Can AI compete against human creativity? It turns out that…

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

Yes you do, you have physical and scientific facts to build the foundation on.

Facts are in one realm and values are in another one and never the twain shall meet because facts are value neutral whereas to make a conclusion based on facts, one has to make a judgment, which is an appeal to an absolute of some sort (causing pain unnecessarily is [always] wrong, for example). Such judgments are expressions of feeling or opinion and those are not facts in anything like the same sense. They are facts in one’s consciousness, not facts out where the rubber meets the road.

When one makes such judgments one needs an absolute of some sort to refer to in order to make and justify them.

• This reply was modified 5 months, 4 weeks ago by  Unseen.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

Unseen wrote:

You can’t have any sort of ethical system without absolutes. You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

It seems that with any sort of absolutes there ends up being a gazillion exceptions. Give us an absolute that has no exceptions, and you would be onto something.

Absolutes admit of no exception. It’s people who don’t want to apply the absolute making the exception. What one does have is competing absolutes, sometimes.

The word “absolute” is just another word for a “value.” Values are sometimes in competition. This is why we have moral conundrums. We believe killing is wrong, an absolute, but so is the right to defend oneself or one’s country, so we have to decide which value, which absolute, to follow. Obviously, the one who joins one of the armed forces makes one whereas the Quaker pacifist chooses the other value as more important. One can analyze the abortion controversy similarly. If one person feels the need of every fetus to have a chance at life and another person feels that women need reproductive autonomy, both positions are made appealing to absolutes and both involve making exceptions by choosing one absolute over another.

I don’t think there’s a counter argument, but I’d be happy to analyze it.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

Unseen wrote:

You can’t have any sort of ethical system without absolutes. You can make ethical pronouncements till the cows come home, but without some sort of absolute value(s), you have no foundation to build one on.

It seems that with any sort of absolutes there ends up being a gazillion exceptions. Give us an absolute that has no exceptions, and you would be onto something.

Absolutes admit of no exception. It’s people who don’t want to apply the absolute making the exception. What one does have is competing absolutes, sometimes. The word “absolute” is just another word for a “value.” Values are sometimes in competition. This is why we have moral conundrums. We believe killing is wrong, an absolute, but so is the right to defend oneself or one’s country, so we have to decide which value, which absolute, to follow. Obviously, the one who joins one of the armed forces makes one whereas the Quaker pacifist chooses the other value as more important. One can analyze the abortion controversy similarly. If one person feels the need of every fetus to have a chance at life and another person feels that women need reproductive autonomy, both positions are made appealing to absolutes and both involve making exceptions by choosing one absolute over another. I don’t think there’s a counter argument, but I’d be happy to analyze it.

So there are really no “absolutes”. “Killing is wrong” is  meaningless. There are an infinite number of “killings” possible. And when you say “If one person feels” as in your fetus example, well that’s not exactly an absolute. So the basis for morality as practiced by the entire world is relativism. For morality to be absolute there would be no moral opinions needed. No interpretations. There would have to be an infinite list by some authority covering every possible moral situation. Each word, noun, adjective, verb connected to morality such as the word “slave” would need to be precisely defined. Every distinction between thoughts, intentions and actions needs to be worked out. As well as the capacity of people to be moral. The so called “golden rule” is all opinion as is “just don’t be an asshole”.

 

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

So there are really no “absolutes”. “Killing is wrong” is  meaningless.

No phrase I can understand is literally “meaningless.”

There are an infinite number of “killings” possible. And when you say “If one person feels” as in your fetus example, well that’s not exactly an absolute.

When someone expresses a feeling in a moral situation, it’s based on some value they hold dear among those values they hold dear that might be applied.

So the basis for morality as practiced by the entire world is relativism.

Even relativists make their choices based values they hold dear (treat as absolutes). If a person believes it’s okay to let a mother die if it means saving her unborn child, obviously there’s something they hold as an absolute behind it, such as that it’s more important to give an unborn being a chance than it is to save the life of someone who had their chance. Nobody lives forever (they may be thinking), but to live at all, first you have to be born (might be the th0ught process).

