4 ms·
Not at all. If you had rejected the pretty much random processes in the primordial soup that eventually led to life (and then knowledge) from the start, then w
by smokel 3y ago
Not at all. If you had rejected the pretty much random processes in the primordial soup that eventually led to life (and then knowledge) from the start, then where would we be?
I think that it is almost impossible to determine randomness in an ongoing process.
- card_zero 3y agoBiological life itself embodies some knowledge. It uses trial-and-error evolution instead of thinking, but it arrives at solutions. Sometimes it arrives at the same solutions from different directions. This is different from randomness and the arbitrary results of random processes.
- smokel 3y agoHow will a system know all this initially? It seems this requires quite a competent judge and a lot of data. The idea of knowledge being something to protect is interesting, but I don't see a practical way of accomplishing it.
- card_zero 3y agoDo our best? That's all we ever do when it comes to morals anyway. And I'm intentionally implying that we already value and protect knowledge, under a variety of different names. Having said that, I don't really believe in one moral value to rule them all, I just think knowledge is a big one and useful for cutting through gordian knots. It tends to return to feelings a lot anyway, since upsetting people isn't good for the growth of knowledge.
- smokel 3y agoAha, I think I'm starting to understand your position, which is obviously more nuanced than I initially thought. But is knowledge such a big one? I suppose that the vast majority of the world population is not really helping to push the boundaries of knowledge forward. Unless you see gossip about celebrities as valuable knowledge as well.