73 replies to this topic

[Kalepha]

infernity Hehe, Nate, well you are correct, but that's not going to change my, nor his goal.

I didn’t mean that it should. It just needed to be shown that it’s highly unlikely for agents not to adopt an ethical framework regardless how sophisticated they are. Some moral orderliness is preferable, if it generally helps individuals in a group achieve more than what they would achieve if there were more chaos and less overall cooperation.

Is this an objectively good or bad thing? This question is meaningless. Objective reality doesn’t care. On the other hand, subjective reality, even though not yet fully understood, is just as much a part of reality as anything. Although subjective reality is subsumed by objective reality, and although one day it may be found that the distinction doesn’t exist, whatever counts as subjective needn’t necessarily be subordinate to objective reality, and if it turns out there isn’t such a distinction on a human scale but yet objective reality allows there to be, an inclination to develop such a distinction needn’t get objective reality’s permission, for if objective reality already allows it, then it’s intrinsically permissible, and for whatever is intrinsically permissible, it’s up to subjective inclinations – not objective reality as a whole – to brazenly optimize the outcomes out of all that is permissible.

[Kalepha]

jaguar Well Nate. Do you have your own theory on the matter?

Not at the moment. I simply acknowledge that I inherited an acutely vague situation on the human scale. This situation, if I desire (for which I don’t need an extrinsic justification) to thoroughly comprehend it in order to become a more complex system inwardly and outwardly, requires that I have a foundation of deep understanding, that’s extensively immersed in mathematics, logic, philosophy, the natural sciences, and the social sciences, before I can begin, in a non-trivial manner, inwardly and outwardly optimizing.

[jaguar]

Nate,

Indeed. Ever considered partaking in the pursuit?

Infernity,

Pretty much. I wouldn't really call it a desire though, more of a need. The pursuit is the next logical step in what seems my mandatory evolution. Driven forward by the momentum of living a life thru empirical means. Though I can choose to do otherwise (IE Live a simple life of pleasure), that is no longer a worthy choice. The reason being that I see emotion (including pleasure, happiness, sadness, blah blah) as most likely being a series of instinctual chemical reactions forced upon me. Over exaggerated measurements & balancing tools of my body's condition to survive, curropted by it's use in social communication & copulation. My dissatisfaction with that situation seems to be a side effect of being an empirical creature. The need to fix the paradoxes & understand it all, the same effect. Even my hatred for the situation & want for escape may be an effect. So I feel as if imprisoned, constantly pushed forward, stabbing thru the dark, looking for the way out. Whether I truly desire that way out or not, I do not know. But will keep looking.

Edited by jaguar, 11 May 2005 - 02:07 PM.

[Kalepha]

It shouldn’t seem like I’m partaking in the pursuit of absolute truth. I’m partaking in optimum participation within reality, which happens to entail that I converge on absolute truth, which happens to entail that I participate in enough intersubjective negotiations to avoid being killed in the process.

Your question suggests either that you don’t understand most of what’s been said in this thread or that you’re ignoring many key points.

[jaguar]

I simply thought that you studied for personal reasons of amusement. And I didn't mean to imply that you were partaking. Does that still seem to you as if I missed your points?

[Kalepha]

jaguar I simply thought that you studied for personal reasons of amusement.

Not exactly. We, as individuals on a human scale, inherit an acutely vague situation, one that is so vague that it would be presumptuous of you to dismiss the utility of intersubjective organization – the function of which provides the means for you to begin converging on absolute truth in the first place – before you even have a foundation of a deep enough understanding of reality qua human. What I mean by such a foundation is that only when having it would it warrant one to begin evaluating reality increasingly more fundamentally and increasingly more abstractedly. Humans begin operating neither from apprehending an extremely fundamental level nor an extremely abstract level. To jump to either extreme, before you know what you’re doing, is simply a mistake.

Nevertheless, if you want to argue that freewill doesn’t exist right off the bat – your question-begging assertion (i.e., a conclusion without premises) – then agents who develop an ethical framework for themselves shouldn’t concern you so much that you make judgments indicating that it’s a hypocritical activity. If there’s no freewill, then they can’t help it, and, therefore, your fussing about it is unnecessary. However, if freewill currently isn’t an element in your tacit belief system, then you’re still mistaken in believing that ethical truths exist in a separate reality waiting to be discovered, for reasons already provided extensively in this thread.

jaguar And I didn't mean to imply that you were partaking.

