On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8/7/2014 5:21 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 8:58 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/6/2014 7:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 3:58 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> What does level of substitution have to do with it. You've defined the >>> correct level substitution as one below which consciousness is unchanged. >>> So the the definition already requires that we know what it means for a >>> consciousness to be the same, i.e. unchanged. >>> >>> >>> >>> Then the 1p recognizance criteria is very simple. All the copies are >>> declared the same person as the one copied, except that now they >>> differentiate. >>> >>> And that can help to understand that we are all already the same >>> person, having multiplied and differentiate. >>> >>> >>> I guess it would if I were a copy of somebody. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Then computer science shows that there is indeed a universal notion of >>> first person, given by the knowability (non arithmetic) operator, provided >>> by the definition of knowledge by Theaetetus. >>> >>> >>> Having a notion of person doesn't imply that all persons are the same >>> person. >>> >> >> I don't see why all the convolution in this thread around ambiguity of >> notion of person is required. It just makes unnecessarily complex what >> seems ambiguous at the start. >> >> Assume some emergence phenomenon and you risk reductionism at >> fundamental problem of identity, and the usual fascisms of discrimination >> can follow. Assume some universal person and you aren't a step further >> dealing with problems of evil and difference. >> >> What "universal person" has that "emergence" doesn't is a reason to >> foster empathy in fundamental/primitive sense, underneath some utility >> derivative from evolution, as is the case with some emergence >> interpretations. But does this even matter? >> >> The Bee Gees made approximation of stating this ambiguity and sold >> millions of records with the kitschy: >> >> How deep is your love >> I really need to learn >> 'Cause we're living in a world of fools >> Breaking us down >> When they all should let us be >> We belong to you and me >> >> And because it's a kitschy song, no need to take literally or feel >> smart :-) >> >> Like Telmo said, if I recall correctly, it's super easy to fall into >> taking sides on these issues without knowing it... which I guess I do too. >> >> >> emergence->reductionism->fascism wholism->empathy Yeah, I guess you >> do. But you overlook that the fascists regarded the state as a >> superorganism so that each person was part of the same "being", while the >> liberal democracies held that individuals are the locus of values. >> > > Then surely a liberal democracy is incompatible with drug prohibition or > total surveillance, correct? > > > That wouldn't follow just from the idea that individuals are locus of > values. You would have to add that individuals are the sole judges of what > is good for themselves. > Ok, I can agree with this distinction. > I think that's a very good principle, but not an absolute one. We > don't, for example, suppose it applies to children. > Ok. I agree with the children exception. I don't agree with the current stance on children -- I think there should be more respect for their individuality and violent coercion should be avoided at all costs. But I agree with you that they must be protected from themselves while learning and developing. > There are some good reasons to prohibit or discourage very addictive and > harmful drugs (e.g. tobacco) because once addicted a person may not be the > best judge of what it good for themself. > I have a number of issues here. In no particular order: - We need a theory of ethics. Even if something is potentially good for society, there has to be a rational way to determine if it is acceptable to impose (I think that what is good for the individual, according to the individual, is what matters and should be accommodated to the extent possible). - I know nicotine addiction. I know of societies where nicotine consumption is a crime. I am of the strong opinion that throwing me in jail for smoking cigarettes would not be in my best interest whatsoever. I assume I would feel the same if I was addicted to heroin. I am of the strong opinion that sin taxing me if I want to buy cigarettes is not in my best interest. I respect people and commercial establishments that do not wish people to smoke in their premises. - Maybe some people prefer the substance, even if harmful. What society seems to really care about is productivity -- you even notice this if you read the DSM-5. Why should we enforce our preferences on them? This is the puritanical golden rule, but I prefer "do onto other as they want to be done onto them". Why not? > > > Total surveillance is compatible with persons being the locus of values > and with being the best judge of their own good. If surveillance were used > *only* suppress violent crime and to rescue people from accidents, what > would be the objection? The problem is that it amplifies the power of the > community to impose conformity, and people are not very good at forgoing > the use of power. > I guess you answered your own question, but since you value democracy, here's one perspective. The elected officials gain control of the surveillance apparatus. Then, they can know everything about their opponents: all the ways to make them look bad in the eyes of the public, all of their campaign plans, all of their strategies. With this level of information asymmetry, the democratic process is compromised. I believe that some politics may be honest enough to not abuse this power but it's a matter of time until one does. Then it's game over. Telmo. > > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
