Re: Is evolution moral ?
On 03 Sep 2012, at 14:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno,
In comp, what is the function of god.
It is responsible for the existence of numbers and their relations,
notably in distinguishing what is true and false.
My hope is that the function of a god
might be to reduce 3p tp 1p.
It does exactly that. Both:
- informally, as making true the statement "I am reconstituted in
Moscow" in the case I am reconstituted in Moscow, and perhaps else
where.
- and formally (or meta-formally) when, following Theaetetus, we
define knowledge as the conjunction of provability (ideal machine's
believability), and truth (like in Knowable('p') = provable('p') & p).
This gives God (Truth) a mean to, well, not exactly reducing, but
"awakening" the 1p, from the 3p. It makes the first person as
unnameable as God/Truth.
Everything else seems to be capable
of running according to algorithms.
In the hierarchy of complexity, what is computable is at the Sigma_0
and sigma_1 arithmetical level, but the sigma_2 is no more computable,
nor is any Sigma_n level for n bigger than 1.
Arithmetical truth is maximally non computable as being a union of all
Sigma_i.
Just to say that the computable part of the arithmetical truth is very
tiny.
And the first person indeterminacy can be used to explain why the
average universal number is confronted to the whole hierarchy, and
actually even beyond, epistemologically.
Is there anything in comp
that is non-algorithmic?
The search for the truth of arithmetical sentences which are more
complex than the sigma_1 one.
By a theorem of Kleene and Mostowski, the sigma_1 sentences can be
roughly described by the sentences having the shape ExP(x) with P(x)
decidable. Their negation are already not computable and are called
Pi_1, they have the shape AxP(x). Example: Riemann hypothesis (this is
equivalent with a P1_1 arithmetical sentence, as shown by Turing).
Then you have the Sigma_2 and Pi_2, with the shape ExAyP(x,y) P
decidable, and AxEyP(x,y) respectively. Etc.
Most truth about numbers and machines are not algorithmic (we assume
Church Thesis 'course).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi Richard Ruquist There is no god in comp. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 08:50:32 Subject: Re: Re: Is evolution moral ? Bruno, In comp, what is the function of god. My hope is that the function of a god might be to reduce 3p tp 1p. Everything else seems to be capable of running according to algorithms. Is there anything in comp that is non-algorithmic? Richard On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Indeed the world contains much misery and injustice simply because it isn't Heaven. Leibniz said that without God, it could have been a lot worse. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 13:17:47 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Is Evolution Moral? I think Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very differently, I would have made intense physical pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately that Yahweh punk got the job and not me. The minimum requirement for calling oneself religious is a belief in God, and if there is anybody who calls himself religious who doesn't think that God is benevolent I have yet to meet him. And yet I maintain that a benevolent God is totally inconsistent with Evolution, which can produce grand and beautiful things but only after eons of monstrous cruelty. > the moral is that which enhances life I think that's true, and if so then morality is subject to Evolution just like anything else that enhances life. And if its made by something as messy as Evolution then you wouldn't expect a moral system to be entirely free of self contradictions. Consider the moral thought experiments devised by Judith Jarvis Thomson: 1) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track saving the lives of the five. Unfortunately there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch and kill one man or do nothing and just watch five people die? 2) As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you, your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track killing him to save five people. Should you push the fat man over the edge or do nothing? Almost everybody feels in their gut that the second scenario is much more questionable morally than the first, I do too, and yet really it's the same thing and the outcome is identical. The feeling that the second scenario is more evil than the first seems to hold true across all cultures; they even made slight variations of it involving canoes and crocodiles for south American Indians in Amazonia and they felt that #2 was more evil too. So there must be some code of behavior built into our DNA and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it's not 100% consistent; Evolution would have gained little survival value perfecting it to that extent, it works good enough at producing group cohesion as it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Bruno, In comp, what is the function of god. My hope is that the function of a god might be to reduce 3p tp 1p. Everything else seems to be capable of running according to algorithms. Is there anything in comp that is non-algorithmic? Richard On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi John Clark > > Indeed the world contains much misery and injustice > simply because it isn't Heaven. Leibniz said that > without God, it could have been a lot worse. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 9/3/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* John Clark > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-31, 13:17:47 > *Subject:* Re: Is evolution moral ? > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > Is Evolution Moral?� >> > > I think Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would > have done things very differently, I would have made intense physical pain > a physical impossibility, but unfortunately that Yahweh punk got the job > and not me. > > The minimum requirement for calling oneself religious is a belief in God, > and if there is anybody who calls himself religious who doesn't think that > God is benevolent I have yet to meet him. And yet I maintain that a > benevolent God is totally inconsistent with Evolution, which can produce > grand and beautiful things but only after eons of monstrous cruelty. > > �> the moral is that which enhances life >> > > I think that's true, and if so then morality is subject to Evolution just > like anything else that enhances life. And if its made by something as > messy as Evolution then you wouldn't expect a moral system to be entirely > free of self contradictions. Consider the moral thought experiments devised > by Judith Jarvis Thomson: > > 1) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five > people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately > you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track > saving the lives of the five. Unfortunately there is a single person tied > to that track. Should you flip