For morality to be absolute there would be no moral opinions needed. No interpretations. There would have to be an infinite list by some authority covering every possible moral situation.

No, see my answer just above. We rank them, since they exist in a set of relations resembling a 2-dimensional but complicated Venn diagram.

So, relativism really doesn’t exist. It’s a logical impossibility. Whatever choice we make, it reflects a value/absolute we hold above any others that we might apply.

Each word, noun, adjective, verb connected to morality such as the word “slave” would need to be precisely defined. Every distinction between thoughts, intentions and actions needs to be worked out. As well as the capacity of people to be moral.

You’re overthinking it. You seem to think that deciding values is a social project. It’s something each person decides according to the set of absolutes they follow. If we literally aren’t guided by absolutes, then our choices are simply random. A good determinist like me doesn’t see any choice as random. Every choice has something behind it, and in the case of moral choices, it’s values. Absolutes.

The so called “golden rule” is all opinion as is “just don’t be an asshole”

Anyone saying those things is acting according to an absolute they hold dear, a value they think worth following.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Facts are in one realm and values are in another one and never the twain shall meet because facts are value neutral

You’re right, I’m being a bit glib and disingenuous.  It’s true, they’re different realms, and we don’t treat them the same when making judgments of what to do.  We take both into account.

In a way, moral values are just different kinds of facts, in that they represent abstracted ideal ways to achieve mutual benefit of a particular kind (thriving and surviving, and/or reproducing).  So, they’re pretty factual, in the same sort of way that mathematics is developed from an abstraction of physical reality.

Facts are value neutral, until they become significant to our goals, at which time they acquire positive or negative value.

When one makes such judgments one needs an absolute of some sort to refer to in order to make and justify them.

You’re right in the sense that it helps to have firm moral convictions when deciding the right thing to do.

[_Robert_Participant]

OK, so now absolute morality is just values “one holds dear”. So, if one culture holds sex with minors in high regard, and another will lock you away in jail, they are both following absolute morality. Got it.

Yeah, see I don’t buy that. When religious folk talk about absolutes they are talking about specific laws set down by the creator of the universe. Heaven or hell is the result. That is absolute. Except it is not because the rules from the fake gods are not clear. They are open to interpretation. You can make whatever you want from the scriptures. And they don’t cover jack squat. Just because someone believes in absolute morality, that doesn’t mean it exists.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

absolute morality

There’s “absolute morality” – whatever that is – nobody can say – and “moral absolutes”, which are the strict rules necessary for ethical behaviour.

@unseen – if moral values are absolutes, then what do we do when two or more values apply?  Which one is “absolutely” correct overall?  Are the others wrong?  Does that make sense?

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:

Facts are in one realm and values are in another one and never the twain shall meet because facts are value neutral

You’re right, I’m being a bit glib and disingenuous. It’s true, they’re different realms, and we don’t treat them the same when making judgments of what to do. We take both into account. In a way, moral values are just different kinds of facts, in that they represent abstracted ideal ways to achieve mutual benefit of a particular kind (thriving and surviving, and/or reproducing).

Maybe mutual benefit is behind some people’s values, but not necessarily everyone’s. Indeed, some people obviously value only what benefits them, hang everyone else.

So, they’re pretty factual, in the same sort of way that mathematics is developed from an abstraction of physical reality. Facts are value neutral, until they become significant to our goals, at which time they acquire positive or negative value.

Your first sentence leaves out an important word: “originally.” Mathematics may have originally grown out of a need to solve real world problems in physical reality, it has gone way beyond that. One obvious example is prime numbers and another is imaginary numbers. A moebius strip is a paradox because it exists in the physical world yet has only one side and one edge, which seems impossible. Of course, real world versions also have thickness and so really are not true moebius strips. Or are they?

Anyway, the connection between math and the physical world is a kind of chicken/egg problem.

