Comments

  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    We say that two substances are intrinsically different when they have different essences. — MoK

    Of course they are different essences, but the question is in what way they are different. Aren't there any details of the properties between the different essences?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    That is not correct. There is no moral truth in moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism is however based on a person's perspectives so moral truth depends on the individual subjective perspective. — MoK

    Well, that is exactly same thing as saying the other folks judgements on the morality don't count or matter at all. Morality itself implies objectivity and universality in the judgements. When you deny that you are denying morality itself. There is no such thing as subjective morality. That would just mean a psychological state or disposition, nothing to do with morality.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    God and Jesus accepting that Jesus is God have different substances. Their substances differ because their essences are different. — MoK

    How are the substances different?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Quite the opposite. If an action is proven to be objectively right or wrong then any society must accept it as right or wrong. — MoK
    It is the same meaning as " Any society prove an action is objectively right or wrong, they must accept it as right or wrong.", but you just changed the sentence from active to passive form, and then wrote it is quite the opposite.

    That is a matter of their opinion that is different from the opinion of people in other countries. — MoK
    Different countries and societies could have their own objective and universal laws in morality.

    If it is so then morality is not objective. — MoK
    It is objective within the countries, and societies.

    But practical reasoning is different from pure reasoning. I think that Kant believed that morality is objective based on pure reasoning. Don't you think? — MoK
    Practical reason is what deals with the moral judgements, not pure reason.

    That does not answer my question. I asked whether you can derive that killing is wrong under all circumstances using the first formulation of Kant. — MoK
    The answer is "It depends on which country you are residing, when the killing took place." It will be judged by the universal law in the country where the action had been taken.

    But people have different opinions, beliefs, feelings,... How could we agree on a maxim if we want to derive rightness or wrongness from opinions, beliefs, feelings,...? How could morality be objective then? — MoK
    Hume was a moral relativist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is". But still human beliefs, feelings and emotions are common in most times in the form of sympathy.

    Indeed, that is quite ironic! — MoK
    Hume has his points.

    No, I believe in subjective morality. — MoK
    Subjective morality means a moral nihilist.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    One aspect of the difference between artificial intelligence and a human being is that it is unlikely that they will ever be constructed with a sense of personal identity. They may be given a name and a sense of being some kind of entity. However, identity is also about the narrative stories which we construct about one's life. It would be quite something if artificial intelligence could ever be developed in such a way as it would mean that consciousness as we know it had been created beyond the human mind. — Jack Cummins

    Sure. All computers and mobile phones on earth have been allocated with the unique ID either via IP address or MAC address, hence they could be identified and located. But the ID is not self identity.
    It is doubtful if these devices including AI agents would know who they are.

    Identity has subjective and objective aspects in its nature. Machines have objective IDs, so they can be identified by other machines or humans. But they don't seem to have the subjective aspect of ID.

    Idea of self is more than just names, address and DOB etc. It is also the psychological and historical reflections and mental states.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    Sure. A valid view is one that allows you to accomplish some goal. We change our views of humans depending on what it is we want to accomplish - genetic views, views of an individual organisms, a view as the species as a whole, cultural views, views of governance, etc. It's not that one view is wrong or right. It's more about which view is more relevant to what it is you are trying to accomplish. — Harry Hindu
    Your post with the genetics point of view on humans
    just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine — Harry Hindu
    sounded too restricted and even negative, which didn't help adding more useful information on understanding or describing humans.

    The question now is, what point of view do we start with to adequately define intelligence, one of a particular organism (each organism is more or less intelligent depending upon the complexity of its behaviors), species (only humans are intelligent), or universal (any thing can be intelligent if it performs the same type function)? — Harry Hindu
    I am not sure, if intelligence is a correct word to describe the AI agents. Intelligence is an abstract concept with no clear boundary in its application, which has been in use to describe the biologically living animals with brains.

    Could usefulness or practicality or efficiency better terms for describing the AI agents, unless you would come up with some sort of reasonable definition of intelligence? What do you think?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    An essence to me describes what makes a thing what it is. Essence is about whatness. — MoK

    What are the essences of the God who made Jesus into another God? And what are the essences of the God Jesus?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    According to Kant, accepting a maxim as a universal law is a way to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Once people agree that an action is right or wrong, they can establish the legislative code accordingly. — MoK
    If a community or society come to agreement on certain moral codes, they could make them into the objective and universal law. Then the moral code becomes the legal legislation. For example, in some countries of South Asia such as Singapore and Indonesia, drug trafficking offenses are punishable by death. Where does the legislation come from? It must have from the moral code which they have agreed to make into their universal law.

