Yet, we see so many people engaging in criminal activities and so few involved in practicing the positive rules of society. — TheMadFool

Where are you getting this statistic? What makes you say that few people practice "positive rules" of society?

So, doesn't that mean that people are inherently bad? — TheMadFool

I don't think you can label anything as inherently bad, just bad in relation to something else. People are inherently people, capable of good and evil.

That's a fine distinction but something tells me it all boils down to good vs evil. You uphold the law because you're good and you break it because you're bad. You do good because you're good and you don't do good because you're bad. — TheMadFool

You're trying to find black and white in a very grey concept. Is a person who kills their girlfriend 100% evil? What about their abusive father? What if someone killed someone who was going to attempt to drive humanity extinct? What if one day, you become a billionaire and you decide that you want to strive for those positive rules, you decide that you want to do the most you can to be good, start a business helping end world hunger and it works?
But then an asteroid hits the earth and kills everyone and you could've stopped it had you started a business to do that instead, couldn't one even argue that not putting your money towards stopping the asteroid was evil? People can't be evil, only their actions can. I personally think that the best way to look at morality is paying attention to the impact that ones actions have on the well-being of others. It's futile to think that hate, lying, or even murder are inherently evil. But I mean it when I say this is dangerous to think about, one of the only Nietzsche quotes that has stuck with me to this day is “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

That's fantastic. I too think goodness=invisibility. — TheMadFool

Is Elon Musk invisible?

The bigger half? — TheMadFool

Does it matter?

That's how you define good though. Just because that is your belief on what good is, doesn't mean that it is an objective fact. To say that good is the absence of power is neglecting the fact that power is necessary for society to function. Stating that good is about equality and the absence of power is just a way for you to assert your worldview onto others, hoping that they will conform to those beliefs so that they never try to have power over you. Any declaration of evil on another is an attempt to influence their beliefs and actions.

ower, bottomline, is control over other people - it's inherently wrong. — TheMadFool

If this were the case, any attempt to influence another person would be an attempt to commit evil. Trying to influence someone is just a romantic way of saying trying to manipulate/control the beliefs of that person. Calling someone evil would be inherently evil. Moral beliefs are just one of many means of controlling the world around you.

Experience, the little I have, has shown me that in our present circumstances there are things like power and wealth which are considered, by some, to be more important than good, whatever ''good'' means. — TheMadFool

I think those people might label good as being a form of societal power. In my opinion, our definition of good comes for the sum of society's emotional beliefs about the way we want things to be. We condemn people who use "bad" means in order to protect ourselves from being victim to those behaviors. I don't think it is fair to say that people view power as being more important than good because I view good as being a form of power itself. Its more like people who stray from the convention of morality are less interested in that kind of power and decide morality isn't necessary to get what they want.

The one offered by Plato is that when one does something . evil one mistakenly thinks one is doing something good; we always desire the good. — Mitchell

So based on what I said above, I disagree with this. We don't always desire the good. Good is just a socially defined and accepted way of getting what you desire. From this view, the desire is neutral. The means to satisfying that desire is where things go wrong, or sometimes the satisfaction of that desire altogether is wrong. I'm sure there is some whacko exception to this next statement, but for the most part, people don't rape because they believe it is right, they rape because they want to and they don't care if it is wrong.

Do you think it is possible to actually desire the bad, knowing that it is bad and that nothing good will come of it? — Mitchell

I guess the answer to this question depends on what you mean by good and bad, but I think it can be generally agreed upon that genocide is bad, but for the person/people committing it, it solves all their problems. Even though people view it as being bad, it ends up being good for the perpetrators. Something good comes from it, just not good for everyone.

Lol. The gift of hubris. — Rich

I love the hubristic act of pointing out someones hubris

I'm not claiming there is a hard line between any of these reasoning domains. I'm saying they are all useful variations on the one theme. — apokrisis

So it seems like all of these concepts are overlapping. Math, Philosophy, Science. Where does pseudoscience fit into all of that? If there isn't a hard distinction between those 3 subjects, can we expect there to be a hard distinction between good and bad science? Or even good and bad reasoning?

I'm struggling to grasp your separation of science from philosophy. If the three forms of reasoning are all dependant on each other, and that is what makes up the scientific method, then what place does philosophy that isn't subjectable to the scientific method have?

