Evolution has a very important role in shaping us as creatures as we are. We have common opinions about all maxims because of evolution and not objective morality. Evolution was in place when humans had no concept of objective morality. — MoK
Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg
The original philosophical writings and ideas by the historical philosophers need to be translated into the present reality to suit, be intelligible and understandable, hence we could make more sense of the world and life in it.Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that. — DifferentiatingEgg
Apologies for any confusion. — KantRemember
He said on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?". How could He be abandoned if He and God are one? — MoK
How do you test something without reasoning? Test requires reasoning. Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests cannot carry out testing on anything.That requires considering killing a human as a maxim and show that it leads to a problem because of the test. — MoK
Good and happiness are the goals of life and conducts. Good and bad are the value of judgements. Happiness is also a concept. It is not just a feeling.What do you mean by good and bad? Isn't happiness just a feeling? — MoK
They don't. In most cases, they are irrational, groundless and inexplicable in their causes and origins.They define a situation and they are important to consider when it comes to morality. — MoK
"Life is precious" is inferred maxim from the other maxim "Thou shall not kill." It is all about reasoning and inferring in rational way. It has to do with the other maxims "Harming others is bad.", and obviously killing the innocent life is related to harming others, and so forth.That, life is precious, is just a mere opinion. That is true that most humans agree on it but that is nothing but a byproduct of evolution. Life is shaped by evolution and those genes that work against life are simply excluded through evolution. — MoK
Maxims are good in itself. Good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness by nature. There is no reason for the fact. It is the maxim, and it is universal law. Why valid? Because it is good. Good is better than bad.Now you are arguing in favor of Consequentialism which is different from objective morality. You didn't justify why such a prescription, universalizing a maxim, is valid. So again, why should we accept such a prescription? — MoK
They make moral judgement not reliable. IOW they hamper and obstruct moral judgements.As I mentioned before, these factors construct a situation in which a moral decision is required so they are relevant to morality. Whether they are all factors or not is the subject of the discussion. I claim that these factors are all we have regarding morality. You claim that pure reason is relevant to morality yet couldn't substantiate this. — MoK
You seem to be confusing the point of life, and the point of making decision for oneself. Life is precious, and needing to be kept. This is the instruction from the maxim.And where is your argument that he has the right to terminate his life? That is a feeling that troubles his life. It is my mere opinion that he has the right to terminate his life. By the way, how about people who are terminally ill? How about adultery? How about killing a serial killer who attempts to kill you?... — MoK
Well, said above, but will say again. Because good is better than bad, and happiness is better than unhappiness. People want good and happiness by nature, and hate and reject bad and unhappiness. There is no explanations or reason for that. That is why maxim is universal law. It is ultimate and pure just like 1+1=2 is true without reason, argument or explanation.Then you need to explain why we should universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK
If you are asking about Kant's position on the matter, we need to universalize the moral maxim in order to keep consistency in moral judgements within the society. It would be good for people's lives to be able to live in a fair and orderly society.You didn't answer my question. Let me explain things further to make sure that we are on the same page. According to Kant's first formulation, one needs to universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. This is discussed in the article you cited. I am asking why we should accept such a prescription, universalizing a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong. — MoK
You need to exclude feelings, beliefs, interests and opinions in moral judgements, because they don't belong to morality at all.Yes, but they are very important. Exclude them from human nature to see what is left. They are the main forces in our nature while rationality is only a guide. — MoK
If you lived alone in a desert, then there would be no such a thing as morality. Morality activates when the others in the society you live in approve your actions either right or wrong based on practical reasoning which are common to human nature in general.Well, that is the subject of discussion. I don't think so though. — MoK
When I think about the locked-in man's case again, I realise that no one has the right to judge his case, and tell him what is right or wrong for him to do. He has to decide what is best for him by himself. After all, it is his own life. How did I come to the judgement? From practical reasoning. No feeling, no belief, no opinion and no interest, but from practical reasoning i.e. mulling over the situation.Quite oppositely, it is a matter of what he is feeling. Keeping him alive is like torturing him. He wants to die. He is the only person who has the right to decide about his life. Therefore, it is our responsibility to assist him in terminating his life if he wants it. — MoK
The universal law and maxim is from pure practical reason. It is like 1+1=2. Do you want an argument why 1+1=2 is true? You know it by pure reasoning i.e. because you are a human, you know it by nature. No external perception, no experience and no explanation is needed here. The answer is already contained in the maxim itself.I am looking for an argument and not a command cited in the Bible. — MoK
Feelings, beliefs, opinions and interests change any time and with no certainty and consistency. Morality based on the psychological states would be just contingent emotional events which have no ground for justification and objectivity. Therefore it is not morality. It is anti morality.Well, these factors define a situation without them discussing morality is nonsense. — MoK
"I am that I am." also sounds something is missing in the statement. You say, "I am at the starbucks", or I am in the kitchen. Then the other party will ask you, I meant which country? And you would say, "I am in California, USA near the beach, or Tokyo Japan, near Deigoku Hotel". You don't say "I am that I am." :roll:If I recall correctly that was God's answer when Moses asked what is your name. — MoK