    Note here "universal" doesn't mean for the whole universe, but for all cases in the country or society or group.

    Anyhow, it would be a result of their practical reasoning on the cases which drug uses and trades cause harm to the population in the countries. And it must have been derived from the universal law that harming others is morally evil.

    Could you derive whether killing a person with locked-in syndrome is morally right or wrong using Kant's first formulation? How about people who are terminally ill? How about when your country is at war with another country and the enemy is about to occupy your country? — MoK
    If you or the society you belong to, have accepted the maxim that killing is bad under all circumstances, then it would be morally wrong to assist the locked-in man to die.

    However, in some countries in Europe, assisted killing is legal in such cases. Hence it would depend on the society the situation has risen. Again here, "universal" doesn't mean the whole universe. It means for all cases in the country or society or group.

    If morality is based on reason only then it is objective. — MoK
    Not just reasoning, but humans also share similar emotions in the form of sympathy according to Hume. But Hume was, I gather, a moral nihilist. He said, you cannot derive "ought from is", hence there is no obligation for one to be expected to perform moral good out of the maxims or universal law.

    From what you have been saying on morality, Hume seems to be on the same side as your idea.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    So are you a Christian? — Corvus

    I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death.     — MoK

    If you believed in Science, then life after death looks unlikely. But from the religious point of view, and some QM ideas, life after death seems a possibility. How and to what would be subject to depending on which religion and QM theories we are talking about of course.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    ↪Jack Cummins


    Sure good point.  I used to see mind as the totality of mental operation and reflective consciousness including sensation, perception, reasoning as well emotional states i.e. desire, pleasure, good will, moral judgements and even depression which rose from the biological body evolved from the lived experience.

    If machines or tools can have all that, then yes we could say they have mind.  But I doubt they do.  For example, I don't see machines ever having desire, love and hate, volition, moral judgements and depression and elation, fear, idea of God, idea of life and death via aging due to lack of the lived experience which real humans have.

    From my point of view, intelligence is a type of reasoning, learning and understanding as well as capacity for solving problems in the real world.  But how wide that boundary should be, that seems a tricky task for defining the concept. I am sure @HaryHindu and some others will come up with different, and their own versions of definitions of intelligence of course.

    AI is definitely very effective and efficient in searching and finding the requested data via computer search algorithms. However, can it be called intelligence? It cannot even make a coffee, let alone being aware of their inevitable death via aging.

    Yes, even machines will all die due to aging of the electrical parts. The aging part of the machines could get replaced with the new parts, unlike human bodies which will die eternally, when their biological organs fail due to aging. But without the human intervention of servicing and replacing the parts of the machinery of aging, obsoleting and malfunctioning AI, they will also face the eternal death in the form of the physical destruction into scrap metal recycling.

    I have just thrown out a bunch of my old ipads (still working in hardware), but non-functional in software into the rubbish collection bin, all broken into small metal and plastic pieces with the hammer for data deletion in rough and barbaric way (but very quick, easy and cheap).

    They were excellent machines in their own days (10 years ago), but not really usable these days due to the OS no longer supported by Apple Inc. I am adamant, they would have had no idea of their eventual and necessary deaths in the physical form, if they ever had any form of mind of their own, which is pretty doubtful.

    OK IPads are not AI, but we can draw an analogy on their fate which will necessitates their inevitable deaths and destruction via aging and obsoleting usefulness in real world.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    Is mind a necessary condition for intelligence? — RogueAI

    But what is mind? Is mind only from the biological brain in the living bodies? Or could non-living entities such as machines and tools have mind too?
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    Only if you have a peculiarly limited view of genetics. Everything humans do is a subgoal of survival and dispersing the genes of the group. The design of your adaptable brain is in your genes. — Harry Hindu
    No, I don't have any idea what genetics suppose to be or do in depth. I just thought that genetic is one way to describe humans, but to define humans under the one tiny narrow subject sounds too obtuse and meaningless. Because humans are far more than genes, and they cannot be reduced into just genes.

