Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]

Expand Messages
  • Shlomi Fish
    ... OK. :-) ... It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had to,
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
      > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
      > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be objective
      > > > merely because we live in a subjective world, the one we created for
      > > > ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
      > >
      > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated. Do you
      > > mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as "Randianism")? Or do
      > > you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
      >
      > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it is a
      > real thing or even possible.
      >

      OK. :-)

      > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there are
      > > three similar but non-identical terms:
      > >
      > > 1. Unbiased.
      > >
      > > 2. Objective.
      > >
      > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of View or
      > > NPOV.
      > >
      > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan performed many
      > > Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is objective because it is
      > > true.
      >
      > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the 13th
      > century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan. Go read
      > the [1] wikipedia entry.

      It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual data.
      Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had to, but
      because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present day Mongols, but
      it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not know Mao was a
      mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who killed at least 40
      million people of his own people.

      To quote Neo-Tech ( http://www.neo-tech.com/orientation/ ):

      <<<<<<<<<<<<<
      The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
      done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
      productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
      prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
      destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).

      Honestly using one's reasoning nature is always beneficial and moral;
      dishonestly using one's reasoning nature is always harmful and
      immoral. ...Volitionally harmful acts always arise from mysticism -- from
      dishonesty, rationalizations, evasions, defaults.

      Yet, acting on fully integrated honesty (Neo-Tech), not reason itself, is the
      basic moral act. When Genghis Khan, for example, chose to use reasoning for a
      specific military move, then in an out-of-context sense, he chose to act
      morally by protecting himself and his troops (thus filling human biological
      needs). But in the larger sense of fully integrated honesty, Khan's total
      actions were grossly immoral in choosing to use aggressive force in becoming
      a mass murderer (thus negating human biological needs). The highly
      destructive, irrational immorality of Genghis Khan's overall dictatorial
      military actions far outweighed any narrow, out-of-context "moral"
      actions. ...Genghis Khan was enormously evil as were Stalin, Hitler, Mao,
      Castro, Pol Pot.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      (I hope I'm not invoking Godwin's Law here - see
      http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/godwin.html for why it may not be the
      case)

      Objective is not what has a full consensus. It is what can be universally
      agreed upon by most or any sensible person (or alternatively a different
      intelligent life form similar to humans) who has all the relevant data and is
      capable of thought. If I told a tribesman in Africa about Mao, he'll probably
      agree that he's Evil.

      >
      > I believe that there is nothing objective, and there are no
      > universals.

      If nothing is objective neither is this statement. Thus, it is a subjective
      (or mystical or whatever) statement, that I'd rather ignore coming from you.
      If everything is subjective any argument is pointless:

      <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
      Interviewer: let's do a discusssion about drug legalisation.

      A: I support it.

      B: I oppose.

      Interviewer: well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, so let's end it
      here. Thanks for watching
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      (Based on the Zehu-Zeh's episode about Cable-TV).

      If a parent, sibling, child or SO of mine tells me about his feelings, this is
      a subjective statement of importance to me. But the statement "The distance
      between Tel Aviv and Haifa is 100 km" is either objective/factual or simply
      false. It cannot be subjective.

      > Even 'one and one is two' is true only if you accept the
      > two mathematical axioms regd. natural numbers. In some reference
      > systems one and one is three... like in a family.

      2 + 2 == 5 for very large values of 2.

      More seriously now, yes, I can define my own math:

      http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-NewMath/lib/acme/newmath.pm

      ^^^^ Read it - it's hilarious.

      And even more seriously now, 2 is commonly understood as the number following
      1 in standard arithmetics. All modern languages can express such arithmetics
      (see the large numbers mentioned in the Old Testament for example), and it
      can be written very succinctly by using Arabic numerals and the Algebraic
      notation. If I mean a different algebraic system, I should explicitly mention
      it. Otherwise, in the standard system 1+1==2, and objectively.

      If I define a system such that 1+1==3, then this is the case in its context,
      and objectively.

      There's a difference between subjectivism and contextualism.

      >
      > > While we are inherentely subjective to some extent, we can and should
      > > always try to be as objective as possible. I'm not saying we should be
      > > unbiased, just that we try to perceive and conceive reality as if we were
      > > not associated with anyone, and could always judge things objectively.
      >
      > IMHO, since you perceive reality through your senses alone, which are
      > fallible, and you further filter what you sense through your
      > unconscious filters, which are individual and subjective, the attempt
      > at objectivity is doomed to fail.