If you asked my definition of practical reason, it is the reasoning which deals with the judgements of right or wrong on human actions.I asked what is your definition of practical reasoning. You however define pure practical reasoning that I think you believe to be objective because it is based on the the universal law, Kant's first formulation. Anyhow, I can buy that definition. I however have objections on whether his first formulation leads to that morality is objective. Please read below. — MoK
1) The ancient moral code "Thou shall not kill." is the universal law, because the majority of the human population living in the world approves it as the law, and the approval is based on the pure practical reason.I have two objections to his first formulation: 1) Why should one universalize a maxim to see whether an action is right or wrong? and 2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. Let us consider the example of a person with locked-in syndrome. A person with locked-in syndrome may wish to die and another person may want to live. Saying that killing is wrong just puts the person who wishes to die in a miserable condition that is against his right in my opinion. — MoK
They don't warrant objectivity. Morality implies objectivity.2) Based on what justification one can exclude feelings, desires, interests, beliefs, and the like when it comes to a maxim. — MoK
You cannot find the solid ground, because you are not taking the universal law and moral code "Thou shall not kill." into account, which is the most critical core of morality. As said above, beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests has no objectivity, and has nothing to do with morality.We are left with beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests if we cannot find a solid ground to agree that morality is objective. Until then, these factors are the only ones that our decisions are based on. — MoK
Sure, I am aware of the moral skeptics, relativists and nihilists arguments. But I understand that most of their argument are based on the ontological uncertainty of moral good, rather than moral good being subjective. If you read the first article, that is what the article seems to be saying too.These folks don't say nonsense. They have their arguments against objective morality. I read these two articles, Moral Anti-Realism and Moral Realism, before. My mind is not fresh about the contents of these articles right now but I would be happy to read them again and discuss them with you if you are interested. — MoK
Matter is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is not true. Perhaps, the matter explanation is also not true.
Thoughts? — Art48
"I am that I am" doesn't sound like a proper name. It sounds more like, "I think therefore I am.". Is it not a statement, that he is the one who exists? If it is what God said, then should he not given out why it is the case he exists?In the Old Testament God introduced itself as "I am that I am". In Christianity, God is three persons, Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. God is called Allah in Islam. — MoK
But the OP is about the case that Jesus was claiming that he was being abandoned by God. Was Jesus claiming something which is not the case? Or perhaps sometimes God abandons folks, if he has some pre-planned mysterious intentions?Does God sometimes abandon his/her followers? — Corvus
Not according to what I am aware of. — MoK
Detachment could help efficiency in their capacity carrying out the tasks whatever they are customised to conduct. Their limitation is the narrow field they can perform their customised tasks, but because of the narrowness, it also allows them more efficient, powerful and speedy in the given tasks.The artificial intelligence may be detached but the question is whether detachment helps or hinders understanding. It could probably go either way. — Jack Cummins
What we can say is that the nature of AI intelligence is not the same intelligence of humans in any forms or shape, and that was the whole point of mine in my posts. I have never claimed I understand AI in any degree or level, as @wonderer1 claimed in his out of the blue postThe beings of sentience may be lead astray by too much emotion and the detached could be unable to relate to the needs of the sentient beings. — Jack Cummins
Corvus, you are pretending to understand modern AI when you clearly don't. — wonderer1
I just had quick scan of Kant dictionary, and it says when moral judgements are based on the universal law or categorical imperative, it is then said to be based on pure practical reason. It is still practical reasoning, but pure here seems to mean that like from CPR, it is not based on experience.How do you define practical reasoning? — MoK
I don't agree. Reasoning has to be objective in nature. If it is subjective, then it is not reasoning anymore. Beliefs, feelings, opinions and interests would be psychological states or dispositions, which are indeed subjective. How can objective reasoning be based on subjective psychological states? Isn't it a contradiction? Practical reasoning is also reasoning. Practical reasoning doesn't mean it is beliefs, feelings, interests, opinions.To me, practical reasoning is based on beliefs, feelings, opinions, and interests. What would the practical reasoning be based on if it is not based on these factors? — MoK
Well, there are many kind of folks in the world of course. Some will even say 1+1=2 is not true. It doesn't mean truth is falsity. We just have to accept the fact that some folks have no sense.I don't think so. There are plenty of people who think that morality is subjective. — MoK
Nietzsche: 'Willing in general is equivalent to the desire to become stronger, the desire for growth – and the desire to have the means for it.' — Number2018
Not quite sure if POWER means "the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:"We can start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue Section 3 that expresses the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:
Wo ist doch der Blitz, der euch mit seiner Zunge lecke? — DifferentiatingEgg
But isn't "life and pleasure" far better than FELLING of power? Without life, there is no power, no sensation. Just nothing and blankness forever. That can't have anything to do with feeling of power or Good. What about pleasure? Isn't it what life is all about?From there we can move to something like The Antichrist Aphorism 2 what is good? Everything that is the FEELING of power. — DifferentiatingEgg
