Simon Paynton

Davis wrote:

“your definition” of thriving, not the actual one.

How would you define it?

Some of it is absolutely pointless, meaningless that defies even comprehension. It is outside power structures or simple explanations.

Only if the reason is unknown.  If the reason is known, then it does not defy comprehension.

Davis wrote:

Ultimately Simon…your second and third point are virtually the same. Your definition of thriving has become almost replaceable with “adaption and fitness” that the two are barely distinguishable.

That’s true.  Thriving is synonymous with evolutionary fitness.  It’s also synonymous with achieving goals.  However, some goals are pure…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

Now I’m thinking of rethinking my project.

Suddenly the goal is no longer a goal.  Is that strange?

How does BOTH absolute and relative fit in to the burning cat example, for example?

I just can’t…

[Read more]

Here’s the basis of my theory of why people enjoy hurting others.  It ties up:

– the theory of emotions, where moving closer to a goal results in positive feelings (i.e., pleasure).

– the theory of natural selection, where fitness benefits are both absolute and relative.

– the theory of the pressure to thrive, where thriving = both achieving…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

What “advantage” (benefit) does one derive from killing a person or a cat?

The advantage is relative.  Natural selection selects for relative advantage over others.  Fitness benefits, where natural selection smiles on us, result in pleasure.  Here’s a quote from Frans de Waal, which maybe explains it better.

Natural selection works…

[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

Suppose someone on an impulse pushes a stranger in front of a train or grabs a stray cat tosses gasoline on it and lights it. That isn’t someone having a bad day. That is the enjoyment of causing harm.

It still amounts to a relative advantage over another being.  In non-cooperative people, this causes pleasure.

Unseen wrote:

There may be some sophistical speculations as to self-interest in each of those cases, but they certainly are not apparent. When we speak of “evil,” which is another word for malevolence, it is this sort of harm done absent self-interest which provides the optimal sort of example.

Yes, but the self-interest is inherent in the rel…[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:

structural changes in the brain

I think my memory cells were wiped out by 25 years of suicidal depression (I’m fine now, but can’t remember much.  On the other hand, there wasn’t much to remember).

Davis wrote:

what hope do we have if they are melevolent?

Malevolence is aggressive self-interest, winning out and achieving one’s goals at the express expense of others.  In humans, if it’s pervasive, this is because of personality disorders.  We already have computer viruses that behave like this.

Unseen wrote:

And what about wisdom like that of King Solomon?

I think we could get a machine to reach the moral capability of a psychopath, i.e. rational but not emotional.  It turns out, this is a huge handicap.  They don’t experience emotional resonance, or recognise emotions in others.

Unseen wrote:

I’m thinking that a big part of wisdom is compassion and empathy. Am I wrong? And can an artificial intelligence ever develop these attributes?

I would define wisdom as “truth and compassion”.  I think that AI entities would be the same as us, i.e. self-interested.  But humans are compassionate because of interdependence: what is…[Read more]

I think that the pattern, “God does not exist”, fits those data points as well as the pattern “God exists”.  In other words, no matter how hard someone tries, they can’t prove it either way.

Oh dear, it never seems to work.  Does everyone really want or need a democracy?  I guess the checks and balances stop people from becoming too corrupt.  Not every government cares about human rights.

I think exactly the same would have happened under Trump, or something very similar.

I understand it’s a tragedy for Afghanistan, and the world, but what could they have done differently?  The West had to pull out some time.

I thought it was arrogant for Biden to accuse the Afghani army of cowardice, when they weren’t being supplied with their…[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:

The perceived bad part gets the headlines.

I don’t think it’s necessarily perceived as bad – just “non-standard”, which is often the same thing.

I know that Marx has been influential on people whose ideas I value.  Probably he’s correct in some aspects of his analysis as far as it goes – but it can’t be applied too generally, because it’s not a complete theory of everything as it claims to be.