      "I'd rather be a tail for the lions, than the head of tha jackals."

      I'd rather be as close to be objective as possible, then be almost completely
      subjective. Objectivity is an ideal, which can never be entirely reached.
      However, honesty is also an ideal, which can never be fully attained. And so
      is self-esteem, and happiness.

      Do you claim that I should ditch honesty, self-esteem and happiness too, and
      be dishonest, feel lousy about myself, and miserable?

      >
      > > Aside from objective/subjective, there are also matters of taste, which
      > > are not subject to such judgement. I can consider a painting as good and
      > > another person may dislike it, and arguing about it is pointless.
      >
      > Taste is subjectivity to a personal extreme. For example, killing is
      > bad because the society we live in dictates it as a moral rule (and
      > morality is subjective but relatively uniform in a single society in a
      > point in time). Your painting sux because I personally think so. It's
      > a matter of scope.

      Right. However, the fact that killing is bad can be easily deduced from the
      Golden Rule:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

      Which is very logical, and commonly accepted. If you want to go against logic,
      and devise a system of ethics that is not based on the Golden rule, I suppose
      you can. But you might as well say that A may be not-A, and get over with it,
      as you will be able to immediately deduce any claim and its opposite.

      Regards,

      Shlomi Fish

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
      Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

      If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
      one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
      -- An Israeli Linuxer
    • Tal Kelrich
      On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200 ... Define Evil ? -- Tal Kelrich PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69 Key Available at:
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
        Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

        > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
        > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
        > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
        > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
        > > >
        > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
        > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
        > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
        > >
        > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
        > > is a real thing or even possible.
        > >
        >
        > OK. :-)
        >
        > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
        > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
        > > >
        > > > 1. Unbiased.
        > > >
        > > > 2. Objective.
        > > >
        > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
        > > > View or NPOV.
        > > >
        > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
        > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
        > > > objective because it is true.
        > >
        > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
        > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
        > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
        >
        > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
        > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
        > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
        > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
        > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
        > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
        >

        Define "Evil"?

        --
        Tal Kelrich
        PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
        Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
        ----
        With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud I
        try to be a fraud and a half.
        -- Otto von Bismark
        ----
      • ik
        OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the subject.
          BTW on the "finding" of the "math" issue (and the "language" -> the fact that I do not remember the name, does not mean that I do not know how it called, and I only gave it an example, I do not look for a pat in the back or something... it's just was a pure example).

          Now,  I'll only answer my usage of the last quote:

          In a different argument I was giving an answer such as "but the statics shows that people that have learned at universities can learn better" (or something like this, I'm using my memory). So Unlike you, I do not see things as winners and losers (although the lion always loose, because it is not a human), but the fact that you use University based information (statistic) that does not really check the other side, but you keep on using it... So I placed (actually more then one) mind for you to remove :)

          So because I see that you are like myself (love quotes), here is a cool quote for you to end up with:

          "The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create."
              Leonard I. Sweet


          So I hope you take the right people with you to create your idea as a feature,

          Ido

          On 3/27/07, Arik Baratz < yahoo@...> wrote:

          On 26 Mar 2007 02:12:08 -0700, Nadav Har'El <nyh@... > wrote:

          > Of course, in other universities or departments, the situation might be
          > different. In some fake universities, your money means more than your
          > studies. This is why employers don't look as highly at a graduate of
          > Latvia (or whatever was that fake university which was recently in the news)
          > as they do at a graduate of the technion.

          Heh. My first job ever (after graduating, I had a lot of odd jobs
          before), a friend of a friend told them to call me because of a
          particular interest I have shown in the Compilation and Compilers
          course in the Technion. My interview was very short, it was a team
          leader in a start-up. He asked me if I've studied in the Technion, and
          when I answered in the affirmative he hired me.

          I hope it doesn't infuriate people here. I can only say that I am more
          discriminating when it comes to hiring people. Also, my job was to
          write a compiler, something very few people like to do apparently, and
          my interest in compilers was a factor in the decision.