I didn’t mean to imply that I thought you implied this. I meant to imply that one could easily discern, from my earlier posts, that pursuing absolute truth isn’t my main objective as is participating in causality, which is the mode of co-evolving with and effecting absolute truth, not just observing it. If you want to be a mere spectator, that’s fine; but those who actually play the game aren’t obligated to pay you any heed when you assert the game shouldn’t have any rules except for your no-rules rule.

jaguar Does that still seem to you as if I missed your points?

Dreadfully yes.

[jaguar]

I believe I've previously misrepresented my philosophies & self. Most of what you've just said & things previously mentioned were an important parts of their construction. So I am quite sure I understand & agree. You'll have to pardon me, my skills are new and I am still frustrated from time to time due to my lacking.

Well, it seems we are on the same page, though I choose a more direct approach rather than a casual one. I can't think of anywhere to go from here on the subject. If you'd like to end or continue, it's your choice. I'm willing for either direction.

[th3hegem0n]

A bit of excessively deep rambling-


You know, for every event there is only one direct, physical cause.

Although, people tend to get confused about this because there are always conditions which exist that allow the event to occur given its physical cause.

For example, why did billy die? Well, technically, billy died when his brain was irrecoverably halted of its function. billy didn't die because he got hit by a truck.

When you face questions with such specificity of actual physical cause you realize that absolute truth is something that is, as it is labeled, absolute. It doesn't matter who is observing it.

Also, why do we search for absolute truth? Obviously, we are doing it because when we are confident of the absolute truth we feel a sense of satsifaction. Some more than others.

However, there can also be "absolute subjectivity". It's the ultimate end of a subjective intelligence, as its subjectivity is ONLY limited to its desires, not by its knowledge or ability. It's desires are those events that bring about a sense of satisfaction in a world of unlimited possibility (other than physical law) and knowledge of cause and effect.

I would say that morality would be defined technically as desires of absolutely subjective entities that converge. That is to say, the desire of one absolutely subjective entity doesn't definitively prevent the desire of another absolutely subjective entity.

But then again, if two entities absolutely subjectivity are divergent, then it isn't really an "immoral situation"- its actually an impossible moral situation. So then what is 'morality'? What is, ultimately good or bad? Well if we were absolutely subjective entities we would know because we would know everything. In fact, to do anything "immoral" wouldn't be someone being evil or bad at all. It would be an insane entity, an irrational one.

Or, it would be the actions of an entity that are fundamentally good for one entity, but fundamentally bad for another. However, who deserves the good or bad? If one's satisfaction must suffer in leiu of the other's by inherent definition, then what to do? We have no measure.

Although, one entity may allow a diminished satisfaction in order for the unity of desires in general. I'm assuming this is taken into account.

Ay.. for example, the jews and muslims (well some of them) both want jerusalem, without the others there. (ok, I admit my ignorance, this could very well be complete BS, but stick with me here). What is the correct solution? What should be done?

Well if they all become absolutely subjective entities, then probably all their differences will be worked out. probably.
if not, say each of them have fundamental desires that simply cannot be satisfied until the others are out of jerusalem and they are there.

I don't even know what to say about that. But i'm tired so i'm going to bed.

Is this far too abstract for you to even comprehend? Talk to me.


-anyway that is another way of wording my justification for donating to sing inst, because i would argue that singinst is the fastest way for us to become 'absolutely subjective', and thus actually moral.

[jaguar]

"However, there can also be "absolute subjectivity". It's the ultimate end of a subjective intelligence, as its subjectivity is ONLY limited to its desires, not by its knowledge or ability. It's desires are those events that bring about a sense of satisfaction in a world of unlimited possibility (other than physical law) and knowledge of cause and effect."

It seem that desires couldn't possibly be subjective as they are the result of objective laws. The same for morals. As to what a moral is, they seem to be agreements between two entities (or "agents" as so many seem to say around here), as I believe verdent, arcturus, and nate said. And wouldn't the desire to form them, again, be objective as it is inherited thru absolute truth?

Perhaps I'm thinking that there is no such thing as subjectivity, just different choices possible thru the only form of absolute truth possible, objective.

Any opinions?