As for “Facts are value neutral, until they become significant to our goals, at which time they acquire positive or negative value,” facts continue to be value neutral no matter what value we give them. And whatever value we give them results from the application of an absolute of some sort.

When one makes such judgments one needs an absolute of some sort to refer to in order to make and justify them.

You’re right in the sense that it helps to have firm moral convictions when deciding the right thing to do.

Values/principles/absolutes are not convictions. Our convictions develop from them.

[UnseenParticipant]

_Robert_ wrote:

OK, so now absolute morality is just values “one holds dear”. So, if one culture holds sex with minors in high regard, and another will lock you away in jail, they are both following absolute morality. Got it. Yeah, see I don’t buy that.

When religious folk talk about absolutes they are talking about specific laws set down by the creator of the universe. Heaven or hell is the result. That is absolute. Except it is not because the rules from the fake gods are not clear. They are open to interpretation. You can make whatever you want from the scriptures. And they don’t cover jack squat. Just because someone believes in absolute morality, that doesn’t mean it exists.

Well, gee, Robert, here I am an atheist in an atheist discussion forum, so of course when I talk about absolutes they are not handed down from God. Nor do they exist in some abstract otherworldly platonic zone. By the same token, when I talk about absolutes being necessary to any sort of moral/ethical talk, I’m not talking about anything that applies to everyone.  I’m saying that when any rational person makes an ethical choice or decision, it’s due to something they take as an absolute value of some sort. Otherwise, they are acting randomly.

[_Robert_Participant]

Unseen wrote:

_Robert_ wrote:

OK, so now absolute morality is just values “one holds dear”. So, if one culture holds sex with minors in high regard, and another will lock you away in jail, they are both following absolute morality. Got it. Yeah, see I don’t buy that.

When religious folk talk about absolutes they are talking about specific laws set down by the creator of the universe. Heaven or hell is the result. That is absolute. Except it is not because the rules from the fake gods are not clear. They are open to interpretation. You can make whatever you want from the scriptures. And they don’t cover jack squat. Just because someone believes in absolute morality, that doesn’t mean it exists.

Well, gee, Robert, here I am an atheist in an atheist discussion forum, so of course when I talk about absolutes they are not handed down from God. Nor do they exist in some abstract otherworldly platonic zone. By the same token, when I talk about absolutes being necessary to any sort of moral/ethical talk, I’m not talking about anything that applies to everyone. I’m saying that when any rational person makes an ethical choice or decision, it’s due to something they take as an absolute value of some sort. Otherwise, they are acting randomly.

No, I said that is what they think, from their fake god. When you start pulling shit like that, it is because you lost the debate. Still waiting on that absolute moral edict. I’ll be here all week.

You did say a moral system must be based in absolutes. I would like to know what my absolutes are, because my deeply held values have evolved and changed much over the years. Absolutes don’t evolve. In fact, I’d say my basis of morality has been very mutable, otherwise how the hell does anyone grow. learn and improve.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Mathematics may have originally grown out of a need to solve real world problems in physical reality, it has gone way beyond that. One obvious example is prime numbers and another is imaginary numbers.

But 97 rocks can never be divided into groups of the same size, because 97 is a prime number.  Similarly, even imaginary numbers follow the logic of counting rocks.  i is a place-filler that has the properties we would expect from a number in that place, where there is no natural number.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

Mathematics may have originally grown out of a need to solve real world problems in physical reality, it has gone way beyond that. One obvious example is prime numbers and another is imaginary numbers.

My point is that in the same way that mathematics has grown way beyond its beginnings, morality is the response of normative individuals to physical circumstances.  We’re all just trying to thrive, survive and reproduce (morally) in a (physical) risky foraging niche.  That’s what morality is for.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

The ultimate decision about what is accepted as right and wrong will be made not by individual human wisdom but by the disappearance of the groups that have adhered to the “wrong” beliefs.

–F.A. Hayek

[UnseenParticipant]

[UnseenParticipant]

AI wrote a pop tune and created an engaging video to go with it.

[Author]

Posts