    Genetics supposed to add the bio-structural information to the knowledge of understanding humans, not to reduce it, in other words. Makes sense?

    Please define intelligence. — Corvus

    I am attempting to do so:     — Harry Hindu
    Let us know when you do.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    No problem mate! :) — MoK
    :pray: :smile:

    I am undecided about believing in God. The same applies to life after death. I have to face these to be certain. — MoK
    You made clear that you are not an atheist. So, the choice for you seems to be between being an agnostic and theist.

    Or different essences, if you prefer? — Corvus

    Yes.     — MoK
    What are the two essences in nature and character, and how are they different?
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    Aren't we going to end up in the Chinese Room? No matter how the Ai is programmed, it's following a rules-based system that produces output we perceive as intelligent answers. Even if Ai's start solving outstanding problems in science and logic and mathematics, aren't there still going to be doubts about their intelligence? — RogueAI

    Intelligence is a unclear concept. @HarryHindu asked me, if AI blokes are intelligent. Before answering the question, I need to know what intelligence means.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    but my question is why we should generalize a maxim to become a universal law.

    Think of a person with locked-in syndrome. He suffers from being in such a condition greatly. He wishes to die desperately. Isn't it right to assist him to die? Is it right to keep him in such a condition? Accepting that we only can find the rightness of a maxim by generalizing it to become a universal law has this danger of putting people in an undesirable and unfair situation such as people with locked-in syndrome.     — MoK

    Universal law doesn't mean some legislative codes or official declaration.  It means the way moral good and bad is judged.   It is judged by our practical reasoning on the actions, decisions on the moral situations.

    In Kant, reason is an objective and universal way of thinking.   Everyone on the planet says 1+1=2 (by analytic reason), and killing is morally bad (by practical reason).  This is what Kant means by universal and objective.

    Moral good is not something God tells you what to do, and it is not an absolute concept existing somewhere in space, in Kant's view.

    OK there are some controversial cases in real world, where decisions and judgements could be controversial or contradictory such as your example of the locked-in man.  Even in that case, the judgement and decision on the situation are to be made from practical reasoning, so that the result is thought to be best for achieving moral good (not by God's instruction or the absolute moral Good as some folks seem to think).

    Moral good is not about what some folks feels different on certain situations. It is about the actions which have been performed, and decisions which have been made. It is not about the feelings. It is about the actions. In that sense moral judgements are reflective and analytical which are made via practical reasoning.

    You may feel about something totally different in moral judgements from the rest of the folks in the universe. That is not morality. That is just a psychological disposition or beliefs which can change through time and by rethinking. But when you performed a certain act on the moral situation, it will then be judged morally good or bad.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Never did I claim such a thing. — MoK
    I thought you did. Maybe it was someone else. My sincere apologies for mistaking your religious stance. So are you a Christian?

    Different substances are different in their essences. — MoK
    Of course, they would be different in some ways. What would be the difference be? Or different essences, if you prefer?
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Ok, I will read them when I have time. — MoK

    :ok: :wink:
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I am wondering what is the argument for objective morality. As I mentioned Kant's argument is false. Hume's argument is based on specific feelings that are not common between human beings. — MoK

    Please read the SEP article on Kant's Moral Philosophy. Here is an article about Hume's Morality as well. And this is Kant vs. Hume on Morality.

    After your reading, please let us know the reason why you think they are false. You cannot say they are false, if you don't know what they are.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    From a genetic point of view humans are just a baby-making (gene dispersal) engine. — Harry Hindu
    A genetic point of view seems to have a peculiarly limited idea of humans.

    , could we then say AI (the robot) is intelligent? — Harry Hindu
    Please define intelligence.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    Well, God can teach us the truth so we can become Omniscient if knowledge is bound. — MoK
    You claimed you are an atheist. If God doesn't exist, how could he teach you to become omniscient?