Everyone is evolving in their own way. For some reason, using reasoning, some people just absolutely insist on some artificial hierarchy. It's part of some people's way of seeing things. — Rich

I suppose you're right, but I think the hierarchy is important in the sense that serious topics such as global warming or nuclear Armageddon aren't approached from a "Gods will" perspective. To some extent that hierarchy is necessary

People just think in different ways. Some just prefer to think that they think better. It is a hierarchical thing without substance. I'm amused when those of deepest faith and dogma claim to be using reason for their own reasons. — Rich

So are you saying that there aren't different degrees of intelligence?

If course you are correct. Reasoning is entirely self-congratulatory and had no meaning or validity beyond that. — Rich

I don't know about that. It has meaning when you use it in order to determine how to act, or what to do.

This is the point made by CS Peirce, the guy who invented the philosophy of pragmatism. Reasoning - when considered in its full sense - is this three stage process of abduction, deduction and induction. That is, hypothesis, theory and test. — apokrisis

So do the 3 different forms of reasoning have individual value, or are they dependant on eachother?

Now philosophy seems to split off deduction. — apokrisis

What do you mean when you say philosophy splits off deduction? Didn't Aristotle create deductive reasoning before the scientific method? Is there a way to map out different "degrees of rigor" where science isn't applicable?

A full account of reasoning is three staged. First comes abduction or "a productive guess". Then comes the deduction needed to shape the guess into the formal hierarchical structure of a theory. Then comes the inductive confirmation - the acts of measurement which feed back to tell us the "truth" of the theory and its grounding assumptions. — apokrisis

Isn't that just the foundation of the scientific method though? Would it be correct to define that as reasoning or science?

It's philosophy of science though. Are the two really as separate as you're making them?

Another big one is the belief that because natural laws have been true in the past, that they will continue to be true in the future

Those prosecuting the case against are George Ellis and Joe Silk, who led with a paper called Defend the Integrity of Physics in December 2014. — Wayfarer

Maybe they were right. Maybe we've reached the limit of scientific knowledge and it's collapsing back onto its logical foundations. With that description, it seems like the work of these theoretical physicists is better described as abductive reasoning than science.

But really one could argue that all science is reducible to its axioms and therefore any scientific evidence fits the description of what I was going for in the first post. It's just a way to include its axioms in the idea of falsifiability.

Part of my investigation into the philosophy of science started with my investigation into the philosophy of mind, specifically my attempts to define thought. I arrived at the hypothetical conclusion that if reductionism and determinism are true, thought could be defined as the action of carrying out instructions. Basically identical to the function of a CPU if I understand correctly. That drove me deep into the hard problem of consciousness, the concept of certainty, and the concept of "good science". If this is the case we could bypass the attempts to locate "consciousness" and focus directly on modifying behavior from a neuronal point of view. But the core of that idea is essentially panpsychism. The notion that thought is possible on an atomic level. I think it is possible that thought is a dimension (for lack of a better word) of matter. Attempting to test that though would be the same as trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness. Frankly though, all of that could be bullshit, all I know is I am officially confused.

Perhaps "good science" should be rooted in its consistent ability to predict future events instead of its ability to be falsifiable

My personal view on morality is that it is partially innate, in the sense that our individual moral code is based entirely on our evolved emotional responses to individual situations. The notion that there would be some universal moral code doesn't make much sense from that point of view. People are only as moral as they desire to be as they feel they are capable. The reason that different cultures have different moral codes comes down to the interaction of the sum of all individual moral codes. If you feel that something is right, and a larger group of people feel it is wrong, it is more advantageous to change your moral code than to go against the group. That's why different cultures have different moral standards. When it comes to morals, you either stay with the majority or face the consequences and that is decided on a subconscious level that many people consider to be their "conscience".

I also think it is important to note that I view the desire for pleasure as an escape from pain. If a human were to do absolutely nothing, it would begin to feel pain. Probably thirst or hunger first. I think that would continue infinitely in any case where pain is possible. So I guess I have this backward. Maybe its the aversion to pain that is the foundation to human motivation

What about the desire for death? Not common, but some people clearly desire death, and through suicide find it. Pleasure doesn't seem to figure into it. For instance, the pleasure of escaping suffering seems far fetched. We get relief, but not pleasure per se when suffering ends. — Bitter Crank

I guess I wasn't as specific in my writing as I was in my thinking. I view pleasure and pain as being on a spectrum, so I would view suicide as being about pleasure in the sense that it is an escape from pain. Basically two sides of the same coin.

