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

[Christian DroЯmann]

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


Jared M wrote:


> Ahh but you both ARE Kantian whether or not you know it.  Pedro

maybe...is that a crime? (although I still consider this an insult...)

> here, like many people, is quick to label his contradiction a
> 'paradox' and live with it.  Pedro, you are fully wrong.  A

What is the problem with this? His life could be much worse...life is =
full
of contradictions...noticeable and unnoticeable...

> paradox is a contradiction (a recognized contradiction) that is
> considered a proven statement (let me give you an example:  the
> paradox of time travel...the fact is, and you should read Steven
> Hawking, time travel cannot exist).  Few (well, none) of these

I DID read Stephen Hawking, (e.g. "A brief history of time" or "The =
nature
of space and time")...and from what I understood it is only impossible =
to
move backwards in time...travelling forwards at (subjectively) increased
speed IS possible, but whether one can still call this "time travel" is
indeed questionable...

> Secondly, Mr. Drossman, you ARE Kantian as well.  Both of you

No need to call me "Mr. Drossmann", but if you insist on calling me so, =
I
insist on the double "n" at the end of my name ;->


> have argued your experience over my principle (which is sad
> because this constitutes MOST of your arguement while you never
> would have known if I hadn't said I was a teenager,
> GUARANTEED...not to mention the fact that you're not that much
> older than me...I almost excuse it when my 45 year old mother
> does it).  Experience is not the only means of knowledge, in

I didn't use experience as a proof to show that you are inferiour to me =
just
because of your age...this would be narrow-minded...physical age does =
not
matter here, it's mental maturity that counts.
I think I have to state here to avoid further conflicts that I use
experience to found my view of the world, as I refuse to believe what =
cannot
be fully proven, or not in a scientific way.
IMHO the observation of the real world is the only valid way to confirm =
or
falsify a statement.
That might also explain my point of view in this discussion.
In brief: I say, if I cannot touch or at least measure it or experience =
in
another way, I refuse to accept its existance.
This is for example why I do not believe in a God....
And again, you still have not provided me with a scientifically based =
proof
that your principle is correct...

> fact, a secondary and less efficient means of knowledge.  You

But what is the most efficient way then?

> assert that you are Kantian by agreeing with SOME parts of what

Strange...you are the first one to call me Kantian...my Ethics professor
always calls me a "relativist" or an "amoralist", which describes my =
beliefs
far better than "Kantist" (IMHO)

> I'm saying and putting yourself in the "holier than thou
> moderate" position, a position which I abhor most.  I do not mean

did I?

> to argue, rather educate you (and, yes I will be so egotistical
> as to say educate you because I feel that pride is a great
> virtue, unlike you).  Your arguements have failed.  They will always =
fail.

Pride is a weakness...pride can be hurt, therefore having pride as a =
primary
concern is making one vulnerable...

> Now to address a more relevant issue, ethics.  Animals do not
> make choices.  They just don't!  Sadly, you are outmatched in

Again: prove it!

> even experience.  We are the only animal who has reason (and I
> believe if someone says something ridiculous enough that people
> will believe it...take the statement that dolphins are smarter
> than us :P).  This is the source of our morality.  ANIMALS JUST

That is where we differ...could you please state your premises more =
clearly?
You say animals can't reason? Then how do you explain that animals can =
be
conditioned?

> CAN'T REASON.  Of course, you Kantians believe that if you WISH
> them to reason or if you PERCEIVE them to have reason they do.
>
> How can you argue on the basis of truth when you admit to
> yourself that we cannot know truth.  Is that the truth?  You

You didn't read my statement carefully enough...I said there ARE issues =
that
HAVE an absolute truth, and there are issues that haven't...

> REFUSE reason as you do not believe in absolute truth.  Of

I don't refuse reason...my reasoning concludes, that in some cases truth =
can
only be relative...

> course, you have asserted that reason is inescapable because you
> have chosen your arguements for  a reason.  You cannot escape me.
>  You cannot escape Aristotle's philosophy and you cannot escape
> our arguements.  You have lost the great battle.  You and your
> Christians, Nazis, Communists (and free-sourcers! *giggle*).
> Subjectivism asserts that Objectivism is correct by its
> existence.  You are absolutely wrong.  Plainly WRONG.

If I might recommend something: You would sound MUCH more convincing if =
you
managed to reduce a discussion to the facts while leaving out all
emotions...
I get to thinking that you didn't get the idea of this forum...it is a
discussion with the aim to be productive, not a battle...no one is =
fighting
here...no one wants to win...

Christian