410 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

ReXspec wrote...
Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

And you know what? My faults make me human as well. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It factors into everything I do. Even the topics I create are thought out and prepared beforehand and with notes. I only make it when it's ready.

It sucks sometimes but it also defines me as a human being.

I wouldn't change it for the world. Ever.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Taboo-XX wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

(1) The thought that "man is a bridge", that we are fated to grow beyond ourselves. I support this part.

By what right do you force this "growth", instead of letting individuals choose for themselves?

If you support this imposition, then you are supporting the philosophies of the worst among us. Period.

Nietczhe...was an intersting man.

The ones who ran with his philosophy are the ones we remember most. They used it. It will forever be tainted. Picking and choosing what you wan't isn't an excuse. You run the the gauntlet with ALL his bull****.

He's also a petty excuse to justify things. I hate nothing more than college graduates who think they're high top ****** because they read Nietzche.

I prefer this Nitschke:

[ReXspec]

Nyoka wrote...

He's correct. Evolution doesn't take you up in some universal level of perfection or betterment or anything. All evolution does is, if you're lucky, to make you fit enough to live where you live. That's it. Contingent adaptation to local environments.

Conscious design is far better a method to improve something than to let it evolve.

We also have to understand that there are certain aspects of our lives that we cannot control.  It is up to us, however, how we can react, adapt or even regress in these situations.

[The Night Mammoth]

Nyoka wrote...

He's correct. Evolution doesn't take you up in some universal level of perfection or betterment or anything. All evolution does is, if you're lucky, to make you fit enough to live where you live. That's it. Contingent adaptation to local environments.

To improve the individual. 

As a species, evolution has it down. 



Synthesis could be a means to that end, but there are far too many unknowns. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 31 mai 2012 - 09:38 .

[Taboo]

ReXspec wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

He's correct. Evolution doesn't take you up in some universal level of perfection or betterment or anything. All evolution does is, if you're lucky, to make you fit enough to live where you live. That's it. Contingent adaptation to local environments.

Conscious design is far better a method to improve something than to let it evolve.

We also have to understand that there are certain aspects of our lives that we cannot control.  It is up to us, however, how we can react, adapt or even regress in these situations.

THX 1138



Don't worry though, everyone in the film is TOTALLY free because the pills they take make them happy.

[ReXspec]

Taboo-XX wrote...

ReXspec wrote...
Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

And you know what? My faults make me human as well. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It factors into everything I do. Even the topics I create are thought out and prepared beforehand and with notes. I only make it when it's ready.

It sucks sometimes but it also defines me as a human being.

I wouldn't change it for the world. Ever.

And the key phrase to remember from that is:  "I wouldn't change it for the world.  Ever."

You are conciously making a decision not to change a supposed psychology inperfection.  The reason why is irrelevent.  The choice is yours, and yours alone.

[Taboo]

ReXspec wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

ReXspec wrote...
Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

And you know what? My faults make me human as well. I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It factors into everything I do. Even the topics I create are thought out and prepared beforehand and with notes. I only make it when it's ready.

It sucks sometimes but it also defines me as a human being.

I wouldn't change it for the world. Ever.

And the key phrase to remember from that is:  "I wouldn't change it for the world.  Ever."

You are conciously making a decision not to change a supposed psychology inperfection.  The reason why is irrelevent.  The choice is yours, and yours alone.

I like who I am. Faults and all. I would never force that on anyone else. Ever.

[AtlasMickey]

ReXspec wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

AtlasMickey wrote...
There comes a point where this dichotomy does not exist. WIth enough intelligence, there is only will and freedom, and no reason for force.

I'm probably giving BioWare too much credit for thinking that with the ending, but there is some precedent in the game for it. When you decide to rewrite the Geth heretics, Legion explains that it wasn't really force as we understand it, but the Geth's version of persuasion, arguing that after all aren't organics persuaded by inserting new information? However I don't think that Synthesis is as simple as rewriting the Geth heretics.

Here's some more food for thought about free will, from Sam Harris. He recently released a rather provocative book, but ultimately non-controversial from a neuroscientific perspective.

It does exist, always.

Moral reletavism doesn't factor in one thing, ever.

What is good life and what is bad. It just puts things one way.

If I can't evolve and better myself I don't want to live.