Like, "Everything people do is in the service of the sex drive."--a crude misstatement of Freud's theories. Yes, some of our behavior is very much in the service of sex--or libido--but it's difficult to figure how Einstein (or a few hundred thousand scientific researchers and theorists are all trying to serve their sex drives by thinking about relativity, the Standard Model, Quarks, String Theory, or whatever the hell they are thinking about. — Bitter Crank

Interesting that you brought up this part. Makes me think of the quote, "Everything in life is about sex, except sex. Sex is about Power." When it comes to how that relates to scientists, I think it is theoretically possible that their driving desire is curiosity. But then why do humans have curiosity?? Because it has been evolutionarily beneficial in the past to be curious. Whether in terms of personal safety or any other reason that curiosity might be beneficial to the individual. I think simply because that individual has adopted the genes/ social conditioning to be curious can be tied back to sex in some way, because I believe that every trait we are capable of having as humans is for the sake of securing the ability to reproduce. Even that quote, "Sex is about Power" They are obviously intimately related, but is sex about power? Power about sex? I think it's probably the latter, I think humans desire power because it is another thing that increases the probability that they will mate in the future

Similarly, people get up and go to work everyday at the same, fucking shithole of a job -- because their families depend on their income, and they want to see their children eat well. They get pleasure from that, but again, it's not like the pleasure of Ben and Jerry's. It's much more complicated. — Bitter Crank

I would agree with you here. It is incredibly complicated. I suppose it could be argued that the concept of their children not eating well provides them with pain. But I'm sure that there is a lot of beliefs/ conditioning that factor into it too. I'm just proposing that pleasure and pain are at the root of those beliefs. There would be other factors at play but I think that pain and pleasure would be the root of those factors as well.

This is a term used to describe a person making a clear irrational decision, say to have a quick fun fling, at the cost of sometimes a great percentage of ones finances, the security of one's family, one's job, etc. — noAxioms

I suppose you are right in the sense that there will always be aspects of human nature that work separate from logical faculties.

The AI subject interests me a lot, partly due to be being close to the business. — noAxioms

You're involved in AI?

The first is more like the scientific method. Start without knowing whatever it is you're trying to discover, and come to some conclusion after unbiased consideration of all sides. Rationalizing is what a government study often does: Start with an answer you want to prove and choose evidence that supports it. — noAxioms

But is the latter not entirely what scientific method is? Any experiment conducted with the scientific method starts with a hypothesis of what you are trying to prove. Isn't any attempt to understand the world rationalizing?

The AI can be as smart as it wants, but eventually it will have to put restraints on the lifestyle envisioned by "give peace a chance", and those restrains will be resented. — noAxioms

This is what I am suggesting in my original post. People want the world to be peaceful, but the same people don't want to give up what it is that make them human in the first place. If peace is a freedom from disturbance, it is unattainable through human instincts

Survival of the fittest refers to a fit species, not a fit individual. — noAxioms

Perhaps that's true on a grand scale, but it doesn't change that fact that the survival of the species is dependent on the survival of its individual. I don't think I ever said that survival of the individual was more important than the survival of the species. What I am saying, is that anything that has evolved into any species over time is either something that has enabled it to survive in the past, or something that has mutated off of something that has enabled it to survive in the past. As for you being fit, it certainly doesn't hurt the species for you to have the desire to be fit. That is beneficial for the species as well as you.

I don't think you can choose rationally, except in cases where it doesn't matter to your core instincts. — noAxioms

I'm not saying I live a life devoid of anything other than reason. I'm curious what you mean by core instincts though. Like fight or flight? Then no my rational mind would be overpowered. Emotions? Desire? While both of these are arguably instinctual, as in I have no real control over what I want or how I feel, It is possible to understand them further and make rational decisions on how to deal with them. You ask for examples? I can understand what makes me happy, what makes me sad, or what I desire and I can use logic to satisfy my desires and avoid being sad as much as possible.

I had my own, and finally rationalized something (on the order of for whose benefit do I draw breath?) that blatantly conflicted with the irrational assumptions, and the belief was not open to being corrected. — noAxioms

Why wasn't it open to being corrected?

The super-AI, having no history of evolution to give it fit beliefs instead of true ones, might actually be rational and would believe things no humans considered because we think we know it all, and would then behave in a way quite unanticipated to us. — noAxioms

What do you mean when you say it might be rational? What is the difference between being rational and rationalizing something?