[Kalepha]

jaguar Well, it seems we are on the same page, though I choose a more direct approach rather than a casual one.

I’m uncertain whether you’re implying that you think my approach is more casual than yours or if you’re just speaking generally. I don’t think my, or most other transhumanist player’s, approach is casual, as you say. Establishing attainment of absolute truth as one’s supergoal, to me, doesn’t seem to be the highest humanly imaginable supergoal. Attaining absolute truth just means one’s going with the flow. Effecting absolute truth is not only attaining it, but being in charge of it. You seem to prefer the former, whereas I and other transhumanists seem to prefer the latter. I don’t think intending to be in charge of absolute truth is more casual than intending only to know absolute truth while going with the flow.

But you’re still probably thinking: “Well it doesn’t make any sense to want to be in charge of absolute truth if the motivations to want this can’t be separated from reality.” Perhaps this is where your and my most fundamental disagreement can be found. You seem to believe it matters that sentient and transsentient motivations are intrinsic to reality and, you therefore conclude, to be acquainted with the motivations as part of absolute truth makes utterly no difference what they are if the supergoal of attaining absolute truth is achieved.

However, I don’t think it makes any sense to minimize the role of motivations to the bare-bones function of “awareness of all that is real.” That would be completely arbitrary. To be aware of absolute truth is an experience. One still has to be motivated in some way to want to experience any experience. One still can’t escape endorsing motivation even if all that it’s used for is being aware of all that is real without taking much charge of what is real. The only escape from motivations would be death; yet death is another arbitrary choice if one presumes rationality. What’s left that’s non-arbitrary? Knowing and effecting all that is real, without subordinating to useless (e.g., if you want to be intransigently modest, kill yourself) and self-contradictory philosophies.

[th3hegem0n]

Effecting absolute truth is not only attaining it, but being in charge of it.

There is a huge difference between 'absolute truth' and 'our best guesses,' the only matter is whether you are content with your current knowledge for deciding how you want to do things or whether you wish for it to become more absolute.

It seem that desires couldn't possibly be subjective as they are the result of objective laws

Our desires and knowledge define our subjectivity. Otherwise, if we were purely objective, we would simply be determining the truth, for no other purpose whatsoever. Our subjectivity is what is created when we do anything or view things from the perspective of any other purpose.

Morality is when you do things in a way to avoid detrimenting the purposes of others. If, however, there is no physically possible way for you to do something that you desire without impeding another's, there is no real measure of how to define what is moral in this situation if agreement cant be worked out. It's pretty confusing; some humans do it by judging who they think deserves it more from their own purposes. However it seems to be these types of situations would be very few and far between for an "absolutely subjective entity" because they can almost always find a way to do things to acheive their purposes without trodding on the purposes of others, and many will probably decide differently about their purposes once knowledge of reality and the future is perfect.

Is this starting to make more sense?

[Kalepha]

th3hegem0n There is a huge difference between 'absolute truth' and 'our best guesses,' the only matter is whether you are content with your current knowledge for deciding how you want to do things or whether you wish for it to become more absolute.

I never denied that there’s a huge difference between “absolute truth” and “our best guesses.” When I’m talking about the actual state of having achieved absolute truth, I’m speaking hypothetically.

Please read what I’ve said in this thread – I indicated a few posts ago that absolute truth would forever be elusive (“… meta-meta-meta-acquaintance of the meta-meta-acquaintance …”) – before making assumptions about how I think on this matter.

[th3hegem0n]

I indicated a few posts ago that absolute truth would forever be elusive

Yeah, I had no clue what you were talking about.

Also I didn't mean to make it appear as though I assumed something, it's a lot closer to just rambling logic.

I think I understand what you mean about the assumption, so in reponse i'll say what I'm arguing is that donating to Singinst in some form is probably the optimization of your existence, with other things being backup plans. (by optimization of existence i mean effecting reality in ways you can to most efficiently obtain more absolute truth and thus more exact ways to effect reality to the ends of whatever desires you have)

[jaguar]

Aye Nate, I have no real desire to control AT, beyond what's needed to understand it.

So, I'm glad to find others who've come to the same conclusions & compare them to my own. Good sharing info with ya'll. Seems like there's nothing much to talk about besides the methods to obtain. Least someone want to bring those up, I don't feel a need to continue.

Again, good talking to you gentlemen.