    I think two entities with the same sort of substance cannot occupy the same location. Therefore, two Omnipresent entities must have different substances. — MoK
    What would the different substances be in their nature?
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    It may be shown after great errors that AI is not as intelligent as human beings, as it is too robotic and concrete. — Jack Cummins

    :ok: :sparkle: From computer programming point of view, AI is just an overrated search engine.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    The biggest problem is the creation of consciousness itself, which may defy the building of a brain and nervous system, as well as body parts. Without this, the humans fabricated artificially are likely to be like Madam Tussard models with mechanical voices and movements, even simulated thought. Interior consciousness is likely to be lacking, or substance. It comes down to the creation of nature itself and a probable inability to create the spark of life inherent in nature and consciousness. — Jack Cummins

    :ok: :up:
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Well, that is not an argument in favor of objective morality. The majority of the human population feels the same way in the same situations. But there is a minority that enjoys from inflicting pain on others. Therefore, the feeling cannot be a base or fact for objective morality. — MoK

    The universal and objective morality as a human nature is the principle of Ethics. It doesn't mean 100% human beings understand and practice the moral law.

    There would be real life cases where some of the minority folks' judgements and understandings get impaired due to various reasons. And there will always be some minority folks going against the human nature and the normativity also for various reasons.

    The principle cannot do anything against them apart from saying that they are morally wrong. However, the principle still stands as the normativity of morality.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I already mentioned the problem within Kant's argument, first formulation. I am currently reading this article on Hume's argument on the topic. The article is however very long. Could you summarize Hume's argument? — MoK

    Sure. It is rather simple. When we see a fellow human being suffering, we want to offer help to save the folk if we can. It is out of our sympathy in our emotion which we share with all the human beings in the world.

    When we see the fellow human being saved from our help, we feel moral good, that we have done something good for other human beings. It is the nature of our mind which are loaded with these sharable emotions called sympathy, Hume says.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    What is the argument for that? — MoK

    The argument is based on the logical implication from the Ethics and Practical Reasoning by Kant, and the concept of Sympathy of Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    By whom? A person who is hungry and steals food does not think so. And where is the argument for that? — MoK

    The universal moral law will say stealing is wrong. The hungry folk should have asked for some food explaining his / her situation from those around him. Without doubt some charitable folks out of sympathy would have offered the hungry fellow man with hot food and drinks.

    Under the universal and objective moral law which is residing in all human reasoning, stealing is morally wrong.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Accepting stealing as permissible negates the right of having a property, not the ability to have a property. A person could be politically, socially, ... strong and steal from others and keep it as his/her property. — MoK

    Stealing is universally regarded as morally wrong. No one in the world would think stealing is morally right regardless the property were personally or publicly owned. Stealing shouldn't be permitted in any circumstances by universal law.
  • Questioning the Idea and Assumptions of Artificial Intelligence and Practical Implications
    As for AI, sentience and philosophy, the issue is that without sentience AI does not have life experiences. As it is, it doesn't have parents, self-image and sexuality. It does not have reflective consciousness, thereby, it is not able to attain wisdom. — Jack Cummins

    Recently I bought a few items from some of the online shops, and the items were described by A.I. generated texts. When the items arrived, I found out the most of the descriptions by the AI were wrong. It was just meaningless praise of the goods without accuracy in detail and functionality.

    I had to return the 2 items out of 3 for full refund. I asked the online sellers not to use the AI generated descriptions for their items for sale.
  • Currently Reading
    Aestheticism and the Philosophy of Death: Walter Pater and Post-Hegelianism by Giles Whitely (Author)
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Therefore, saying that "there could be no personal property" does not follow hence his argument fails. — MoK

    It is not about personal property. It is about the action i.e. stealing.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? — Corvus

    Because I think that morality cannot be objective.     — MoK
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong? — Corvus

    From my perspective, he did something evil and morally wrong. He may think otherwise.     — MoK
    Obviously his moral sense doesn't exist. Why should you care his thoughts make sense?

    Could you give a reason why an action is universally and objectively wrong? — MoK
  • On religion and suffering
    As mentioned in an earlier comment, there is an unspoken convention that this is not something that can be considered in the secular context, as by definition, secular culture can't accomodate it. — Wayfarer

    When the meta religious thinkers have absolutely no experience on the practical side of the religion, or exclude the secular aspect of the religion, it is doubtful the meta religious reasoning could arrive at the knowledge they supposed to arrive.
  • On religion and suffering
    How? I argue, take flame and put your finger in it. What does this experience "tell" you? It issues forth an injuction NOT to do this, and injunction that is beyond law and duty conceived in a language to govern the consenting, or somethign like that. It is something as certain as logic itself. — Astrophel

    That doesn't sound like the work of Ethics. It would more sound like the work of inductive reasoning. You try something, if it hurts, you learn not to do it i.e. trial and error.

