AW: AW: AW: [aiethics] What are humans made of?

[Christian DroЯmann]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org


Jared wrote:

> Now I will address the secondary issue.  As I sigh at your
> unwillingness to admit your fallacies I will sowly tear them down

I am not unwilling to admit my fallacies, I simply don't consider them
fallacies :-)

> for your witnessing.  But first I'll gladly oblige by explaining
> how Hitler is relevantly Platolian, other than the fact that he
> admitted it.

I didn't study Hitler in detail...after reading "Mein Kampf" it appeared =
to
me that his mother should have drowned him in the bathtub when he was a
baby...but that's just my personal opinion...
Knowing what he did and how his line of argumentation was, I dare to =
say: If
Hitler claimed to be Platolian, then he obviously did not understand =
what
Platon wanted to say in his books...


> Hitler was a Nazi.  That's right, say it.  Nazis were national

Really??!! Damn, I thought he was a member of the Christian Democratic
Union...(SCNR)

> socialists.  Let's examine what a socialist is.  Well, a
> socialist believes in sacrificing the individual to the group.
> Ok so we've established that.  The group is the most important to
> the socialists.  What do we call that boys and girls?  We call
> that collectivism.  So now we've broken it down to collectivism.
> We've not yet gone that far and we haven't far to go kids.

hmm...BTW: what is it that it makes you feel superiour to us, justifying
your heavy use of polemics?

> Collectivists vs. Individualists - Subjectivists vs.
> Objectivists.  It's as simple as this.  Collectivists refuse to
> accept the objective reality that a human exists as an end in
> himself, NOT as a means to the end of another.  This means that a
> human is responsible for himself, and should receive benefits for
> being an individual (pride and punishment).  After all, the

There's nothing wrong with that...

> entity 'society' does not exist, rather it is merely a group of
> individuals.  Also, collectivists believe that a human is not a
> human for the reason I stated above.  But MOST OF ALL
> collectivists believe that the group's opinion is the truth
> because they do not believe in objective reality.  They accept
> whatever the mob votes as the truth.  Individualists believe that
> even if 5.99999 billion other people believe one thing, they can
> still be wrong (theoretically, all people in this world could
> believe 2+2=5 but they'd all be wrong because by asserting the
> fact that two 2's exist you assert the fact that they are e!
> qual to 4).  Collectivists around the world assert their platform
> as such.  You are a collectivist, much like Hitler or Stalin.
> This does not mean you will kill me some day but, hell, I guess I
> can't count on it!

You have read only a couple of my postings and we have come to "know" =
each
other just hours ago, so how can you already classify me?
I am not a collectivist, for I do not believe that something is right =
just
because the majority says so...
But I also say that the more people form an opinion and the less people =
form
a different opinion then it gets more and more likely that the few might =
be
mistaken...but I don't say that they HAVE to be wrong!

> P.S. - I'd like to address what Drossman said about "my truth"
> and "his truth"...truth, by definition, is something that exists
> before people.  Therefore, I deem what you just wrote absolute

that depends on the approach you take to define "truth"

Let me give you some definitions:

general ethics:
Truth is divided into "practical truth" (based on actions) and =
"theoretical
truth" (based on the observation of nature)

Aristoteles:
"truth" = criteria to measure human actions against to determine them =
as
"good" or "bad"

general Philosophy:
Determination of that what is called "true" in objection to "wrong".
The basis of "truth" is that there must be an ideal shape for any thing =
and
the closer this thing comes to it's ideal shape, the more true it is.

Aesthetics:
A thing is "true" if it is in any sense a reproduction of reality.

Theory of correspondence:
a=a -> truth
A statement is true when it corresponds to reality.

Thomas v. Aquin:
Truth is the identity of thing and intellect. ("Veritas est adaequatio =
rei
et intellectus")

Popper:
A statement is true if it correlates in any way with a fact.

Theory of coherence:

A statement is true if it can be, without any contradiction, be unified =
with
the system of the sentence or the language.

Theory of evidence:
All that is true which can show itself in an evident experience.


And there are many more...

You statement, that truth exists before people is just ONE OF MANY
definitions...therefore an argument based on the definition of truth =
cannot
be one that is valid in an absolute sense...



> bullshit (and PLEASE excuse my french but I mean to convey a

what a highly sophisticated way of expression (SCNR)

> STRONG IDEA here...I do not mean any insult!).  It's nonsense!
> My truth, your truth?  You're not talking about fact you're
> talking about opinion.  Of course your arguements aren't the
> truth at all because you don't believe in truth!

Scientifically proven (t.i. those that cannot be falsified in any way) =
facts
are absolute truth, deductions from facts can only be relative truth as
deduction always involves premises that can be freely selected...

Christian