For me "will" is desire or intentionality in the form of latent perception. It operates both consciously (in a mental way) and unconsciously (on a biological level). It is the underlying foundational perception of general perceptions and actions in the living organisms.Then we can simply ask ourselves what is will? A desire, a potential, a stimulus within us, a sensation of something prejudged within us something we can predicate ourselves in. — DifferentiatingEgg
How could you make a moral judgment in a situation if morality is not objective? Opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings construct a situation where a decision is required. If pure reason cannot help us to judge a situation and decide accordingly then the decision is merely based on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings, therefore morality is subjective. — MoK
I use reason to discuss religious concepts. The religious concepts are based on the scriptures, in this case, the Bible. I reason that the doctrine of the Trinity is problematic, accepting the verses of the Bible to be true. As far as I can tell, this is a part of the philosophy of religion. — MoK
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK
What do you mean by objective when it comes to morality? To me, objective morality is based on pure reason and all rational agents agree on it. — MoK
The electrical sensation of that often comes in pleasure and life affirming activities. That sensation that runs down your spine when you feel empowered. That doesn't mean idolize a will to live a "long life of pleasure...", the last man seeks a long life of meaningless pleasures. This is why Nietzsche doesn't object to tyranny and especially self tyranny, to build a discipline, is but an art form to Nietzsche. — DifferentiatingEgg
No, actually the will to power is a sensation above all, and certainly suggesting it is "Will to Life and pleasure," is the misnomer... — DifferentiatingEgg
Belief is either based on reason or faith. People have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the word of God regardless of whether there is a reason for it or not. — MoK
Of course there would be conflicts on judgements. But morality itself means that there is the objective universal law within the countries and societies one belongs to. Universal law means which will be regular and constant in its exercising in all cases, not the whole universe.No, I am just mentioning that there is always a conflict in the subjective moral worldview. — MoK
What does it tell you apart from the fact that the world is run by the universal law and objective morality, which governs right and wrong, hence the balance of moral goods and justice is being kept. Of course when the balance is tipped, there will be a collapse of the society or country.The world, fortunately, hasn't collapsed yet. The history of wars, conflicts, etc. is a witness that there have been always two sides, each side thinks it is right. — MoK
Isn't it just deduction? Why do you call it pure reason?A prior principle is a principle that is either evidently true or can be proven to be true based on deduction rather than observation and experience. — MoK
Yes, I agree with you on that point. However, you seem to be missing the critical point. Opinions, interests, beliefs and feelings are not the foundation for morality. They are psychological states, which are not subject for moral judgements. For moral judgements, it is practical reason which is applied to the judgements.We are rational agents yet we are very dependent on opinions, interests, beliefs, and feelings in order to function. — MoK
Corvus, you are pretending to understand modern AI when you clearly don't. — wonderer1
It just sounds like you are contradicting yourself.No, I am saying that the thief thinks he is right. I think he is not right so welcome to the subjective moral world. — MoK
The world will collapse with break down of law and order if that was true.So who is really right? — Corvus
Any person thinks that he is right. — MoK
What is a prior principles?By pure reason, I mean a sort of reason that is based on a prior principles. — MoK
They are just opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings. Why do they have to be practical reason?To me, practical reason is not based on a prior principle but on opinions, interests, beliefs, feelings, and the like. — MoK
The proof of God is not the subject of this thread. The main purpose of this thread is to point out the conflict between different verses from the Bible, accepting they are right. — MoK
I would suggest that you go back in your mind to the time when you were learning your native language and describe what it was like, how you learned to use the scribbles and sounds, etc., and then explain what is different about how AI is learning to use language. I would suggest that the biggest difference is the way AI and humans interact with the world, not in some underlying structure of organic vs inorganic. — Harry Hindu
Desire or will power is an instinctive need which is the base of all mental operations in the living. Obviously AI is incapable of that mental foundation in their operation due to the fact they are created by humans in the machinery structure and design. Therefore their operations are purely artificial and mechanistic procedures customized and designed to assist human chores.What is "desire" or "will power", if not an instinctive need to respond to stimuli that are obstacles to homeostasis? Sure, modern computers can only engage in achieving our goals, not their own. But that is a simple matter of design and programming. — Harry Hindu
Intelligence is neither process nor a thing. It is a mental capability of the living beings with the organ called brain.Well, I did ask if intelligence is a thing or a process. I see it more as a process. If you see it more as a thing, then I encourage you to ask yourself the same questions you are asking me - where does intelligence start and end? I would say that intelligence, as a process, starts when you wake up in the morning and stops when you go to sleep. — Harry Hindu
What is the question that I didn't answer? — MoK
That sounds like you are accepting the thief's claim as morally right, while maintaining your claim as morally right too, which are totally contradicting judgements. So who is really right?The thief and I have different opinions on stealing, so it does not follow from my opinion that morality is objective if that is what you want to conclude. — MoK
What do you mean by pure reason? Is it a Kantian term? Or is it your own definition of reason?As I mentioned before, objective morality is based on pure reason. — MoK
Amnesia is the destruction of self? And also, if I lose 90% of my memories, am I 90% less a self? — RogueAI
Ok, I hope things are clear now. — MoK
It is subjective if it is based on opinions, beliefs, interests, and the like. — MoK
I don't think that is a valid and sound argument for the existence of God. — MoK