Repugnant.

I am not a moral relativist. Actually the same author I recommended wrote a book called "The Moral Landscape" which is one of my favorite non-fiction books, perhaps my favorite, arguing that objective science can inform our moral values.

I have no idea where you got the notion that Synthesis means you can't better yourself. Evolution is blind and frankly a poor method of self-improvement, as long as you're talking about Darwinian evolution through natural selection. Better to improve yourself through intelligence.

Inb4 someone brings up the crucial human factor of choice.

Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

So yes, in essence, Taboo is correct.  You are a moral relativist with the caveat that we can somehow bring our minds to a positive or negative mentality (you are still not quite clear on that).

DIsmissing classical theories of choice does not mean dismissing moral agency, and "The Moral Landscape" doesn't do this, and it certianly doesn't dismiss curiosity. I don't know how you make that connecton or indeed how you would.

Thanks for telling me what I think, btw. You seem to have a great deal of privileged acess to my thoughts, especially for someone arguing that I have the will to think them.

Modifié par AtlasMickey, 31 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[Grimwick]

Nyoka wrote...

He's correct. Evolution doesn't take you up in some universal level of perfection or betterment or anything. All evolution does is, if you're lucky, to make you fit enough to live where you live. That's it. Contingent adaptation to local environments.

Conscious design is far better a method to improve something than to let it evolve.

That's a misapplication of what evolution actually is.

Evolution will occur regardless of conscious change - you cannot stop it because it's a fundamental law of nature.

Saying that 'conscious design is a better way to improve yourself' is moot because evolution takes millions of years for noticeable change and any change you make consciously would be in addition to natural evolution.

I'd also like to point out that suggesting self-improvement is infallible and would always be better is unfounded. We could just as easily design ourselves into extinction in the future.

[ReXspec]

Taboo-XX wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

He's correct. Evolution doesn't take you up in some universal level of perfection or betterment or anything. All evolution does is, if you're lucky, to make you fit enough to live where you live. That's it. Contingent adaptation to local environments.

Conscious design is far better a method to improve something than to let it evolve.

We also have to understand that there are certain aspects of our lives that we cannot control.  It is up to us, however, how we can react, adapt or even regress in these situations.

THX 1138

http://farm3.static....e88a5072_o.jpg

Don't worry though, everyone in the film is TOTALLY free because the pills they take make them happy.

I hope that was a compliment.  lol

[Taboo]

It was. People are bred to do their jobs in THX 1138. Just like they are Brave New World.

Big freaking deal that there is peace. People are forced to be something.

Unacceptable.

[ReXspec]

[quote]AtlasMickey wrote...

Inb4 someone brings up the crucial human factor of choice.

Evolution as Darwin explained it was never meant for human beings because of a human's sentient ability to make choices regarding his development and the environment around him.  Synthesis abruptly curtails this notion.  "The Moral Landscape" (while makes a good point that a positive mental state can lead to a positive lifestyle) also dismisses the notion of a human's ability to make a choice.  I do not agree with this.  Everyone has agency and curiosity--it is what defines us as human beings and not animals.

So yes, in essence, Taboo is correct.  You are a moral relativist with the caveat that we can somehow bring our minds to a positive or negative mentality (you are still not quite clear on that).[/quote]
DIsmissing classical theories of choice does not mean dismissing moral agency, and "The Moral Landscape" doesn't do this, and it certianly doesn't dismiss curiosity. I don't know how you make that connecton or indeed how you would.

Thanks for telling me what I think, btw. You seem to have a great deal of privileged acess to my thoughts, especially for someone arguing that I have the will to think them.

[/quote]

Than explore the virtues of being more clear on your thoughts when you explain them?  Or did I miss the fine print?  I don't recall "the moral landscape" dismissing the notion of moral agency or discussing curiosity, but I do recall a passage in there that state we are inexorably bound by our circumstances and environment to a certain mentality... or something along those lines.  Can't remember where I read that passage...

Modifié par ReXspec, 31 mai 2012 - 09:48 .

[ReXspec]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It was. People are bred to do their jobs in THX 1138. Just like they are Brave New World.

Big freaking deal that there is peace. People are forced to be something.

Unacceptable.

Indeed it is.

...and thank you, btw. 

[Taboo]

So based on one book you've dismissed everything else.

