3 ms·

But doesn't this miss the fact that "humanity" is emotionally driven and making decisions based on pure logic is un-human? We also have a brain with multiple s

by 1stop 11y ago

But doesn't this miss the fact that "humanity" is emotionally driven and making decisions based on pure logic is un-human? We also have a brain with multiple subsystems that can override each other, and we see this behaviour as "normal" (i.e we don't get confused and puzzled by a fat person eating, thinking to ourselves "I don't get it, they clearly don't need the food... ?" - Where as if someone stopped eating mid meal and said "I've reached sufficient caloric intake" we would be confused and puzzled).

seiji 11y ago
Where as if someone stopped eating mid meal and said "I've reached sufficient caloric intake" we would be confused and puzzled. You clearly don't live in San Francisco. Talking like an asocial robot is encouraged to be part of the in-crowd.
TuringTest 11y ago
> making decisions based on pure logic is un-human? It's not just un-human, it's impossible. Every logic decision ultimately depends on the axioms deciding what is a "good" and a "bad" decision, and the choice of axioms needs to be based on an emotion - as choosing one set of axioms over another is otherwise arbitrary.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  This sounds very much like "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis.
  - TuringTest 11y ago
    I haven't read it, but didn't Lewis defend that there is one right set of axioms to choose, the one which is "objectively good"?
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      He defended that there is a universal set of values, which are generally in common across almost all ancient religions and philosophies. But I don't think Lewis would be on board with the idea of "objectively good". For example, he said that "this will destroy mankind" can only lead to "don't do this" by way of "mankind should be preserved", which, while clearly common sense and agreed to by all ethical systems, is not necessarily something that you can say is "objectively good". You can't get there by pure reason, because pure reason gives you only an "is", and from an "is" you can't get to an "ought". The only way to the "ought" is what they used to call "practical reason", and that is inherently not just objective. I may be mis-stating this slightly - it's been a while since I read "The Abolition of Man". But what I've said is more or less in the right direction.

by 1stop 11y ago

seiji 11y ago

Where as if someone stopped eating mid meal and said "I've reached sufficient caloric intake" we would be confused and puzzled. You clearly don't live in San Francisco. Talking like an asocial robot is encouraged to be part of the in-crowd.

TuringTest 11y ago

> making decisions based on pure logic is un-human? It's not just un-human, it's impossible. Every logic decision ultimately depends on the axioms deciding what is a "good" and a "bad" decision, and the choice of axioms needs to be based on an emotion - as choosing one set of axioms over another is otherwise arbitrary.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
This sounds very much like "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis.
- TuringTest 11y ago
  I haven't read it, but didn't Lewis defend that there is one right set of axioms to choose, the one which is "objectively good"?
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    He defended that there is a universal set of values, which are generally in common across almost all ancient religions and philosophies. But I don't think Lewis would be on board with the idea of "objectively good". For example, he said that "this will destroy mankind" can only lead to "don't do this" by way of "mankind should be preserved", which, while clearly common sense and agreed to by all ethical systems, is not necessarily something that you can say is "objectively good". You can't get there by pure reason, because pure reason gives you only an "is", and from an "is" you can't get to an "ought". The only way to the "ought" is what they used to call "practical reason", and that is inherently not just objective. I may be mis-stating this slightly - it's been a while since I read "The Abolition of Man". But what I've said is more or less in the right direction.