    Ethics don't tell about these things. Ethics are the code of conducts between human beings while living on the earth i.e. Ethics will tell you what is morally good things to do, and what are not. If you do moral wrongs, then you will be judged as a morally corrupted by the other folks. If you do morally good things to others, then they will judge you a morally good guy.

    If you lived in a desert by yourself with no one around you, Ethics wouldn't apply to you. Because you have no one to interact with. Ethics emerges when you do things to others, and others do things to you. It is a value judgements on the actions of folks to other folks in folks mind. Good and bad in Ethics don't exist in the universe.

    In other words, if you tortured a bowlful of sands for no reason, or if you strangled a scabby cactus, there is no morality arising in these actions. Morality only matters when you are dealing with people on the way how you treated them, and how they treated you.

    I agree religion has some sayings on Ethics and Morality such as in the form of the 10 commandment in the Bible, which still forms the underlying foundation of morality in modern times. But I am still not convinced if it could tell much about the world around us. Well they do, but all in their own terms and doctrines, which are not logical and not rational way.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    God can make us Omniscient. Whether we can become Omnipresent is however the subject of discussion. — MoK
    Interesting claim indeed. How could we become omnipresent? And you believe God can make us Omniscient? What are your reasoning for the possibility? How could it be done?

    Whether two different Omnipresent entities can distinguish themselves from one another knowing that they both exit everywhere is the subject of discussion and contemplation (I am currently thinking about this). — MoK
    Yes, I would be interested to know about your ideas on that.

    That is a problem since there is no way to distinguish two entities if they are both Omnipresent. — MoK
    Well if the omnipresent beings are not the space and time entities, then they won't need separate space and time, would they? Therefore it would depend on the fact whether the omnipresent beings are spacetime entities or not. If not, what would be the nature of their existence?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    He either resurrected Himself or God did it. How could He resurrect Himself if He is dead? Therefore, it must be God who resurrected Jesus. — MoK

    Sounds reasonable. If God can resurrect a dead man, he could also make him a junior God. Make sense?
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this. — MoK

    But do you see the verse in the Bible that Jesus didn't become God after the resurrection and ascended to Heaven?

    Ok, let's suppose he was not a God. How do you explain the resurrection and ascending to Heaven? Can ordinary blokes do that?

    To resurrect from death, would you not need some assistance from the real God, and become some kind semi God or another God? To ascend to Heaven without being God, would you not need some sort of rocket device such as the SpaceX?

    But it seems highly unlikely they had rocket device available to ascend to Heaven at the time. There must have been some sort of divine intervention, if it really happened. Would you not agree?
  • On religion and suffering
    To grasp religion, one has to do this. For religion is a metaphysical question of our existence. One has to ask seriously about metaphysics, and what it is. THEN the value dimension looms large. The easing of human suffering is an issue in ethics (it should be eased). And in religion ,it is about metaethics. Why is it metaethics? Because the world is a meta-world at this level of inquiry. — Astrophel

    I am not sure if religion would have its ground for its existential justification without the concepts of afterlife, promise of savior from human sufferings, good fortunes, good health, possibility of the miracles and protection from God against the uncertain world. Like it or not, those are the elements of the attractions offered to the followers of religion in the mundane world, whatever religion it might be.

    The OP title seems to be implying religion has close connection with human sufferings. No one would have taken the implication for intensifying, but wouldn't it be easing?

    If it were not, then what would be the point of religion? For understanding the universe, we have metaphysics, epistemology, logic and semantics. Could religion offer better in understanding the universe? I am not sure.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God. — MoK

    Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection.
  • Believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts
    I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18. — MoK
    I am not saying the Bible is the reliable source for morality. I am saying that many current morality is based on the Bible.

    I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts? — MoK
    I did read the OP again. Your just wrote God must know all moral facts. That is not a definition. How can God know all moral facts, if it doesn't exist? Can you give some examples of moral facts?

    I don't think that Kant is right in this instance. — MoK
    Why don't you think Kant is right in this instance? If someone talks badly to other folks about you with false accusations and lies about you for some egotistic motives for him. Would you not reason and judge it is morally wrong?

    Anyone in the world would judge the case as morally wrong because we all have practical reason which is universal and objective according to Kant. But you don't agree with Kant. Why don't you agree with his theory? Would you need moral fact to judge that is morally wrong?
Home » Corvus