> SA previously:? 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?
SA: Because it's not obvious. At least to me it's not.
> Squonk previously:
> > 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 previously:? 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: Why do you have "?", question marks all over the place in your posts? I
don't see these in any other posts.
Vat: a large tank or tube
Nope, don't think this has anything to do with Zen. Does this vat connect
to the world? Thus why I brought up "alienation".
> SA previously:
> 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: Yeah, figured this was lurking somewhere, but if this was your "secert"
message, your underlying intention for bringing this up, well, I'm not taken by
the bit. I could care less about getting into a censorship discussion, sorry,
but this seems to be your interest, not mine. I'm not trying to bring this
"censorship" issue up at all, but it seems you might be.
> SA previously:
> 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.
SA: Sure wasn't. So, what's the thought behind your experiment?
> SA previously:? Are you advocating putting brains in vats?? Would they
> come from stem cell research, newborns, or what?
> s: Have you chosen not to answer my question regarding
> alienation being degenerative in the context of the thought
> experiment SA?
SA: I brought it up above on this post. Sorry it took so long.
Squonk:
> Re. brains in vats: Ian introduced this phrase. I rather
> wish he had not, but i understand why he may have done.
SA: Hmmm, so this leads in Ian in ways I didn't know.
Squonk:
> 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).
SA: It's the vats, the real time application, the industrial scale 'breeding',
and where the brains would come from - that's what I question. I understand
your mosying around with a thought-experiment, but do you want to do anything?
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/
