David,
Can you explain this relation a bit further. Sorry if I am being dim, but I
did not quite understand your comment. Let's say we are on the QE2 which, for
some reason is inclined to be a bit tippy. We notice that the passengers are
gathering on the right side of the ship, which is OK so long as the water is
calm, but would be disastrous if a storm came. We have no particular reason to
believe that a storm is coming, except that half the meteorologists in the
Captain's meteorological committee think that there is. You and I get
together and decide that it would be a good idea for some of us to move over to
the other side of the boat. Now, certainly this is not a CATEGORICAL
imperative. I certainly cannot will that EVERYBODY go over to the other side
of the boat. So what kind of an imperative is it. How is it possible for
everybody to act so that the boat is in balance. This would have everybody
constantly moving from one side of the boat to the other, like one of those
models of neighborhood integration where either the neighborhood is
unintegrated or everybody is unhappy.
How DOES one square Kant with ABM's???
And what did it have to do with Pascal's Wager in the first place?
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: David Breecker
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 8/13/2007 4:31:20 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Global Warming
Kant's Categorical Imperative is the answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or
inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a
given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink
something. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional
requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and
justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law." [1]
db
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
All,
The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in
this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us relatively
little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.
Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?
Nicholas S. Thompson
Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
