SA previously:
> ???? I hope this was Squonk's point.? I hope Squonk
> knew this already.? This is
> why I didn't say anything.? Was he, hopefully, dragging
> this out of somebody to
> finally put into words, to post.? If not - well?? If his
> real intentions are
> brains in vats and some here found it thoughtful and
> interesting, please...? So,
> Squonk, Ian, say what the secert interest is already.?
> ???? I saw it as a point by Squonk to see how far this
> could go until he saw a
> post or posts to show him that alienation is degenerative.?
Squonk:
> First of all, this experiment is my idea, and i do not
> understand why you have introduced Ian into the matter?
> I welcome Ian's views, and those of everyone who has
> wished to contribute so far, and those of everyone
> participating in the moq.org.
SA: Ian thought it was interesting.
Squonk:
> There is no secret interest for the following reason: I
> don't know what the outcome of the experiment may be.
> This is the point: The point of experimentation is to
> reveal something new.
> That?a?thought experiment?should be?ridiculed or dismissed
> on the grounds that we already know its outcome seems
> rather arrogant to me.
SA: We can disagree without "arrogance" having to be thrown around. I thought
the experiment to be rather cruel. Who would be the test subjects? I'm sure
you must know some history. People have done all kinds of tests in the name of
science or curiosity, but are they moral? I know of one test in which babies
were not touched by others humans except to give them basics, such as change
the diapers, feed, and provide warmth, but without human touch, care, the
babies either died or developed retardation diseases. Well, I guess now we
know.
Squonk:
> Thought is high level value according to the moq, so to
> experiment with thought can be seen as a form of art.
> Thought experiments have the advantage of not harming
> anyone unless they?happen to be?hurt by the very idea of
> the experiment itself, or experimentation in general.
SA: Sure. I was pointing out the real time experiment, not the
thought-experiment. Go on with your thought experiment, I never disagreed with
this, or thought it harmful.
SA:
> The current thought experiment is concerned with morals, so
> i can understand why some people may find this
> particular?experiment offensive.
> On a positive note, i will ask you to explain why you
> state: 'I saw it as a point by Squonk to see how far
> this could go until he saw a post or posts to show him that
> alienation is degenerative.' I ask you this because i
> think your contribution will be helpful SA.
> Before you consider answering i should like to make one
> more point: The phrase?'brains in vats' is crude
> shorthand for an arrangement of static patterns which may
> be said to be 'dynamic' in the sense that they
> maximise DQ.
> Such arrangements not only exist, but would seem to be
> moral imperatives based on moq tenets.
> One may therefore view the current experiment as an
> extrapolation.
SA: Are you advocating putting brains in vats? Would they come from stem cell
research, newborns, or what?
SA
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
