Peter,
We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem is
that
in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
capital
punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it is
irreversible
if a mistake is made, bu
Bruno Marchal writes:
> Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>
> > OK, but the point is that the basic definition of "bad" is arbitrary.
>
>
> Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
> platonist) notion of "bad". The simpler and stronger one is j
Jamie Rose writes:
> Stathis,
>
> As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
> crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
> code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
> a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
> computations.
>
Brent meeker writes:
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Brent Meeker writes:
> >
> >> I would say that many complex mechanical systems react to "pain" in a way
> >> similar to simple animals. For example, aircraft have automatic shut
> >> downs and fire extinguishers. They can change t
Hi Colin,
I thought you'd react in this way. It is a prediction of computationalism that
running certain lines of code should generate pain (and every other type of
experience). I realise it seems absurd when put like this, but there you have
it.
I very much doubt that a superficial or top-d
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter,
>
> We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
> is that
> in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary.
So you say. I don't agree.
> I believe that capital
> punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good
Brent Meeker wrote:
> 1Z wrote:
> >
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >> 1Z wrote:
> >>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Bruno Marchal writes:
> > Le 12-déc.-06, à 11:16, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> >
> >> Bruno Marchal writes (quoting Tom Caylor):
> >>
> In my view, your m
Yes Stathis, you are right, 'noxious stimulus' and
'experience' are indeed separable - but - if you want to
do an analysis of comparing, its important to identify
global parameters and potential analogs.
My last post's example tried to address those components.
I've seen stress diagrams of diff
Le 14-déc.-06, à 11:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> But there is no true/false in saying that torture is bad, unless there
> is another
> hidden assumption such as "causing gratuitous suffering is bad", in
> which case
> the question becomes, why is causing gratuitous suffering bad?
> Ultima
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Tom,
>
> The question I am interested in is not whether it would be a *good thing* for
> a
> personal God to exist, but whether it is *the case* that a personal God
> exists.
> There are all sorts of things that people would like to be true, but that
> does not
> ma
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the problem
> is that
> in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
> capital
> punishment is wrong; not because it is not a good deterrent, or because it
Hi Stathis,
RE: Zombie Room
The zombie room is now in a paper on solipsism and is in review and I
expect will be rejected in due course! :-) Over XMAS I hope to catch up on
all my mail. It's proven to be a really useful cross-modal thought
experiment because it renders a human 'methodologically z
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
>> Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>>
>>> OK, but the point is that the basic definition of "bad" is arbitrary.
>>
>> Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
>> platonist) notion of "bad".
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal writes:
>
>> Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:01, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
>>
>>> OK, but the point is that the basic definition of "bad" is arbitrary.
>>
>> Perhaps, but honestly I am not sure. In acomp, we can define a (very
>> platonist) notion of "bad".
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Brent meeker writes:
>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> Brent Meeker writes:
>>>
I would say that many complex mechanical systems react to "pain" in a way
similar to simple animals. For example, aircraft have automatic shut
downs and fire extinguish
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Evil ? (was: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)
> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:52:59 -0800
>
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > We can discuss any s
Bruno Marchal writes:
> >> Not in any normative sense. But once we bet on a theory (like comp),
> >> then we get mathematical tools which can provide general explanation
> >> of
> >> what is bad, and also explain why such definition cannot be normative,
> >> making the bad/good distinctions an
Brent Meeker writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > We can discuss any subject rationally if we agree on axioms, but the
> > problem is that
> > in matters of value, those axioms are ultimately arbitrary. I believe that
> > capital
> > punishment is wrong; not because
Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
> > There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
> > on
> > the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
> > is
> > that you can bet that any sentient species would arrive at exactly the same
> > ru
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker writes (quoting SP):
>
>>> There are several differences between the axioms of ethics and aesthetics
>>> on
>>> the one hand and those of logic, mathematics and science on the other. One
>>> is
>>> that you can bet that any sentient species would a
Colin Hales writes:
> There's a whole axis of modelling orthogonal to the soma membrane which
> gets statistically abstracted out by traditional Hodkin/Huxley models. The
> neuron becomes geometry-less (except for when the HH model is made into
> 'cable'/compartmental equivalents for longitudi
21 matches
Mail list logo