          -- Arik




          --
          http://ik.homelinux.org/
        • Tzahi Fadida
          I don t understand why you (plural) insist on associating studying in the university and work. While it is the most practical reason, many (and me) studied for
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I don't understand why you (plural) insist on associating studying in the
            university and work. While it is the most practical reason, many (and me)
            studied for personal enrichment. I believe that any person that desires study
            should do so if he can.

            --
            Regards,
                    Tzahi.
            --
            Tzahi Fadida
            Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info
            WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  see at
            http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html
          • Arik Baratz
            ... I just latched on to it because I wanted to make a point, meant no disrespect. ... Is statistics a university based information? It s scientific, and it s
            Message 5 of 28 , Mar 27, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On 3/27/07, ik <idokan@...> wrote:
              >
              > OK, I will not answer most of what you have written (Even the one that you took out of context), I dissagree with you, and I guess we will not agree on the subject.
              > BTW on the "finding" of the "math" issue (and the "language" -> the fact that I do not remember the name, does not mean that I do not know how it called, and I only gave it an example, I do not look for a pat in the back or something... it's just was a pure example).

              I just latched on to it because I wanted to make a point, meant no disrespect.


              >
              > In a different argument I was giving an answer such as "but the statics shows that people that have learned at universities can learn better" (or something like this, I'm using my memory). So Unlike you, I do not see things as winners and losers (although the lion always loose, because it is not a human), but the fact that you use University based information (statistic) that does not really check the other side, but you keep on using it... So I placed (actually more then one) mind for you to remove :)


              Is statistics a university based information? It's scientific, and
              it's taught at universities, but is it something inherent to
              universities? I don't think so.

              >
              > So because I see that you are like myself (love quotes), here is a cool quote for you to end up with:
              >
              > "The future is not something we enter. The future is something we create."
              > Leonard I. Sweet

              I agree.

              >
              > So I hope you take the right people with you to create your idea as a feature,

              Me too.

              -- Arik
            • Shlomi Fish
              Hi Tal! ... Quoting my previous message:
              Message 6 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Tal!

                On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Tal Kelrich wrote:
                > On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
                >
                > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                > > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                > > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
                > > >
                > > > wrote:
                > > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
                > > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
                > > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
                > > > >
                > > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
                > > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
                > > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
                > > >
                > > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
                > > > is a real thing or even possible.
                > >
                > > OK. :-)
                > >
                > > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
                > > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
                > > > >
                > > > > 1. Unbiased.
                > > > >
                > > > > 2. Objective.
                > > > >
                > > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
                > > > > View or NPOV.
                > > > >
                > > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
                > > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
                > > > > objective because it is true.
                > > >
                > > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
                > > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
                > > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
                > >
                > > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
                > > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
                > > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
                > > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
                > > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
                > > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
                >
                > Define "Evil"?

                Quoting my previous message:

                <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                == "bad".

                Regards,

                Shlomi Fish

                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                -- An Israeli Linuxer
              • Nadav Har'El
                ... This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken to me... Is rape filling your own biological needs (and therefore good) or
                Message 7 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                  > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                  > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                  > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                  > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                  > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                  > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >
                  > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                  > == "bad".

                  This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken
                  to me...

                  Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
                  someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills your
                  own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you stole
                  from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed others
                  more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and Roosvelt's
                  campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological needs, and
                  millions of Germans lost theirs?

                  --
                  Nadav Har'El | Friday, Mar 30 2007, 11 Nisan 5767
                  nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                  Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled
                  http://nadav.harel.org.il |up like that? What the ... - a fly.
                • Shlomi Fish
                  ... Hi Nadav! Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and integratink what I m writing. kthx, bye. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi
                  Message 8 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Friday 30 March 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                    > On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
                    [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                    > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                    > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                    > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                    > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                    > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                    > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                    > > == "bad".
                    >
                    > This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely
                    > broken to me...
                    >
                    > Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
                    > someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills
                    > your own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you
                    > stole from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed
                    > others more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and
                    > Roosvelt's campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological
                    > needs, and millions of Germans lost theirs?

                    Hi Nadav!

                    Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and
                    integratink what I'm writing.

                    kthx, bye.

                    Regards,

                    Shlomi Fish

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                    Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                    If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                    one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                    -- An Israeli Linuxer
                  • Arik Baratz
                    ... Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it s okay and you might agree. I don t. It s using subjective terms in a scientific definition. Nope, I
                    Message 9 of 28 , Mar 30, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                      > > Define "Evil"?
                      >
                      > Quoting my previous message:
                      >
                      > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                      > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
                      > done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
                      > productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
                      > prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
                      > destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                      > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                      >
                      > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                      > == "bad".

