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. s: But you are suggesting there is a 'secret' interest? I don't know why you should think there is a secret interest? 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? s: I am not sure if we in fact do disagree SA? We haven't engaged the experiment yet. Who is the victim if individual brains persist in a state of maximum DQ? Isn't this the precise state Zen masters encourage? SA: 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? s: You are free to express your view on the matter. Remember we are dealing with a thought experiment, so unless the experiment is realised no one is going to get hurt by what ever moral imperative you bring to the situation. One could argue that to imagine experimentation is a precursor to realisation sooner or later? Therefore, it may be possible to discourage certain morally objectionable thought experiments? In this case we have thought police censorship. SA: I know of one test in which babies were not touched by other 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. s: This wasn't a thought experiment by the sounds of it. 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 s: Have you chosen not to answer my question regarding alienation being degenerative in the context of the thought experiment SA? Re. brains in vats: Ian introduced this phrase. I rather wish he had not, but i understand why he may have done. The mechanics is not all that relevant, because what the experiment is concerned with is the 'blank slate' a biological Human brain provides. To get bogged down in the nitty gritty of how and why and do you mind if you don'ts is trivial; let's begin with a blank slate human brain. Let us refer to this blank slate as a group of static biological patterns. We may have reason to believe that this state of static biological patterns has direct access to DQ unmediated by additional social and intellectual static patterns, or, to use David's term, a 'mind'. It has been argued that babies experience the same Zen state that Zen masters prescribe. It has been argued that this state is that which many people try to reach when they are being creative, or use substances to demolish static patterns of the mind. If a mind can choose to do this, and if that choice has a metaphysical basis, then the thought experiment?enquires if doing it on a large scale is a moral imperative??(see the thought experiment itself). 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/