The danger of it is that we can't predict what a greater intelligence will figure out any more than mice would have anticipated humans knowing about quantum mechanics. — noAxioms

I don't necessarily think that is true. That depends entirely on how we program it. If we define intelligence as being the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, by creating superintelligence, we're really just speeding up the ability to do that. Any use of knowledge and skill is only useful in the ability to use it. If it were to be used in terms of problem-solving, I think we would rapidly solve all of our problems until the problem of survival is the only one left. Then what? Transcend time itself maybe, but I can't even pretend to know what that means.

Being fit. It does me no benefit to be fit, but that's how I'm programmed. — noAxioms

Being fit is a good purpose in life, but the desire to be fit can be reduced to survival instinct. Hence the phrase survival of the fittest. Being fit is just another aspect of maintaining a quality life.

I think I understand it, and the irrational is in charge. Doesn't need to be, but the part in charge seems also in charge of which half is in charge. That means I want to be irrational. I have no desire to let the rational part of me call the shots. It hasn't figured out any better goals so it would only muck things up. — noAxioms

I guess I agree that the irrational is in charge, I think that our emotions dictate any rational decision making. I don't think there is any escaping that for the time being. I still choose to live my life through my rational mind. I think that if I can understand the irrational foundation of my mind I can do a better job at satisfying it. But I suppose it's possible I will come to a different conclusion later in life

Oh damn. I didn't know that. I liked what you said above btw. Interesting way of looking at things

I only read beyond good and evil but I'm familiar with some of the concepts from his other books. Why doesn't the will to power count?

Lol but Nietzsche was the first philosopher I ever read. It was Nietzschean themes in pop culture that got me asking the deeper questions in life to begin with. You think that materialist philosophy is nonsense, what else is there though?

What philosophy do you suggest?

And lol great movie

I wouldn't say I'm particularly enthusiastic about the elimination of the individual, I just think that many of the problems in the world are caused by individuality. I don't run my life around my sense of self. Along with other things I mentioned above, I see the sense of individuality as being a tool for survival. I don't limit myself based on who I think I am. Being an individual is only important to people because it is central to their ability to attain positive emotion. But the desire to attain positive emotions comes with a cost, the negative emotions.

I'm arguing that the hedonic treadmill we all live on is a deeper part of human nature than individuality. This begs the question, is it worth it? Is it worth being forced to experience the negative in life in order to experience the positive. I don't think it is. People may feel that losing that part of themselves would be losing the meaning in life, but I would argue that life has no meaning. The closest thing that can come to providing a central meaning in life is the concept of survival. I think that survival is at the base of every human concept. I'm not sure who said it, but there's a quote that goes something like this. "Perfection isn't attained when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Any goal we have in trying to solve the problems of the world, any attempt to make life better, will inevitably lead to losing the things that we think are important. This is because deep down, out of our control, there is nothing more important to us as a species than survival. If we take away the ability to feel positive and negative emotions, I don't believe individuality will be very important to us anymore. I think with the development of AI, that is what will happen. I'm not really enthusiastic about it. It probably won't happen in my life time. But if we continue to try and solve the problems of humanity, we aren't going to recognize it anymore.

I personally don't want to play any part in that. I would much rather enjoy my life because I don't see any of this happening in my lifetime. This will all be developed with more efficiency by a superintelligent AI than I could ever provide, and it will be run by people with the financial incentive to do so. This isn't really about what I think should be done, even though I do think it should be. It is about what I think will be done, by powers that are out of my control and out of my desire to change.

Survival is not my primary goal, but merely a means to the perpetuation of my genes. — noAxioms

If survival isn't your primary goal, then what is?

The irrational is in charge, and the rational part of me is only a tool to it, not what drives my goals. — noAxioms

I agree that the rational part is only a tool, but is it true that the irrational is in charge or is it just an aspect of your nature that you don't have a rational understanding of yet?

I don't think that the hive mind is a dead end. I think it is a very possible direction to go in through AI. I was planning on breaking my post up but I decided to eat something first. But I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting something is the matter with me. And for christ sake stop calling me Shirley.

Lol sorry. Presenting my thoughts in an easily digestible way has never been a talent of mine.

You didn't get the argument then. If the hive mind is one puree mind, then joining it is, for all practical purposes, like death. I might as well kill myself because there is no benefit to me. — Chany

If you believe that it wouldn't benefit you in any way, and is equivalent to death, I'm curious what your purpose in life is now. In what way would the hive mind interfere with that purpose?

