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

[Christian DroЯmann]

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



Jared M wrote:

> I would consider being called a Kantian an insult as well.  But
> only if I WERE a Kantian.  I'm not trying to insult you btw.  Of

now, how does this make sense?!

> course life is full of contradictions.  Such as the ones you've
> raised.  It doesn't mean they can be accepted as truth.  You're
> stating something that's obvious and as arbitrary as anything
> you've cited from my letters.  It's good that you read Hawking.
> Honestly, Mr. Drossmann, I wish that you read more.  You'd seem a
> bit more intelligent!  It's also good that you understand

now you're getting polemical again...

> experience is overrated.  I must have misunderstood you.  The
> most efficient means of knowledge is principle as you would have
> read.  Your ethics professor calls you a subjectivist.  Kantian

No, he doesn't...he clearly said "relativist"...

> is pretty well equal to subjectivist (*giggle*).  Amoralist?  No,
> you're an immoralist.  Your ethics professor (and do I smell
> pride again?) is wrong.  Or perhaps it's a semantics issue (and I
> tend to think it's a semantics issue as my experience would have
> me believe he knows the difference!

Why don't YOU state the difference between subjectivism and relativism =
here
and I decide which definition describes me best?
And about amoralism: I do not believe there is such a thing as absolute
moral for moral is IMHO conceived entirely by humans...if you disagree =
here,
tell me where moral should come from if not from humans...

> ).  You did establish yourself as a moderate in that you think
> "some things are relative"...whatever the hell that means.  Ahh,

It means what it says...I am convinced that there are issues where =
"truth",
"right", "wrong" and other terms lie solely in the eye of the =
beholder...

> to prove animals work on instinct.  I'm not a biologist.  You'll
> have to ask Jeeves to prove it.  You say animals can be
> conditioned.  I don't know what you mean by conditioned...please
> clarify and I will carefully adjust your view.  I'm not out to

Conditioning is a process to "steer" certain behaviour by negative or
positive feedback...
A common experiment is that one of Pavlov's dog:
A dog is put into a cage, the cage has an electrical bell in it and a =
food
supply that can be filled from outside...
Every time the food supply is filled, the bell is rung...it is noted =
that
whenever it was time to eat, the dog produced a higher amout of saliva,
resulting in drooling...
After a while the bell is rung without the food supply being refilled, =
but
still the dog starts to drool as he associates the ringing of the bell =
with
getting food...
The dog is now conditioned to the ringing of the bell...
Another experiment involves showing a certain thing to a dog and then
kicking him...after a while whenever this thing is shown to him, the dog
panics, as he is afraid of being kicked again...

Now tell me, how is it possible to associate two events like a ringing =
bell
and food without the ability to reason?
Come on, adjust my view :-)

> sound "convincing" as you are.  I'm out to give you truth, Mr.
> Drossmann (and, irrelevantly, what are you going to do when they
> take out that letter in your name? *giggle*).  In those cases
> that "truth" is relative, you're confusing truth with opinion.

opinion is a result from subjective/relative truth...

> In other words, fact is not opinion.  Opinion is a level of
> understanding the truth.  You say pride is a weakness.  Well,

the forming of an opinion does not imply that you have understood the
absolute truth correctly...
All opinion is subjectively true (=has relative truth).
You adopt or form an opinion after drawing (even after falsely drawing) =
a
certain conclusion that results in a logical "true".
You opinions must seem true to you, as if they wouldn't, they would not =
be
your opinions...but do they have absolute truth?
Again I say whether a statement is logically true or false depends on =
the
premise...


> thank you again, you've just quoted Kant.  Pride is a VIRTUE.
> You may be talking about conceitedness.  I'm talking about pride.
>  The difference is that pride is proven and factually based.  I
> should be proud I got an A in my philosophy c!
> lass.  I should be conceited of my good looks.  Do you understand
> now?  Pride is a virtue, conceitedness is a weakness (or
> whatever).  Reason implies irrelative truth.  There, again, the
> contradiction.  Sorry if I haven't paragraphed, I read your
> arguements as I typed.

keep in mind I'm not a native speaker of the English language...in =
German,
there is no such distinction between "pride" and "conceitedness", it is =
both
called "Stolz"...but by definition, I don't see any difference in those =
two
words...
My dictionary says: "conceit : excessive pride (!) in oneself or in =
one's
powers, abilities, etc..."
Although I admit that I understand the difference in your example...

Christian