                      Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                      might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                      definition. Nope, I don't buy it.

                      -- Arik
                    • Shlomi Fish
                      ... Why? Show me the Proof!!! The burden of proof is on you. Regards, Shlomi Fish ... Shlomi Fish shlomif@iglu.org.il Homepage:
                      Message 10 of 28 , Apr 18, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                        > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                        > > > Define "Evil"?
                        > >
                        > > Quoting my previous message:
                        > >
                        > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                        > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                        > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                        > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                        > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                        > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                        > > == "bad".
                        >
                        > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                        > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                        > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                        >

                        Why?

                        Show me the Proof!!!

                        The burden of proof is on you.

                        Regards,

                        Shlomi Fish

                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                        Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                        If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                        one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                        -- An Israeli Linuxer
                      • Nadav Har'El
                        ... There are several problems with this definition, and I ll mention one below, but I have to admit it s not very fair that I disprove a definition based on
                        Message 11 of 28 , Apr 19, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re: [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                          > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                          > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                          > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                          > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
                          > > > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
                          > > > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
                          > > > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
                          > > > == "bad".
                          > >
                          > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                          > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                          > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Why?
                          >
                          > Show me the Proof!!!
                          >
                          > The burden of proof is on you.

                          There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one below,
                          but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a definition based
                          on your very short and probably not entirely accurate explanation of it - I
                          didn't like it when you did that to Kant and Kirkegaard after my explanations,
                          and I probably shouldn't be doing this to Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I
                          never read anything about "Neo-Tech" except what you said on this list.

                          I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                          this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                          other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                          based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                          (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?

                          Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                          a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                          consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                          sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his intentions).
                          The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths (who are unable
                          to understand the concept of other human beings having their own lives and
                          wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in the eyes of its doer.

                          If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                          slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care of
                          their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and would
                          claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros are so
                          privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse off. He
                          would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners would go
                          bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is immoral
                          because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.

                          A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                          itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                          discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                          obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex. Does this make
                          resisting being raped an immoral act? Is stealing food moral because a
                          person needs to eat? Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                          because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place
                          to sleep by charging money? And what about people's non-biological needs,
                          like the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored,
                          etc. - is it moral to violate these needs? For example, is it moral according
                          to your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                          biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)? Can this defintion
                          explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but not to
                          "ordinary" people?


                          --
                          Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Apr 19 2007, 1 Iyyar 5767
                          nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                          Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is
                          http://nadav.harel.org.il |a fine for doing well.
                        • Arik Baratz
                          ... No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I don t. We don t have
                          Message 12 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                            > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:

                            > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                            > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                            > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                            >
                            > Why?
                            >
                            > Show me the Proof!!!
                            >
                            > The burden of proof is on you.

                            No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                            this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                            don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                            different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                            -- Arik
                          • Shlomi Fish
                            ... OK. ... Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60 million
                            Message 13 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thursday 19 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                              > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
                              [hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
                              > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                              > > > On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                              > > > > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
                              > > > > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and
                              > > > > moral (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is
                              > > > > consciously done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological
                              > > > > needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics
                              > > > > and neocheaters).
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context
                              > > > > "evil" == "bad".
                              > > >
                              > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                              > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                              > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                              > >
                              > > Why?
                              > >
                              > > Show me the Proof!!!
                              > >
                              > > The burden of proof is on you.
                              >
                              > There are several problems with this definition, and I'll mention one
                              > below, but I have to admit it's not very fair that I "disprove" a
                              > definition based on your very short and probably not entirely accurate
                              > explanation of it - I didn't like it when you did that to Kant and
                              > Kirkegaard after my explanations, and I probably shouldn't be doing this to
                              > Neo-Tech. I have to admit that I never read anything about "Neo-Tech"
                              > except what you said on this list.
                              >

                              OK.

