I agree with you. The only one "sin" you talk about is akin to the
confusion between the third person (oneself as a thing) and the
unnameable first person. Even in the ideal case of the
self-referentially correct machine, this confusion leads the machine to
inconsistency. That sin is indeed against reason, and provably so in
the world of number/machine, from their "correct" (!) points of view.
Bruno
PS (for those who know the arithmetical "B", in acomp, it is the
confusion *by the machine* between Bp and (Bp & p)). G* proves (Bp
iff (Bp & p)), but G does NOT prove it. That is why the
computationalist practice needs some explicit consents. The "yes
doctor" entails the right to say "no doctor".
Le 27-déc.-06, à 17:15, Mark Peaty a écrit :
And yet I persist ... [the hiatus of familial duties and seasonal
excesses now draws to a close [Oh yeah, Happy New Year Folks!]
SP: 'If we are talking about a system designed to destroy the economy
of a country in order to soften it up for invasion, for example, then
an economist can apply all his skill and knowledge in a perfectly
reasonable manner in order to achieve this.'
We should beware of conceding too much too soon. Something is
reasonable only if it can truly be expected to fulfil the intentions
of its designer. Otherwise it is at best logical but, in the kinds of
context we are alluding to here, benighted and a manifestation of
fundamentally diminished 'reason'. Something can only be 'reasonable'
it its context. If a proposed course of action can be shown to be
ultimately self defeating - in the sense of including its reasonably
predictably final consequences, and yet it is still actively proposed,
then the proposal is NOT reasonable, it is stupid. As far as I can
see, that is the closest we can get to an objective definition of
stupidity and I like it.
Put it this way: Is it 'reasonable' to promote policies and projects
that ultimately are going to contribute to your own demise or the
demise of those whom you hold dear or, if not obviously their demise
then, the ultimate demise of all descendants of the aforementioned? I
think academics, 'mandarins' and other high honchos should all now be
thinking in these terms and asking themselves this question. The world
we now live in is like no other before it. We now live in the Modern
era, in which the application and fruits of the application of
scientific method are putting ever greater forms of power into the
hands of humans. This process is not going to stop, and nor should we
want it to I think, but it entails the ever greater probability that
the actions of any person on the planet have the potential to
influence survival outcomes for huge numbers of others [if not the
whole d*mned lot of us].
I think it has always been true that ethical decisions and judgements
are based on facts to a greater extent than most people involved want
to think about - usually because it's too hard and we don't think we
have got the time and, oh yeah, 'it probably doesn't/won't matter'
about the details of unforeseen consequences because its only gonna be
lower class riff -raff who will be affected anyway or people of the
future who will just have to make shift for themselves. NOW however we
do not really have such an excuse; it is a cop-out to purport to
ignore the ever growing interrelatedness of people around the planet.
So it is NOT reasonable to treat other people as things. [I feel
indebted to Terry Pratchett for pointing out, through the words of
Granny Weatherwax I think it is, that there is only one sin, which is
to treat another person as a thing.] I think a reasonable survey and
analysis of history shows that, more than anything else, treating
other people as things rather than equal others has been the
fundamental cause and methodology for the spread of threats to life
and well being.
You can see where I am going with this: in a similar way to that in
which concepts of 'game theory' and probabilities of interaction
outcomes give us an objective framework for assessing purportedly
'moral' precepts, the existence now of decidedly non-zero chances of
recursive effects resulting from one's own actions brings a deeper
meaning and increased rigour the realms of ethics and 'reason'. I
don't think this is 'airy-fairy', I think it represents a dimension of
reasoning which has always existed but which has been denied, ignored
or actively censored by the powerful and their 'pragmatic' apologists
and spin doctors. To look at a particular context [I am an EX
Christian], even though the Bible is shonk as history or any kind of
principled xxxxxxological analysis, it is instructive to look at the
careers of the prophets and see how each involved a seemingly
conventional formative period and then periods or a whole life of very
risky ministry AGAINST the establishment because being true to their
mission involved the prophet denouncing exploitation, greed and
corruption.
So let me wave my imaginary staff and rail from the top of my
imaginary mountain:
'Sin is against reason! And that's a fact! So THERE! And don't you
forget it, or you'll be sorry, or at least your children and their
children will become so! Put that in your pipes all you armchair
philosophers!'
