On 30 January 2004 Eric Hawthorne wrote:
QUOTE
I really think that to get a good grasp on this kind of issue, one has to
"get over ones-self". Step outside for a moment and
consider whether you "feeling conscious" is as amazing or inexplicable as
you think. Consciousness may very well just be
an
Greetings,
> > Some previous posts in the current thread have attacked this idea by,
> > for example, explaining ethics in terms of evolutionary theory or game
> > theory, but this is like explaining a statement about the properties
> > of sodium chloride in terms of the evolutionary or game theor
At 13:53 30/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
fact vs. value;
formal vs. informal;
precise vs. vague;
objective vs. subjective;
third person vs. first person;
computation vs. thought;
brain vs. mind;
David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness:
To me, this dichotomy remains
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
fact vs. value;
formal vs. informal;
precise vs. vague;
objective vs. subjective;
third person vs. first person;
computation vs. thought;
brain vs. mind;
David Chalmer's easy problem vs. hard problem of consciousness:
To me, this dichotomy remains the biggest mystery i
oannou
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nihilism
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:27:40 +0100
At 14:54 29/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Ow
At 14:54 29/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Owen)
(b) He died in the trenches during WW I from chlorine gas poisoning
The former conveys feelings, values, wishes, while the latter conveys
facts. The former is not true or false in the same
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Take these two statements:
(a) Dulce et decorum est/ Pro patria mori (Wilfred Owen)
(b) He died in the trenches during WW I from chlorine gas poisoning
The former conveys feelings, values, wishes, while the latter conveys
facts. The former is not true or false in the
On 28 Jan 2004 Bruno Marchal wrote:
QUOTE-
It is perhaps not as easy to get the H2O boiling point right, but you did
not convince me of any fundamental impossibility of scientific ethic. Now,
I believe that if there is any scientific ethic
then it cannot be normative and cannot give moral inju
At 11:58 28/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The big difference between ethical and aesthetic axioms and the axioms of
empirical science is that the latter are so widely accepted that they are
not even recognised as axioms, for the most part. If I say "water boils at
100 degrees celcius"
isn't the same as
if they got the boiling point of H2O wrong, is it?
From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nih
At 22:17 26/01/04 +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational of people
and still consistently hold the evil views I have described (for the sake
of argument, of course!), because good and evil. You cannot "prove" that a
moral axiom is correct
Jumping in, in the middle, the following is quite accurate,
with one subtle modification [evil] -> {other} :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational
> of people and still consistently hold the evil views I have
> described (for the sake of ar
hat people
have always tried to do.
-Stathis Papaioannou
From: Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Everything-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nih
On 25-Jan-04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Let me give a clearer example. Suppose I say that I believe it is a
> good and noble thing for the strong to oppress the weak, even to the
> point of killing them; and that if I were in charge I would promote
> this moral position in schools, through the
Stathis is right. The moral axiomatic system will have to show that in moral/ethical
issues we must allow ourselves to be guided by facts & logic. **But even if it
succeeds in showing that, one already has to have agreed to be guided by facts & logic
in order to be guided by the moral axiomatic
ny arguments or make any claims. All you can do is disagree with me
and state an alternative moral position.
From: Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Ni
e extent that we disagree about human nature,
disagreements about morality may run corespondingly deep.
- Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Satur
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:01:42AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> If I stop with (a) above, I am simply
> saying that this is how I feel about suffering, and this feeling is not
> contingent on the state of affairs in any actual or possible world [there, I
> got it in!].
(a) as stated is i
ing is not
contingent on the state of affairs in any actual or possible world [there, I
got it in!].
From: Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
I have to say that I sympathize with Caesar, but my position is slightly
different. I think there is a possibility that that objective morality
does exist, but we're simply too stupid to realize what it is. Therefore
we should try to improve our intelligence, through intelligence
amplication, or ar
Eric Hawthorne wrote:
QUOTE-
It may not be an error to equate science and ethics. Science continually
moves into new domains.
I'm of the opinion that there is a valid utilitarian theory of co-operating
intelligent agent ethics.
"Utilitarian" because the purpose of the ethical principles can be
The previous message was actually off-list, but since you replied to the list as well:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 05:07:29PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> The study of why societies have certain ethical beliefs is a subject for
> evolutionary psychology, or anthropology/sociology (moving dow
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
This sort of argument has been raised many times over the centuries,
both by rationalists and by their opponents, but it is based the
fundamental error of conflating science with ethics. Science deals
with matters of fact; it does not comment on whether these facts
ethics I choose to see myself as a "simple" being with free will in
a "simple" universe.
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: jueves, 22 de enero de 2004 6:04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Extended Response on Modern Physical theory as a
>
Subject: Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nihilism
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:30:16 +0100
Ethics is largely an artifact of evolutionary psychology, and as such a
domain of science.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:27:16PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> This s
Here is an excerpt from a message I sent to the list last week, which
argues that nihilism is not an appropriate response to multiverse physics.
As far as the issue of human action and free will, here is how I look
at it. There are really two issues. The first is that in some sense
the multivers
I mean not so sound supercilious, but I must admit that all counterarguments thus far
received are points I have foreseen and chosen to omit in the paper for the sake of
length and inherent stupidity of my evaluators. This is why I have come here for
intelligent recluse, as it is, so far, the o
]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nihilism
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:04:14 -0500 (EST)
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical
and existent
The last world is "right".
> I think that if there were infinites universes like our own and if all
> possible thinks that could append realy append, talking about existential
> and ethical nihilism or moralism make no sense. Certainly there will be
> infinites observers who believe in existential
I think that if there were infinites universes like our own and if all
possible thinks that could append realy append, talking about existential
and ethical nihilism or moralism make no sense. Certainly there will be
infinites observers who believe in existential and ethical nihilism and
other infi
> Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term paper really?
Actually, between the above remark made in fun, & the subsequent discussion, there are
things in common. Above, the joke is that, if one adopts nihilism & the view that
nothing is worth caring about, then what
y, January 20, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nihilism
>
> I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical
and existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was
looking for any comme
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term
paper really?
On a few points.
I don't believe in the point of view of "nihilism because everything
will happen in the multiverse, anyway, regardless of what I do"..
My reasons are a little vague, but here's a stab at it:
1.
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and
existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any
comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper:
---
A Scientifi
34 matches
Mail list logo