What I imagine you are thinking of is the pureed mind, where all individual distinctions have been lost — Bitter Crank

That would be a correct assumption. What I am thinking of is a way of connecting ideas. Most of our problems in society today come about as a result of differing ideology's. What this give mind would do, by eliminating some aspects of the self, would provide a good way to meet in the middle. If the purpose of society is to promote harmony and cooperation, then this would be the perfect society. I think that a lot of people have a strong belief system that they hold as a part of their identity. Not everyone's belief systems can be true. The only way to effectively measure the truth is through scientific investigation. Before science, different ideology's evolved as a mechanism for survival. Good ideology's survived poor ones died out. Individuality was important to that process. It was the right way to do things. But there comes a point where individuality doesn't serve a purpose beyond self interest and we are approaching that point rapidly. What purpose does the concept of individuality serve beyond self interest? If self interest is the motivation behind the desire for individuality, wouldn't it be best to unite our self interests through the use of a superintelligent AI and connect ourselves to it? Wouldnt that solve an astronomical amount of our problems? If the sacrifice of individuality was necessary for a permanent reduction/elimination of long term suffering, isn't that the best option we have for our future? Wouldn't it be morally wrong to cling to our individuality under the belief that it makes us 'special' in some way?

Yes, Happiness is a biological phenomenon, and yes the concept is referring to that phenomenon. You could say the same about suffering though. Is there any scientific evidence to suggest that the two aren't related to each other? Is there any reason to believe that they don't exist on opposite ends of a spectrum? Does happiness really benefit your health, or is it your health that contributes to your happiness? Same for fitness. Same with your social skills. Couldn't it go the other way as well? Wouldn't suffering do the opposite to all of those things? It makes sense to me that happiness is the evolved chemical reward for doing things beneficial to survival and suffering is the punishment. If we as a society were to get rid of EVERY cause of suffering, that reward would no longer be a reward. If everyone were 'happy' all of the time, would they really be happy? Would we still have use for that concept? Or would everything just be completely neutral?

But would the concept of happiness exist without the concept of suffering/sadness? Would happiness have any value to us as humans if we had never experienced suffering?

Suppose at some point in the future we manage to create a 3d printer capable of printing on a subatomic level. Anyone would be able to use that device to create a nuclear bomb and immediately wipe out humanity. This is just one example of very dangerous theoretical technology. we are approaching a point technologically where eventually freedom of thought will be too dangerous to be considered. Is it really necessary in the first place? Why is freedom important? So that I am not oppressed by an unjust power? So that I have the freedom to do as I please? When the concept of freedom was first used, an idea like this would have been inconceivable. People demand freedom so that no one interferes with their quest to happiness. If we all shared the same happiness, would freedom still be a meaningful concept? Would individuality? Is anything more valuable than happiness?

To me it seems the internet is just the beginning. What happens when we start implanting technology into our brains? We already have governmental surveillance of virtually everything we do. If we were to start uploading our thoughts into computers the government would be able to see that too.And I think it's only a matter of time until we do this. Elon Musk is already trying to. The only way to stop the government from misusing that kind of power would be for everyone's thoughts to be accessible to anyone. I don't think that would be a bad thing. It could play a huge part in putting an end to unnecessary suffering.

And not even that, because most people are, and must be, on the "exploited" end of the stick. — Bitter Crank

But is there anything better?

Combining the alleged selfish motivations of 7 billion people into one mega-self might produce a hellish monster of cosmic-scale greed — Bitter Crank

Would there be any negative consequences to that though? What is greed if there is no separate individual left for it to negatively affect?

It may be uncomfortable to think about being dead, but once you were dead, you wouldn't really care.

Same thing. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

If we fused our minds (perish the thought) there wouldn't be "everyone" anymore, just one big ME. There would be no "greater good", only MY good. And who would ever remind the great ME to waste less than vast amounts of time on trivial matters? Nobody. There would be no one else. — Bitter Crank

Would it be a bad thing if it were just one big me? I believe that most people are motivated mainly by self-interest. That's why capitalism works so well. It's a system that functions by exploiting people's selfish desires. But it is an imperfect system. Often times one's quest for personal gain comes at the expense of other people. The simplest way to fix that in my opinion, would be to combine all individual selfs into a single mind. It could be a utilitarian utopia and I can't come up with any actual downsides to it. It may be uncomfortable to think about a loss of individuality, but once it was gone I don't think you would really care.