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Mark Peaty writes:
Sorry to be so slow at responding here but life [domestic], the
universe and everything else right now is competing savagely with
this interesting discussion. [But one must always think positive;
'Bah, Humbug!' is not appropriate, even though the temptation is
great some times :-]
Stathis,
I am not entirely convinced when you say: 'And the psychopath is
right: no-one can actually fault him on a point of fact or a point
of logic'
That would only be right if we allowed that his [psychopathy is
mostly a male affliction I believe] use of words is easily as
reasonable as yours or mine. However, where the said psycho. is
purporting to make authoritative statements about the world, it is
not OK for him to purport that what he describes is unquestionably
factual and his reasoning from the facts as he sees them is
necessarily authoritative for anyone else. This is because, qua
psychopath, he is not able to make the fullest possible free
decisions about what makes people tick or even about what is reality
for the rest of us. He is, in a sense, mortally wounded, and forever
impaired; condemned always to make only 'logical' decisions. :-)
The way I see it, roughly and readily, is that there are in fact
certain statements/descriptions about the world and our place in it
which are MUCH MORE REASONABLE than a whole lot of others. I think
therefore that, even though you might be right from a 'purely
logical' point of view when you say the following: 'In the *final*
analysis, ethical beliefs are not a matter of fact or logic, and if
it seems that they are then there is a hidden assumption somewhere'
in fact, from the point of view of practical living and the
necessities of survival, the correct approach is to assert what
amounts to a set of practical axioms, including:
* the mere fact of existence is the basis of value, that good
and bad are expressed differently within - and between - different
cultures and their sub-cultures but ultimately there is an
objective, absolute basis for the concept of 'goodness', because in
all normal circumstances it is better to exist than not to exist,
* related to this and arising out of it is the realisation that
all normal, healthy humans understand what is meant by both 'harm'
and 'suffering', certainly those who have reached adulthood,
* furthermore, insofar as it is clearly recognisable that
continuing to exist as a human being requires access to and
consumption of all manner of natural resources and human-made goods
and services, it is in our interests to nurture and further the
inclinations in ourselves and others to behave in ways supportive of
cooperation for mutual and general benefit wherever this is
reasonably possible, and certainly not to act destructively or
disruptively unless it is clear that doing so will prevent a much
greater harm from occurring.
It ought to be clear to all reasonable persons not engaged in self
deception that in this modern era each and everyone of us is
dependent - always - on at least a thousand other people doing the
right thing, or trying to anyway. Thus the idea of 'manly', rugged,
individualism is a romantic nonsense unless it also incorporates a
recognition of mutual interdependence and the need for real fairness
in social dealings at every level. Unless compassion, democracy and
ethics are recognised [along with scientific method] as fundamental
prerequisites for OUR survival, policies and practices will pretty
much inevitably become self-defeating and destructive, no matter how
well-intentioned to start with.
In the interest of brevity I add the following quasi-axioms.
* the advent of scientific method on Earth between 400 and 500
years ago has irreversibly transformed the human species so that now
we can reasonably assert that the human universe is always
potentially infinite, so long as it exists and we believe it to be
so
* to be fully human requires taking responsibility for one's
actions and this means consciously choosing to do things or
accepting that one has made a choice even if one cannot remember
consciously choosing
* nobody knows the future, so all statements about the future
are either guesswork or statements of desires. Furthermore our lack
of knowledge of times to come is very deep, such that we have no
truly reasonable basis for dismissing the right to survive of any
persons on the planet - or other living species for that matter -
unless it can be clearly shown that such killing or allowing to die,
is necessary to prevent some far greater harm and the assertion of
this is of course hampered precisely by our lack of knowledge of the
future
This feels incomplete but it needs to be sent.
Regards
Mark Peaty CDES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/
I agree with you as far as advice for how to live a good life goes,
but I guess where I disagree is on the technical matter of what we
call reasonable. Peter Jones said that a system of economics designed
to create universal poverty is not reasonable. I would agree *given*
that the purpose of an economic system is not to create poverty. If
we are talking about a system designed to destroy the economy of a
country in order to soften it up for invasion, for example, then an
economist can apply all his skill and knowledge in a perfectly
reasonable mannner in order to achieve this. The human values driving
an economic system, although we can predict what they might be in the
majority of cases, are subjective states and are beyond reason: this
is what I want, this is what I like, and you can't tell me otherwise.
This stands in contrast to empirical statements such as "the Earth is
flat", which is true or false independently of what anyone thinks or
wants.
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314
-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
