
power to identify route causes that can be changed. Lets go for the
disease not the symptom.
>
> <brett> Then I'd ask him where his sociability ended. It could be an
> insightful conversation.
>
> <me> probably when he realized it was a losing game for his utility
> tables...
Or he may discover that he's been shortchanging his own self interest
with a suboptimal utility table.
>
> >
> > > Some are quite capable
> > > of going it alone while others would die if seperated from the
> > > herd.
>
> <brett> None are capable of going it alone yet. But here is the point
> in the future we may re-engineer ourselves to such an extent that some
> may indeed feel capable of going it alone. And these indivduals will
> not necessarily be able to be reasoned with with the same starting
> premises. These individuals may become meglomanical persuing as the
> culmination of their individuality dominance over all else. Because,
> if you have no empathy - why the hell not?
>
> <me> why not indeed?
And therein lies the danger of the future. Rugged immortal
individualists fighting for supreme godhood in the universe.
By why not? Seriously. I dunno but I figure god would be bored (and
lonely) well perhaps not lonely.
>
> > <brett> Only after some initial basic social assistance has been
> > rendered.
> >
> > <me> We're dealing with [dynamic] adults here, no?
> > You don't intend to limit your morality to only those who are
> > currently social?
>
> > Nor do I intend to convert the bad eggs
> > to altruism. I see it as far more useful to persuade the good eggs
> > that if they do not want war with the bad eggs they had better
> > acknowledge that principle 101 for the bad egg is likely to be what
> > is in this for me. If there is not an answer to that question then
> > conflict will come about.
> >
> > <brett> Many infants get suboptimal social assistance and the
> > outcomes are often dysfunctional people. But they are not
> > dysfunctional by choice.
> >
> > <me> but they're still dysfunctional, at least, according to what
> > currently passes for a majority of society.
> >
> > Yeah. And society pays the price. A more enlightened society might
> > see
>
> > better economies in avoiding the dysfunctional early socialisation.
> >
> > > So i question ur assumption that everyone
> > > is social.... Its obviously a core belief in ur system, and
> > > certes, generally speaking, it is the case that most people are
> > > social.
> >
>
> <brett> Everyone is social to a degree. Am I really saying that
> everyone
>
> is reachable through their residual sociability. I doubt it. I think
> nature throws up dysfunctional types of all forms and some genuine
> sociopaths can probably only be dealt with as amoral threats.
>
> <me> watch some interviews with a sociopath :) they're really quite
> fascinating... anyways, there's no reason to render a sociopath a
> threat; in fact, I'ld say they can be harnassed to detect flaws in
> current modes.
Perhaps I'm saying sociopath when I mean pyschopath.
> > > But not all.
> >
> > <brett> Not all to the same degree. But there is no person alive at
> > present (to the best of my knowledge) with the power to stay alive
> > without cooperating with others.
> >
> > <me> but you acknowledge that it is a possibility?
>
> <brett> Yes. Imo that is a possibility. For me the interest in
> morality is linked to an interest in politics and in the means by
> which the possibility may
>
> more become a probability in my life time. Hey I am social, but I am
> also rational, and I am in this for me :-)
>
> <me> I suggest you pick up a microscope and a centrifuge then :)
These works better if you leave them stably sitting on the bench. :-)
>
> > <brett> It is not necessary that social be about niceness it is
> > better, more funcitonal, if it is about an enlightened
> > understanding of frailty and the benefits of cooperation. I would
> > argue that tyrants that aim for the short glorious life of
> > Archilles in 2003 are short changing themselves. They are
> > sub-optimally selfish. With a tweak of their value systems they may
> > be able to satisfy more of their needs and desires by cooperating.
> > But many of them would have to re-learn and I'd expect few of them
> > to change what has worked for them if they could not be
> > presented with a compelling argument. If there is no
> > compelling argument that can be made to their self
> > interest then I would say that no real moral argument
> > is being put to them at all.
> >
> > <me> ....except to say that they have presumeably successfuly
> > satisfied their own utility tables....
>
> <brett> No they optimised. But I'd argue they have sold themselves
> short. They could and may in may cases yet achieve more.
>
> <me> perhaps, but they certainly won't be listening... if they're
> satisfied, why change the status quo?
Because they won't stay satisfied. How can you keep up
with or look down on the Jones if they've gone and
immortalised themselves?
> ----------------------------------- SNIP, wait for part 2 :) damn this
> is long :) --------------
Bail at any time or edit with more extreme prejudice. The offer was
there in the last post.
Quite seriously, long rambly dialogs are probably
better offlist. I think it was worth having the discussion
but maybe not on list.
Any illuson I had that others might read much of this
have long past. But the upside is that the dialectic
process does help sort out thoughts. In this thread
somewhere are a few gems. They may be distilled
at a later date maybe.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 11 2003 - 09:20:38 MDT