peterdjones wrote:
Moral and natural laws.
An investigation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence
of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some
extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ,
but there is no convincing some people).
snip
As ethical
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Well said! I agree almost completely - I'm a little
uncertain about (3) and (4) above and the meaning of scope.
Together with the qualifications of Peter Jones regarding
the lack of universal agreement on even the best supported
theories
Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
snip
Further, from this theory of metaethics we can derive
a practical system of social decision-making based
on (1) increasing fine-grained knowledge of shared values,
and (2) application of increasingly effective
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Oops, it was Jef Allbright, not Mark Peaty responsible for
the first quote below.
Brent Meeker writes:
[Mark Peaty]Correction: [Jef Allbright]
From the foregoing it can be seen that while there can be
no objective morality, nor any absolute morality
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
[Stathis Papaioannou]
If slavery could be scientifically shown to promote the
well-being of
the species as a whole does that mean we should have
slavery? Does it
mean that slavery is good?
Teaching that slavery is bad is similar
Brent Meeker wrote:
That raises a fundamental question - should we believe what's
true? Of course in general we don't know what's true and we
never know it with certainity. But we do know some things,
in the scientific, provisional sense. And we also have
certain values which, as Jef
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jef Allbright wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That raises a fundamental question - should we believe
what's true?
Of course in general we don't know what's true and we
never know it
with certainity. But we do know some things, in the scientific,
provisional sense
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But our main criterion for what to believe should be
what is true, right?
I find it fascinating, as well as consistent with some difficulties in
communication about the most basic concepts, that Stathis would express
this belief of his in the form of a tautology.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-déc.-06, à 02:46, Jef Allbright a écrit :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But our main criterion for what to believe should
be what is true, right?
I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology
is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple
lack
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
But our main criterion for what to believe should be
what is true, right?
I'm very interested in whether the apparent tautology
is my misunderstanding, his transparent belief, a simple
lack of precision
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-déc.-06, à 19:10, Jef Allbright a écrit :
All meaning is necessarily within context.
OK, but all context could make sense only to
some universal meaning. I mean I don't know,
it is difficult.
But this can be seen in a very consistent way. The significance
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct and
immediate sense of consciousness, on what basis can
you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of Descartes diagonal argument: it is the
fixed point of doubt. If we
Brent Meeker wrote:
Jef Allbright wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct
and immediate sense of consciousness, on what
basis can you claim that it actually is real?
Because we cannot doubt it. It is the real message,
imo, of Descartes diagonal
Bruno -
It appears that you and I have essential agreement on our higher-level
epistemology.
But I don't know much about your comp so I'll begin reading.
- Jef
Bruno Marchal wrote:
With increasing context of self-awareness, subjective values
increasingly resemble principles of the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Jef Allbright writes:
My personal experience is that there's no paradox
at all if one is willing to fully accept that within
any framework of description there is absolutely
no difference at all between a person and a
zombie, but even the most philosophically
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I realised when I was about 12 or 13 years old that there
could not be any ultimate meaning. I was very pleased and
excited with this discovery, and ran around trying to explain
it to people (mostly drawing blank looks, as I remember).
It seemed to me just another
remarks if ever you got time and motivation to do so.
Le 28-déc.-06, à 21:14, Jef Allbright a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Although we all share the illusion of a direct and
immediate sense
of consciousness, on what basis can you claim that it actually is
real?
Because we cannot doubt
On 3/14/07, Colin Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye,
thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth.
I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as
part of my PhD process.
Makes *complete* sense to me,
On 6/7/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the philosophical term for persons like me, that totally deny the
existence of the consciousness?
(I also deny the existence of infinity...)
Um, refreshingly rational? Pleasingly parsimonious? :-)
- Jef
On 6/8/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quentin Anciaux skrev:
On Friday 08 June 2007 17:37:06 Torgny Tholerus wrote:
What is the problem?
If a computer behaves as if it knows anything, what is the problem with
that? That type of behaviour increases the probability for the
Apropos much discussion on this list, a new paper is available at
ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2007-85.pdf
Abstract:
The Abstract State Machine Thesis asserts that every classical
algorithm is behaviorally equivalent to an abstract state machine.
This thesis has been shown to follow
To realize that we are just machines in a physical world, and that
this validates and enhances--rather than diminishes--the romance, the
meaning, and the mystery of human existence, is a very empowering
conceptualization.
To travel into the void, leaving behind myths and tradition, and then
to
On 2/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So Bruno says that:
a) I am a machine.
b) ...no man can grasp all aspect of man
A and b above both make sense to me.
Jef and Brent say that we are machines
who (that?) philosophize.
I'll agree that was implied by my statement.
I
On 5/24/06, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, the very notion of continuity of personal identity, which is necessary if survival is to have any meaning, is just as much a product of evolutionary expedience. That is, it is no more logically necessary that an organism is the same
24 matches
Mail list logo
