Your objective is happiness. What are the means by which you'll achieve it? — TheMadFool

Freedom of choice is the instrument of happiness. As an example, and as mentioned earlier, the freedom to place oneself anywhere on the work-consume spectrum leads to wellbeing and economic happiness. Prutopia must never be about one size fits all. When one accepts that, then many arguments and divisions between citizens vanish. The Universal Basic Income would allow choice regarding self placement on the work-consume spectrum.

A lot of "goodness" requires misfortune or badness for it to be useful or effective, thus making it a poor choice to maximize. The "goodness" in wishing others to be happy can exist as a control on happiness however.

Is it really about happiness? — TheMadFool

I guess it can be whatever you like, as long as the outcome is somehow desirable. Mathematically, and logically, it is only possible to optimize a one dimensional output function of the variables. So if x ,y and z are variables then one could maximize quantities such as [x], [x+y], [z*x + x/y] etc etc. (Note that a variable can be its own scoring function - e.g. f(x) = x.) But it is not possible to maximize more than one output value at a time. We can make the notion of a function more sophisticated by allowing algorithms with conditional branching - computer programs - to calculate an output "score" and try to maximize this score. Such an algorithm is, in practice, the only way to evaluate the "score" of how "well" a real society is performing. "The greatest good (or happiness) for the greatest number" type of formula simply does not compute, even though we get the gist. It fails to be optimizable because there are two outputs to it - the total quantity of goodness (or happiness) AND a quantity of people. In fact, not only is such a formula non optimizable, it is actually undefined computationally (but we get the gist).

However, a computational algorithm will never be sufficiently detailed in practice to cover every nuance. It is all too easy to calculate a very positive score for some obscure permutation of the variables that actually represents a very undesirable situation. So any algorithm that calculates the "score" must be taken with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless can represent a useful approximation to how one is to judge "desirability".

OK, so that was a bit of an aside. Now to the question of what the scoring function for Prutopia should be - in particular whether it should be generally about "goodness" or "happiness". That is actually a different discussion, given that I have specified (vaguely) happiness/well being! However, in my magnanimity, I am prepared to discuss some generalities regarding the practical suitability of scoring functions in relation to utopias. The first thing to say about a utopia, as generally conceived, is that every citizen has to be taken into account. Thus any scoring function that behaves considerably differently from person to person is an unsuitable candidate for a utopia. Wealth (by itself) is a particularly bad scoring function - not only does the sum total of wealth not reflect its distribution, the actual importance of wealth to each individual varies greatly. Happiness however, is an ideal scoring function because - by definition - everyone strives to be "happy". Now some would argue that not everyone seeks "happiness" , and for them being "good" is important. I would reply therefore, that being "good" makes them "happy", though that means broadening the concept of happiness well away from feeling "good". "Happiness" also has a problem of course in that it is possible that one person can be happy at another person's expense - or at the expense of sustainability etc. I would suggest that if happiness is to be the scoring function, then only happiness which does not majorly involve anything "bad" should be counted.

Think about addiction on an individual level. — Noble Dust

Lots of societal change has recently occurred rather quickly - I'm thinking of sexuality and race. Individual lives are short and so new habits are picked up quickly.

In my opinion our societys in Europe are based on practical utopias. — andrea

I agree to a certain extent, but some of these "utopias" are definitely better than others. However, all of them have key dystopian features
1) The scoring function is GNP.
2) The education system is repressive
3) The overarching ethics are the work ethic and competition

And, unlike the absolutely unquestionable certainty of a tautology, no metaphysics can be proved. — Michael Ossipoff

But all metaphysicses would LIKE to be proved ...there is nothing special about being non-provable is there?

How much higher, and how are happiness and well being measured? — Reformed Nihilist

Higher rather than ultra-high.

There are various types of happiness - e.g.

economic security
being close to a few people
being self confident
feeling motivated
having lots of free time and being able to choose how to spend it
having sexual/gender freedom
having knowledge of the world - a personal philosophy

Prutopia would enable all happinesses for all people - or at least it would maximize the chances of all happinesses flourishing within an individual.

What would distinguish this practical utopia from modern society? — Reformed Nihilist

Much higher happiness and well being levels all round.