                              > I think Arik's point was, though, that there's nothing "scientific" about
                              > this definition. What makes this definition more "scientific" than a dozen
                              > other definitions of ethics? For example, how is this definition of ethics
                              > based on intention, better than a definition based on actual consequences
                              > (aka "utilitarian" ethics)?
                              >
                              > Anyway, the biggest flaw I see with this definition is that it relies on
                              > a person's intentions, which are very subjective, rather than the actual
                              > consequences of his actions, which is more objective (because everyone
                              > sees the consequences of an action, but only the person knows his
                              > intentions). The problem is that except in the extreme case of psychopaths
                              > (who are unable to understand the concept of other human beings having
                              > their own lives and wishes), most "bad" actions are somehow justified in
                              > the eyes of its doer.

                              Actually no. Most evil people are well-aware that their actions are
                              destructive. They never admit it, but they know it. When Mao killed 60
                              million of his own people, it was not for survival.

                              In any case, there are several ways to look at this definition. One way is to
                              say that the intention is irrelevant, and that any action that ends up as
                              fullfilling human biological needs is good and moral, while any action that
                              ends up detracting from human biological needs is bad and immoral.

                              >
                              > If you asked a white slave-owner whether he's conciously harming his negro
                              > slave's biological needs, he would say no: he would say that he took care
                              > of their basic needs (minimal amount of food, clothing, shelter, etc.) and
                              > would claim (wrongly of course, but he thought this was true) that negros
                              > are so privitive that left to their own devices they would be far worse
                              > off. He would add that furthermore, without the slaves the slave-owners
                              > would go bankrupt and starve, so that it is *freeing* the slaves which is
                              > immoral because it would bring "biological" harm to the slave-owners.
                              >
                              > A second problem, possibly in your short explanation and not in neo-tech
                              > itself, is the definition of "biological needs". What are these, and why
                              > discuss them and not the "wishes" or "will" of the person instead? A few
                              > obvious examples: a person has the biological need to have sex.

                              I don't think so. A person has a biological desire to have sex, but it's not a
                              need. A person can go on not having sex for decades on end.

                              > Does this
                              > make resisting being raped an immoral act?

                              No, because a person has a need for the completeness of his body. As such, he
                              or she has a right to resist being raped.

                              > Is stealing food moral because a
                              > person needs to eat?

                              It depends. By stealing you detract from the food owned by the other. However,
                              you might need to do that if you are being exploited (e.g: Robin Hood who
                              stole from the exploiters and gave to the exploited.).

                              > Is selling real-estate for money an immoral act,
                              > because people need to sleep somewhere and you're prevented them a place to
                              > sleep by charging money?



                              > And what about people's non-biological needs, like
                              > the need to be free, the need to be happy, the need not to be bored, etc. -
                              > is it moral to violate these needs?

                              These all descend from the biological needs or otherwise are ammoral action.
                              If I insulted a person by accident, and made him unhappy, then I may have
                              caused him to be able to less focus on work, and thus detract from his
                              biological needs. However, this action is not unethical, and as such should
                              be legal:

                              http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage83.html

                              > For example, is it moral according to
                              > your definition to keep a human in a large cage while catering for his
                              > biological needs (giving him food, water, air, sex, etc.)?

                              Well, that in turn will cause other people to have to support this (benevolent
                              I assume) person, instead of this person being able to support himself. So
                              it's immoral.

                              > Can this
                              > defintion explain why (or whether) it is moral to do this to a convict, but
                              > not to "ordinary" people?

                              Actually, according to Neo-Tech, prisons are not a good way of punishment, as
                              it is a huge strain on society to maintain all the prisoners.

                              Regards,

                              Shlomi Fish

                              ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                              Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                              If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                              one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                              -- An Israeli Linuxer
                            • Shlomi Fish
                              Hi Arik! ... If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any reasoning. So you might have well not said it. Thanks for playing!
                              Message 14 of 28 , Apr 20, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Arik!

                                On Friday 20 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                > On 19 Apr 2007 00:47:19 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
                                > > On Friday 30 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
                                > > > Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
                                > > > might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
                                > > > definition. Nope, I don't buy it.
                                > >
                                > > Why?
                                > >
                                > > Show me the Proof!!!
                                > >
                                > > The burden of proof is on you.
                                >
                                > No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
                                > this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
                                > don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
                                > different. No proof necessary or even possible.

                                If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any
                                reasoning. So you might have well not said it.

                                Thanks for playing!

                                Regards,

                                Shlomi Fish

                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
                                Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

                                If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
                                one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
                                -- An Israeli Linuxer
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.