the switch and kill one man or do nothing > and just watch five people die? > > 2) As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You > are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a > heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to > you, your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and > onto the track killing him to save five people. Should you push the fat man > over the edge or do nothing? > > Almost everybody feels in their gut that the second scenario is much more > questionable morally than the first, I do too, and yet really it's the same > thing and the outcome is identical. The feeling that the second scenario is > more evil than the first seems to hold true across all cultures; they even > made slight variations of it involving canoes and crocodiles for south > American Indians in Amazonia and they felt that #2 was more evil too. So > there must be some code of behavior built into our DNA and it really > shouldn't be a surprise that it's not 100% consistent; Evolution would have > gained little survival value perfecting it to that extent, it works good > enough at producing group cohesion as it is. > > � John K Clark > > � > � > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi John Clark Indeed the world contains much misery and injustice simply because it isn't Heaven. Leibniz said that without God, it could have been a lot worse. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 13:17:47 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Is Evolution Moral?? I think Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very differently, I would have made intense physical pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately that Yahweh punk got the job and not me. The minimum requirement for calling oneself religious is a belief in God, and if there is anybody who calls himself religious who doesn't think that God is benevolent I have yet to meet him. And yet I maintain that a benevolent God is totally inconsistent with Evolution, which can produce grand and beautiful things but only after eons of monstrous cruelty. ?> the moral is that which enhances life I think that's true, and if so then morality is subject to Evolution just like anything else that enhances life. And if its made by something as messy as Evolution then you wouldn't expect a moral system to be entirely free of self contradictions. Consider the moral thought experiments devised by Judith Jarvis Thomson: 1) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track saving the lives of the five. Unfortunately there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch and kill one man or do nothing and just watch five people die? 2) As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you, your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track killing him to save five people. Should you push the fat man over the edge or do nothing? Almost everybody feels in their gut that the second scenario is much more questionable morally than the first, I do too, and yet really it's the same thing and the outcome is identical. The feeling that the second scenario is more evil than the first seems to hold true across all cultures; they even made slight variations of it involving canoes and crocodiles for south American Indians in Amazonia and they felt that #2 was more evil too. So there must be some code of behavior built into our DNA and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it's not 100% consistent; Evolution would have gained little survival value perfecting it to that extent, it works good enough at producing group cohesion as it is. ? John K Clark ? ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Is Evolution Moral? > I think Evolution is a hideously cruel process and if I were God I would have done things very differently, I would have made intense physical pain a physical impossibility, but unfortunately that Yahweh punk got the job and not me. The minimum requirement for calling oneself religious is a belief in God, and if there is anybody who calls himself religious who doesn't think that God is benevolent I have yet to meet him. And yet I maintain that a benevolent God is totally inconsistent with Evolution, which can produce grand and beautiful things but only after eons of monstrous cruelty. > the moral is that which enhances life > I think that's true, and if so then morality is subject to Evolution just like anything else that enhances life. And if its made by something as messy as Evolution then you wouldn't expect a moral system to be entirely free of self contradictions. Consider the moral thought experiments devised by Judith Jarvis Thomson: 1) A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track saving the lives of the five. Unfortunately there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch and kill one man or do nothing and just watch five people die? 2) As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you, your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track killing him to save five people. Should you push the fat man over the edge or do nothing? Almost everybody feels in their gut that the second scenario is much more questionable morally than the first, I do too, and yet really it's the same thing and the outcome is identical. The feeling that the second scenario is more evil than the first seems to hold true across all cultures; they even made slight variations of it involving canoes and crocodiles for south American Indians in Amazonia and they felt that #2 was more evil too. So there must be some code of behavior built into our DNA and it really shouldn't be a surprise that it's not 100% consistent; Evolution would have gained little survival value perfecting it to that extent, it works good enough at producing group cohesion as it is. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 12:16, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, cannabis is moral when used to treat illneses. But not moral (not health-enhancing) in all situations. I agree. Like mobile phones is moral when used to call an ambulance. But not moral when driving a car, as it is shown to be dangerously distracting. Few things are moral in all situations. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 06:03:20 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everyt
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi Bruno Marchal Yes, cannabis is moral when used to treat illneses. But not moral (not health-enhancing) in all situations. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 06:03:20 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: >From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a >distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what >I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of >course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, >so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my >time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it >wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com
Re: Is evolution moral ?
