|
Living Earth Simulater: Predict the Past, Present & Future (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I dont think its prudent to discuss morals in this context, and words like 'soul' or 'spirit' have meaning to me, but they are hollow to most here and hard to pin down, and using them will come back to bite you in this discussion.
Also, 'enjoyable' survival is quite a bit of nostalgia. When has survival ever been 'enjoyable'? And for whom?
I don't really like to distinguish humans from 'nature'. I also think environmentalism is a fundamentally flawed enterprise that is completely based on psychological projections of human concerns for bodily health onto the human environment. There is destruction and death in nature, and nature knows not any form of 'waste'.
The strength of an ecosystem is biodiversity. In monocultures, with no biodiversity, the introduction of one new virus can wipe out the entire ecosystem. Native american agricultural practices reflected this basic ecological knowledge by making use of several natural varieties of the same crop in a planting - letting each variety do what it is good at, acting as a sort of insurance policy for unpredictable weather and pestilence. This also had the effect of providing well-balanced, healthy diets, and enriching the soil and ecosystem by letting the varieties affect one another and the rest of the ecosystem symbiotically.
In human culture it is no different. Lack of diversity is dangerous - lack of diversity in culture, language, thought, government, etc. The standardization of human culture into a 'monoculture' for efficient 'processing' of man into industrial pro-sumers is an unsustainable enterprise.
Such a machine that would give a logical basis for the direction of human (and other) activity on a mass scale is only a basis for control.
To me, taking advice from this simulation is the equivalent of saying 'This is God's Plan', or consulting the Oracle at Delphi. When oracles burnt bones at Delphi, that was the cutting edge of technology at the time. What these living earth simulator scientists are doing is to effectively construct an oracle, or even construct the scientific God - a vision of the universe and human fate made in man's image. Therefore it suffers from the same malady as the biblical god and others.
This also reminds me of that TED talk woscar or someone posted where some science fanboy wanted to create a global set of rules for people based on scientific observations and deductions. When the bible was written, it was based on cutting edge observations, called 'prophecies'. Now if you say that the benefit of scientifically-based rules is that they can change as technology and scientific knowledge grows, then what is the point of universal rules/laws in the first place? If you imprison someone for something 10 years ago and then some scientific discovery exonerates him, is that just?
*shudder* |
When i'm using soul or spirit, i'm using them in the context that they are two words to describe ideal humans, to me.
Kinda like describing someone I really respect, in the way "he has a good soul, he has a great spirit." Not exactly defined, more of an ideal. I cant imagine people who are dehumanized/reconstructed through technology or a science evolved nature, having the soul and spirit equal to the soul and spirit that a nature evolved human has. Meaning someone borne out of the trees, wind, all things of nature as their main environment, might have a better soul and spirit than someone borne out of a plastic and steel laden environment.
If we are a product of our environment, then over time our soul and spirit is also affected by a changing environment. The theory is if you grow up in a room that is made of the latest Apple technology, and Apple plastic covered walls, versus growing up in a forest or nature based environment, over time this will affect people's souls and spirits negatively as well. At some point, if you can put the idea of soul and spirit into a gene or dna context, this 'soul' or 'spirit' gene will alter, diminish, or go away entirely as humanity is altered through the changing environment.
What exactly maintains a person's soul as it is, if their surroundings are changing? A persons soul or spirit as it is now, exists in part because of how humans have lived over the past few centuries. I think everything you do and experience has a bearing on our soul,it moulds as we live. If we were different, condtioned by a different experiences and environments, then perhaps our soul and spirit would not be imagined as it is now. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
 |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
haters(bitches) gonna hate!
But yah i guess what im saying is not exactly in a book or anything...it can easily make no sense ;) |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Why is being called "dense" so offensive to you? I mean, that's what I perceive from the discussions that we have recently engaged in.
|
why is your perception of me, personally, relevant to the discussion? This is what is known as an 'ad-hominem'.
Here I will quote pieces from the transcription of Sam Harris' TED Talk that I take issue with:
| quote: | | So, what I'm arguing is that value is reducible to facts |
This is the short-sighted scientific reductionism that I have taken issue with in regard to the Living Earth Simulator. This is a dangerous way to think, for the reasons I cited earlier.
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Seriously, why do you keep insisting that what Sam Harris is proposing is a written document of any kind telling people what they have to do |
Because he says:
| quote: | | But the demagogues are right about one thing, we need a universal conception of human values. |
| quote: | | How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? |
| quote: | | It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human wellbeing, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. |
The OBVIOUS implication is that he feels there should be a standard moral code in the same way there is a standard building code, which is incidentally written and curated by a panel of experts. The problem is that all humans have the same emotions, which is not the same as technical training in engineering or something, so the idea that ANY cabal of people, be they a priest caste or a psychologist caste, has some power of expertise, which implies governance is dangerous IMO.
Even if the psychologists and neuroscientists have some factual knowledge of the causes of emotion and value - they themselves are subject to the same emotions and value, and it represents a conflict of interest.
You must have a hell of a time reading if all you care about are the words said and not the implications of the arguments. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
why is your perception of me, personally, relevant to the discussion? This is what is known as an 'ad-hominem'.
|
I know what an ad-hominem is, and while it's a logical fallacy, I'm not using it against your argument. I'm merely stating the reason why I think you are not comprehending what I'm saying.
The fact is, you're making implications out of thin air. There is nothing in that talk that even hints at the moronic things you are accusing him of. If it seems "obvious" to you, it is only because of your a priori convictions, or the denseness I mentioned earlier. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
I know what an ad-hominem is, and while it's a logical fallacy, I'm not using it against your argument.
|
O RLY?
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
The fact is, you're making implications out of thin air.
|
O RLY? That's a fact? A+ in science class for woscar!
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
There is nothing in that talk that even hints at the moronic things you are accusing him of. If it seems "obvious" to you, it is only because of your a priori convictions, or the denseness I mentioned earlier. |
umm...
| quote: |
It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human wellbeing, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. |
That has nothing to do with 'a priori convictions'. He is making a direct comparison with highly regulated codes such as building codes and aviation codes...
It seems that maybe you are the dense one here.
i am accusing him of moronic things? really? is this guy your boyfriend or something? Add another ad-hominem to the tally. LEAvE SAM HArRIS aLONE!!! |
|
|
| DancingMonkey |
Damn I bet that computer could run Crysis 3 or 4 on very high with like 60 fps.
Watch it spit out a paper that says "In five years the average person will be able to purchase a computer more powerful than me for less than 1.5 thousand dollars. Ha-ha. Suckers." |
|
|
| idoru |
| How the did I misspell 'simulator'? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Prolly cause you're stupid. Imo. |
|
|
| idoru |
| *spits in Jenny's hair* |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Prolly cause you're stupid. Imo. |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by idoru
*spits in Jenny's hair* |
*spits on your hat*
 |
|
|
|
|
