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

[Christian DroЯmann]

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


Jared M wrote:


> It seems that your arguements have devolved to "Am I?" and "Do
> I?" and "Is it?" and "Does it?" in certain instances, to all of
> which I will answer "Yes".  Also, you've demanded proof time and
> again.  I say to you that you have no right to demand proof as
> most of your arguements are arbitrary.  I say "Do the research

so are yours...
A statement without proof remains nothing but a thesis...therefore I DO =
have
the right to demand proof before I seriously consider changing the point =
of
view I have now...

> yourself" even citing certain search engines (yes, look
> again...try harder to read).  You have no right to make any

why should I do the research myself? YOU want to falsify me, so the =
burden
of proof lies solely on YOUR shoulders...

> analogies referring to my childhood and yours.  Ours, I

I read the whole thread again, but I get to thinking that you mistake me =
for
someone else, as I never made any such statement...

> guarantee, were far different.  You have written paragraphs on
> rhetorical questions and silly examples (namely the horrible
> example of a paradox involving Hawking's time, entropy and
> universal expansion dichotomy--I yield to your greater knowledge,

?! all I said was that backwards time-travel is impossible, but forwards
time-travel is not...
This is according to Hawking's theory about time near massive =
bodies...(in
the Bantam-edition of "A brief history of time" from 1995 this is =
explained
in chapter 2 "space and time" on page 37)

Could you please elaborate more on my examples being "silly" ?


> Semantics, idiocy and evasion.  That's our problem here.
> Semantics being our issue on emotion vs instinct.  Dross you
> wrote that I do not use reason when I choose not to climb a
> building.  This demonstrates exactly why I feel I'm superior to
> you (not because I use polemics).  Because I DO use reason.  I am
> not an animal.  The reason I do not climb the building is because

this is indeed a semantical issue...the is a difference between "to =
reason"
and "to have reasons"
You proved yourself wrong here: You wrote "THE REASON I do not climb the
building is because I fear heights."
You DO not reason not to climb buildings, you HAVE a reason not to climb
buildings...and in this case your reason (not reasonING) bases on the
instinct of fear....
If you are on the top of a high building and the roof had a railing =
going
all around it, your fear of height might prevent you from going closer =
to
the railing to look down.
ReasonING could help you overcome your fear, as you could reason that =
with
the railing there is no way to fall down, and so it is completely safe =
to go
to the edge of the roof and look down...


> I fear heights.  You however, are incapable of moving against
> your fear.  You must be an animal, with instincts, who feels fear
> and immediately becomes its servant without choice (of course,
> you have chosen not to make a choice but to follow your fears

I am not a servant of my instincts as I can master my fears and
overcome/suppress my instincts...I fear height, too...but still I go to
rooftops of tall buildings to enjoy the view, fly in a plane, walk over
bridges, etc. because controlling my fear is the only way of preventing =
to
be controlled BY my fear...

> immediately--you are worse than amoral, you're immoral).  You are

alright, them I'm immoral...so what?
I still don't get the point of you calling me things like "Kantian" or
"immoral"...I don't see anything wrong with being immoral for example...

> an animal.  I am a human.  Thus the superiority complex.  Idiocy
> being your inability to understand my arguements (though I admit
> it may be partially due to my inability to MAKE my
> arguements--for instance the part about Kant being insultingA:  I
> CONSIDER it an insult but that is not to say it IS!
>  an insult, but I doubt that's a large part of it).  You say that

It's not that I don't understand your arguments...I simply consider your
arguments insufficient to prove me wrong...
I also admit, that if you refrained from telling us how
oh-so-fucking-superiour and all-knowing you are, but PROVED your
superiourity by "waterproof" evidence, you might have a better chance to
convince me...
I don't criticise your arguments, I criticise the way you present =
them...

 you don't refuse to admit your fallacies, you simply don't see
> them as fallacies--Given.  I assumed you were able to understand.
>  Evasion being your evasion of key elements of my arguements.  I
> noticed that you do not respond to some of my counter arguements
> (in which I've clearly defeated your point) negatively or
> positively.  You simply evade them and go parading like a
> mindless brute.

so did you...
My reason is a simple guideline I have: If I have nothing to say =
anything
about something I simply do not say anything :-)
Non-disagreement means agreement IMHO...
Alright, I also omitted some of your statements for reasons stated =
above...

> To those of you with whom I have not yet conversed on this
> committee:  I'm not talking to you.
>
> I joined this list for my selfish benefit.  I did it to benefit

No doubt about this...

> me, in that I subscribed to the the agnostic (I'm not referring
> to its disbelief in God as such, I am an atheist) down the street
> that I can never fully know that I'm right by principle.  I must
> experience and experience.  Now I understand that my principles
> will always be undefeatable.  You know, I truly felt that I would

I'd be more careful with the use of the word "undefeatable"...

> read something, anything, that I hadn't heard or read before--I
> haven't.  I've heard it all, that is, from professors at William
> and Mary, let alone people like you.  I felt that I had something

How exactly would you define "people like me" ?

> to gain.  I have nothing to gain from you.  Objectivist

I suppose you'd better think twice...according to your statements you at
least gained more evidence that your principles "will always be
undefeatable"....

> Epistemology holds that understanding the truth is agreeing with
> the truth and agreeing with the truth is understanding the truth.

I disagree with that...the first part makes sense, but one could agree =
to
something for other reasons than having understood it...

>  I KNOW my arguements are infallable as there ARE ways to know
> this.  Unlike Kant, I believe, Aristotle believed, Rand believed
> that things DO have properties and they can be understood.  Kant
> obviously didn't understand!

I cannot deny this..I don't like Kant as well...

>  this truth.  You obviously do not understand this truth.  Do not
> say to me that I "need to have an open mind, because at your age
> I felt that I knew everything too!".  The difference between you
> and me (and i speak to those who say or have said that) is that
> you FELT that you knew everything at my age.  I KNOW that I know
> everything at my age.  I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
> I am looking down on you.

And by saying this, you show how inferiour you are to me...
REAL superiourity is knowing that you are superiour, but without rubbing
everyone's nose in it...
I NEVER felt that I knew everything at any age...and I never made =
statement
saying so...who do you think you are to judge me like that? I only know =
that
I can never know everything...

> You have whined "But it's not that black and white!  Just because

I didnt!

> I believe this doesn't mean I'm following the likes of Nazi
> Germany, Soviet Russia or the New Deal America!".  I warn you,
> you will soon be whining "But this isn't what I meant!" when we
> are ruled by tyrannical subjectivists here in America (we're
> coming closer:  Nader was the closest thing to Stalin we've ever

If you had read my postings, you would know that I am German, not
American...therefore I will not "whine" as America being ruled by
"tyrannical subjectivists" is of about as much importance to me as a =
sack of
rice being dropped in China...
Or, if I may quote you here, "I deem what you just wrote absolute =
bullshit"
Have you actually READ any of my postings?!

[...orgy of self-opinioned/self-righteous utterances deleted...]


One final statement:
Did you notice that your need to force your opinions and beliefs onto =
other
people makes you remarkably close to those you reject?

Christian