On 31 Aug 2012, at 10:54, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. OK. Again, this makes cannabis moral, as some (sick if you want) people come back through work thanks to it. usually people with parkinson, cancers, depression, (Cannabis cures more than 2000 diseases, and improves the condition of much more sickness and debilitating conditions). That was the point. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. OK. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Totally in agreement. The problem is that the market has not good cognitive/moral support in human psichology, because it is very recent. For one side, men acting in markets feels themselves as selfish and the winner is envied. This has´nt to be so, because engaging in the market is very good for the group. In the contrary, in sports and politics both things don´t happens in general:. the participants has a sense of participation in a almost religious activity, and the winners are admired. the losers are appreciated too. As a consequence, free market advocates, like Ayn Rand intelectualize their point of view by positivizing bare selfishness, which is an error, because not all kinds of selfishness are good overall. These simplifications are a result of the absence of a science of moral. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough > Hi Alberto G. Corona > > Adam Smith showed that "enlightened self-interest", > contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits > all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society > is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have > survived with such all-enriching market trading. > > Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, > advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. > I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. > > On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/31/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Alberto G. Corona > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 > *Subject:* Re: Is evolution moral ? > > Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a > tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of > ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best > fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of > the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our > ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, 燽ecomes a part of our > moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the > inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is > highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these > activities of acting for the good of the group. > > This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: > ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and > loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his > country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity > is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the > tribe.� > > In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit > is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive > habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and > sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is > absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund > evolutionary as well as moral sense.� > > 2012/8/31 Roger Clough > >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> � >> If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life,� >> then not working tends to be immoral. >> � >> It is interesting to try to combine this definition >> with evolution. You might enhance your own life >> (and chance of generating more humans) by >> defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome >> would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. >> � >> I think that in dealing with morality, the >> whole group should be considered -- at >> least from the viewpoint of a god. >> � >> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/31/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> >> - Receiving the following content - >> *From:* Bruno Marchal >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 >> *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary >> >> >> On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: >> >> From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me >> recommend a distinction.� Moral is what I expect of myself.� Ethics is what >> I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other >> people.� They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself >> if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical.� But they are not >> the same.� If I spent my time smoking po
Re: Re: Is evolution moral ?
Hi Alberto G. Corona Adam Smith showed that "enlightened self-interest", contrary to what a liberal might think, benefits all. The buyer gains goods, the seller gains capital. Society is eventually enriched as well. Man would never have survived with such all-enriching market trading. Ayn Rand went overboard on the self-interest aspect, advocating selfishness and self-esteem as goals to strive for. I don't think that greed and egotism enhance life, though. On the other hand, Rand's conservative economics was top rate. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-31, 05:23:23 Subject: Re: Is evolution moral ? Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, ?ecomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe.? In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense.? 2012/8/31 Roger Clough Hi Bruno Marchal ? If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life,? then not working tends to be immoral. ? It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. ? I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: >From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a >distinction.? Moral is what I expect of myself.? Ethics is what I do and what >I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.? They of >course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, >so it's both immoral and unethical.? But they are not the same.? If I spent my >time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it >wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.? As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order ?o commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I ha
Re: Is evolution moral ?
Take for example the most primitive form of competition: the fight in a tribe for a leader. You defeat your opponent using politics or a form of ritualized violence (sorry for the redundancy). Then if you are the best fit for the task and the competition is adequate, the overall fitness of the group is enhanced. Therefore, if there is group selection, and our ancestor had it, this kind of moral competition, becomes a part of our moral psichology. As a result this, in fact, is an integral part of the inherent collaborative-competitive idiosincrasy of maleness. And it is highly moral, that is, there is profound perceived feeling in these activities of acting for the good of the group. This is evident specially in the most primitive form of competition: ritualized violence, now called sports. The sportive spirit of winner and loser and the moral bond that unite both under the common good of his country or under the concept of humanity or greek people in the antiquity is a derivation of the spirit of internal competition for the good of the tribe. In other modern activities, for example in market competition, this spirit is not so deep since this activity do not connect with our cognitive habilities for core activities such is politics-defense-hunting, and sports, as a derivation of the latter. In sports for example, envy is absent, and sincere admiration is very common. This has a profund evolutionary as well as moral sense. 2012/8/31 Roger Clough > Hi Bruno Marchal > > If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, > then not working tends to be immoral. > > It is interesting to try to combine this definition > with evolution. You might enhance your own life > (and chance of generating more humans) by > defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome > would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. > > I think that in dealing with morality, the > whole group should be considered -- at > least from the viewpoint of a god. > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/31/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* Bruno Marchal > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 > *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary > > > On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: > > From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend > a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and > what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. > They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat > someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. > If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in > myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. > > > I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. > Disappointing, yes, but immoral? > > BTW: > I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke > pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot > and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early > morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who > published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. > > As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been > allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were > using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. > > Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the > number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, > because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but > irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I > think. > > Bruno > > > > On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need > to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the > others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in > the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have > about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral > from the beginning.. > > 2012/8/29 meekerdb > >> But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. >> That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must >> be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. >> Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of >> subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. >> Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern >> sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important >> to learn to lie. >> >> Brent >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" gr
Is evolution moral ?
Hi Bruno Marchal If IMHO the moral is that which enhances life, then not working tends to be immoral. It is interesting to try to combine this definition with evolution. You might enhance your own life (and chance of generating more humans) by defeating a competitor, but the overall outcome would be a wash (be amoral). Not sure. I think that in dealing with morality, the whole group should be considered -- at least from the viewpoint of a god. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/31/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-30, 13:03:32 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote: >From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a >distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what >I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of >course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, >so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my >time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it >wouldn't be unethical. I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral? BTW: I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US. As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy. Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I think. Bruno On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