No chance in our lifetime. I think it is relatively easy to formulate a solution that would benefit everyone equally. The trouble is that you would have to peacefully convince all the rich that they can be happier with the bare essentials. — CasKev

I agree that the path to Practical Utiopia .... "Prutopia" if you will, is problematic. But that does not stop us from thinking what Prutopia would look like. What would a formula look like? Given that people are not equal, or expressed more positively - everyone is different, it seems to me that Prutopia needs to accommodate this fact. Some people are going to have rarer skills; some people are motivated to work harder for worldly wealth than others and so forth. So Prutopia needs to retain the concept of rationing by money and rewarding work with money. However, given how much automation is increasingly easy Prutopia should be able to offer choice of lifestyle along a work/consume spectrum. The "lowest" end of this spectrum however could still offer a reasonably high standard of living for those who choose not to work or only work a minimal amount.

Things might be getting better in absolute terms, but they are getting an ever smaller fraction of the increasing potential.

It might be instructive (though not creative) to list which aspects of cognition/reasoning are impaired/improved at full tipsy and score them for tendency to creativity.

Anyway, given that extroverts are more creative and alcohol encourages extroversion then you may be right.

And couldn't we say that drinking is also a creative pursuit, but in the context of socializing? — jamalrob

Does "creativity" result from being simply absorbed or is a cognitive element necessary I wonder?

under a deterministic iterated system, points (or states) that start out very close together may end up with radically different fates. — fishfry

mmm not very snappy though is it :). Also a bit misleading because what does "end up" actually mean? There is no "end" as such, just a flow of states, and the "young" states of two systems that start off nearly identical are likely to be very broadly similar. For example, the butterfly will have no effect upon whether that thunderstorm brewing above it will break or not.

"Rational" would be a better word than "science". Might get a better look in politically too.

The "butterfly effect" is often misunderstood, mainly I think because it is poorly worded.

Rather than expressing it as"a butterfly flapping its wings at X could cause a hurricane at Y"

I think this would be better

"it is impossible to calculate the long term effect on the weather of a butterfly flapping its wings".

Though it seems to me that Occam was speaking of physics, the Principle of Parsimony seems independently relevant to metaphysics. In fact, isn’t it more even compelling in metaphysics than in physics?
.
...to the point where only the more parsimonious metaphysics should even be considered? — Michael Ossipoff

Well if a metaphysics has to become more elaborate in order to avoid refutation then certainly it becomes more suspicious... But at the other extreme, can high parsimony become tautology? As I mentioned earlier, I have a feeling that your Skepticism borders on the tautological .. "it [existence] is what it is". You quite fairly asked me to justify this claim... I'm still working on it, albeit rather lazily...

I claim that the metaphysics that I propose here doesn’t need or use any assumptions, doesn’t make any controversial statements, and doesn’t posit any brute fact(s). — Michael Ossipoff

also true of a tautology!

Why is there this multiverse? — Michael Ossipoff

Perhaps because if everything is possible then it must exist. Once its apparent existential arbitrariness has been thus removed, it is a simple step to accept that someone might inhabit it.

That claim of equivalence would need some justification. ...which you haven't supplied. — Michael Ossipoff

I may not be able to,but I will dip my toes in these waters and wade in slowly.

Any reasonably well-written proposable metaphysics is an unfalsifiable proposition, because no metaphysics can be proven. — Michael Ossipoff

Presumably the whole point of metaphysics is that it is thinking largely detached from scientific analysis - or at least from scientific falsification. I don't think complete detachment is necessary - even your Skepticism is based on Occam's Razor, for example, which is, arguably, a scientific principle. Also,. there must be some metaphysics that are potentially falsifiable (or realizable ) in the future through discovery - either of knowledge of new scientific concepts, or through new knowledge of a general sort. For example, a fifth dimension could be discovered that confirms a certain metaphysics, or Alpha Centauri could be reached and shown not to have the planet Zog orbiting it, and controlling a huge simulation containing ourselves as proposed by the Zoggist metaphysics.
Solipsism is presumably a metaphysics - but one that is completely detached from scientific thinking, and also unlikely ever to be falsifiable ever (though Witt. had a go I understand, based on assumed knowledge of the principles of language acquisition).

So where am I going with all this? I think I'm trying to generate classes of metaphysics, based on 1) amount of scientific content - some or none; 2) potential for being declared falsifiable/realizable or not now or in the future - if not why not - logical or through knowledge 3)means of being declared falsifiable/realizable - e.g. new scientific concept or new knowledge.