No. Just no.

Dear God no.

Read books from all perspectives. That means people like Noam Chompsky or Schopenhauer.

I mean for God's sake, do you have anything else to back up your views?

[AtlasMickey]

I don't "base" my thoughts on that book, I just recommended it.

You're being kind of dramatic, Taboo.

[Taboo]

AtlasMickey wrote...

I don't "base" my thoughts on that book, I just recommended it.

You're being kind of dramatic, Taboo.

I live to be dramatic. It's what I do.

Needless to say, no one in the history of the world has ever figured out what the hell the point of existence is and how we should behave in a moral manner.I accept a base level for everyone. It applies to everyone but it can also be challenged if the need is great enough.

There is a differene between killing and murdering.

When I kill someone who attacks me or others, I prevent a threat. The loss of life in this instance negates further harm.

Killing with coldness however, serves only to justify my own viewpoint.

This is why I am Anti-War due to the necessatation of political agendas.

But to intervene? Someone has to do something or the chaos will spread. But I only believe they should intervene to the point where the opposing force is stopped. Nothing else is necessary.

[TheClonesLegacy]

Ok yeah let us all play god and Pollute the gene pool Making everything the same with no Genetic Diversity All Organic and Synthetic Hybrid Monsters,
"But Clones" I foresee you saying "Didn't you watch the clip?"
Indeed I did sir, This is one Man's opinion, and he's a Theoretical Physicist Meaning he Comes up with theories not yet Disproved and again it's just his idea,
However I have no problems with super intelligent Robots Giving people a choice to Rape their DNA I personally want to stay as Nature intended me to remain, But Who is Commander Shepard 1 Simple Human Being to force this Change on the Universe?
What Gave him this right? (The Star Child? what gave him that right then? what did he do to earn that right?)
"Causing the Galaxy to Join together?" I hear your Response,
Maybe if Shepard caused the Universe as a whole to come together, not just the Milky way (One galaxy of Thousands) to fight the Reapers, an Impossible Feat.
Btw how do we even know what Synthesis does? Nothing is explained and too many Variables are Created,
In the End I will choose the Most Definite option and Destroy the Reapers and finish what I started.

Modifié par TheClonesLegacy, 31 mai 2012 - 10:28 .

[kookie28]

Freedom is so . . . chaotic.

[Taboo]

kookie28 wrote...

Freedom is so . . . chaotic.

But without it we couldn't post Spiderman pictures.

Wouldn't that suck?

That's what's so great about freedom.

[legion999]

Yeah the final solution.

And OP what was your point?

[kookie28]

Taboo-XX wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Freedom is so . . . chaotic.

But without it we couldn't post Spiderman pictures.

Wouldn't that suck?

That's what's so great about freedom.

We are merely the vessel that the Spider man pictures use to post themselves.

They would find another way.

[Taboo]

kookie28 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

Freedom is so . . . chaotic.

But without it we couldn't post Spiderman pictures.

Wouldn't that suck?

That's what's so great about freedom.

We are merely the vessel that the Spider man pictures use to post themselves.

They would find another way.

Spiderman pictures are bits of data. An abstraction. They are nothing.

You CHOOSE to post them and with the potential consequences.

That's why it's great.

[Satanic Racist]

It's nothing like merging Catholicism with Christianity. The CREATED will always rebel against the CREATOR. So it's more like religious people becoming Atheists. Not all the Geth became friends with the Quarians, a select few are still being retards. And the reapers weren't even made by the humans, that's one fallacy, if they cared so much about the universe, they'd come every time an organic race is stupid enough to make synthetics, for example, the geth. Harbinger said he didn't even like the Geth so why exterminate the organics and not the geth? If they care about order so much, they would destroy all the evil synthetics we make and indoctrinate us into thinking that making robots is stupid.

[Navasha]

Maybe synthesis is ONE solution to the organic vs synthetic problem.

However, the problem is there IS NO synthetic vs. organic problem. Certainly wasn't in the games I have been playing. Shepard wasn't there to solve some problem that hasn't even arisen yet. She was there to KILL the reapers. Synthesis fails to solve the more immediate problem. Dropping Shepards goal to pick up and solve an imaginary problem that some ancient AI is having is not a reasonable thing to do at this time.