BTW, is it valid to speak of a metaphysics as being potentially realizable (declared "true")...?

I'm not sure why this "Skeptism" is anything more than saying about existence "it is what it is..."....

Everyone is a body, and nothing more. — Michael Ossipoff

What about a conscious electronic AI?

Freedom

Nihilism is the absence of a world-view. I really did think this might be the one forum where I didn't have to explain this. — daldai

But perhaps nihilist thinking has certain psychological effects.

it's like there's not enough "me" there for someone to form I deep connection with — daldai

The nihilst view of personality is perhaps that it is an accumulation of imperfections?

this article — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What sounds best ... "utilitarian hedonism" or "hedonistic utilitarianism"? Whichever, I am its ist.

I was vaguely aware of the unsatisfactory nature of my proposition - but it's very illuminating to have it "formally" rebutted... :)

But It's been pointed out that there couldn't have not been abstract facts, because then it would have been an abstract fact that there are no abstract facts. — Michael Ossipoff

"This is the only abstract fact" .... as good as "nothing" perhaps?

What about "if I see a chair then it exists?"

But the advertising industry has the public as targets, whereas clinical psychology has them as cared for patients. Persons in fact, who can be treated alongside acceptance of whatever psychological theory holds sway. Perhaps there may be a slight and indirect negative effect on inter-personalization behavior because theory informs treatment - but as long as the theory is working positively overall then it doesn't matter.
And you seem to be saying, (I think) that any theory, in principle is not worth having. Because I can't see how any theory does not tend to objectify.

Determining when "oddness" or "weirdness" is diagnostically significant requires more knowledge than I have. — Bitter Crank

There might be triggers as follows - somewhat arbitrary ones, epistemologically speaking, but perhaps sensible.
1) Constant unhappiness
2) Threatening others

So above, for example linked to some evidence that suggests to me the hypothesis that the scientific study of the psyche changes the psyche in particular ways; that it leads to objectification of the self and of others, and this tends to produce isolation, dissociation, anxiety, and depression. — unenlightened

<people are effectively told> that they are malfunctioning computers. It's not just that the theory becomes outmoded, but that it negatively impacts the way people relate to each other, and the way they see themselves. — unenlightened

Does anybody get depressed or anxious about believing that" their mind is a computer", in some sense? It is a slightly "odd" feeling, I will admit. But so does the existential question "why is there something?" generate an odd feeling in me. I think the two feelings are similar existential ones. Is there a history of certain existential discourse ,per se, actually causing "isolation, dissociation, anxiety and depression"? (and not it just reflecting an already established mood or pathology). I say probably not.

I'd like to hear more about it. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think I have much to offer by way of expertise, or if I'm on the right wavelength, but I was thinking on the lines of

a) "If I look at the sun through binoculars I will go blind"
is derivable from

b1)"If my eyes receive a dose of radiation of [some amount] I will go blind"
2)If binoculars are used to focus on the sun the radiation intensity is [the above amount]

a is clearly derivable from b1 and b2. So if parsimony is the name of the game, then knowing the minimal set of if-thens would seem relevant, maybe??

1) Is there not always a subset of if-then statements than can be used to derive all of them in any given context?

2) Are mathematical truths perhaps exceptionally irreducible (to if ...thens)? That would certainly give them a special place in existence - buttressing all of it in fact. And the latter consequence is, per se, a situation that Tegmark believes in ....

Psychiatrists exist, but I am not at all sure that psychiatry does in any significantly different way to psychology though!

If I am cloned, which half gets to keep the job? — noAxioms

Get both clones to present a case and let a panel decide who was the most persuasive.

Say no, not as such

That's not art, — Noble Dust

Maybe it is ....

It has the beauty of predictability .....

Can you think of no example of any artwork that is both disturbing and beautiful? " — Noble Dust

The atomic/nuclear mushroom cloud.

Loved the "Early Modernism".

is it possible for this music to have beauty in it? — Noble Dust

If it profoundly disturbs?

I really got into that thanks Noble Dust. I would say the piece is beautiful. me Lemme listen to that Ravel piece again......

Got any more links plz?:)

Thanks for the practical info Noble.

errmm which Debussy piece?Please
orgive my memory for names but I'm thinking of the Fawn Prelude - something impressionistic anyhow.

For me a similar Debussy piece would be "beautiful".