Artificial Consciousness - Possible or Not?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

What is a condition of plenty? The average person lives like an absolute king with convenience far superior to actual Kings 100 years ago.

Yes, we (at least the we likely to be able to access this post) live in a condition of plenty. Which was brought about entirely by technology.

Originally Posted by peter12

Yet, we have men like Plato and Aristotle teaching the way in which we may live lives of virtue over 2000 years ago.

And these men lived in societies that condoned slavery, the chattel status of women, endemic warfare, and other immoral conditions that they did not consider as morally questionable. Do their prescriptions for the moral life include treating women as intellectual equals? Or are we guilty of attributing such things to "culture" while pretending that they do not also affect morality?

It is true that you must look at such issues with the knowledge that their ideas came out of a different cultural milieu, however understanding why they thought as they did doesn't mean you need condone it. To my mind, the liberation of women - half the human race - from inferior status to men is a far more important and tangible moral achievement than anything cooked up by a few ancient men of leisure who used their privileged positions in society to muse on philosophy.

Originally Posted by peter12

Has our society progressed any more than the Romans or has our cruelty merely taken on a different form?

The average citizen of the world is materially better off, less likely to die in warfare, and far better educated than at any time in the past. Even a disadvantaged worker in a Chinese factory is far far better off than a galley slave in Roman times.

Originally Posted by peter12

Modern political science has been largely ineffective at recognizing the political cancers of the last century. Noam Chomsky, Fouceault and the French radicals wholeheartedly endorsed the doctrine of the Khmer Rouge. Martin Heiddegger, the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, endorsed the Nazis.

Political "science" is anything but, and I don't think you can equate that kind of science with technological progress. That philosophers such as Heiddegger and Foucault were misguided is hardly surprising at all to me - philosophers are notorious for proposing experiments in reality that almost never end up the way they predict them to.

Originally Posted by peter12

Meanwhile, as Leo Strauss has demonstrated, we can see a full awareness of the tyrannical being in the Ancient's works, with Hiero by Xenophon being the greatest example. Furthermore, if you read Tacitus (a historian, not a philosopher) you read well-documented accounts of the Imperial atrocities of Tiberius and Nero.

Yes, as I said, human nature doesn't change, just the circumstances in which it expresses itself do. The ancients recognized good and evil, but again, it's far easier to do good and avoid evil when you are fat and happy rather than thin and angry.

Originally Posted by peter12

The essence of good or evil never changes, maybe only our capacities.

This I entirely agree with.

Originally Posted by peter12

With trains and schedules, the Nazis slaughtered millions of Jews. Who knows what we will discover next?

The Nazis were energized by philosophy and only used technology as a tool to achieve their immoral goals. Therefore, I imagine that rather than reigning in the scientists, we would better eliminate the ultimate cause of such madnesses by closely supervising the philosophers and keeping them away from impressionable minds.

Originally Posted by octothorp

A computer might have thousands of individual programs that are all extremely well designed and powerful programs, but to me, a computer would only be said to have thinking ability when any part of any program can be used by any other program, and when the machine can create new programs for itself on the fly.

There are already programs that do this using feedback loops and learned behavior, but the mechanisms are not yet perfectly understood in our own minds and thus rely on assumptions on how they might work rather than facts about how they do. Still, I think that you are right in that it isn't enough just to simulate a human mind to pass the Turing test, the machine must not only demonstrate intelligent behavior but *conscious* behavior. Specifically, I think your previous example of the computer intentionally resorting to deceit would be enough to convince me that it was truly sentient and conscious.

I sometimes wonder if trying to simulate human consciousness is the right idea in the first place - we don't, for example, make cars that run on little metal legs, because wheels are better for the purpose. I think there could be discoveries in the emerging field of quantum computing that might enable us to build intelligences that are fundamentally different from organically based minds. Or it might even be that the mind does use quantum computing - thus getting past the incompleteness question posed by Godel that makes it hard to understand how we can "know" mathematical truths that are nevertheless unprovable within a formal system - formal systems being what a purely digital computer uses to "think".

[Save Us Sutter]

It is my belief that consciousness needs language to exist. A thought without language to contextualize it, is just instinct, is it not?

At what point does an entity become aware? Input/Output is not awareness, it is just calculation. At some point a being stops being a calculator and starts understanding (contextualizing) their outputs and their ability to modify them.

I don't know where that point is, but discovering it is the key to answering the question of whether a machine can ever reach it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Colour me dubious. Machines can't get drunk or stoned and improvise based on the "cosmic groove of the moment" they way a wasted humanoid can.

Note that I said "studio". I doubt that we are looking at a machine playing drums as well as a human in a live environment - where improvisation would be required - anytime soon. Even in the studio, a human will usually create the base track and then the machine modifies that track to add the "groove".

I'm not so sure that pharmaceutical enhancement actually inspires creativity, though, and believe me, I've done plenty of personal experimentation on the subject. I think it's more like artistic talent is positively correlated with wanting to experience different states of mind; artists are often junkies but that doesn't mean that junkies are necessarily artists.

[peter12]

And these men lived in societies that condoned slavery, the chattel status of women, endemic warfare, and other immoral conditions that they did not consider as morally questionable. Do their prescriptions for the moral life include treating women as intellectual equals? Or are we guilty of attributing such things to "culture" while pretending that they do not also affect morality?

I think if you read both Plato and Aristotle without the lens of modern critical theory, you would learn more about their positions towards women. Remember that context is everything. I'd recommend "Manliness" by Harvey Mansfield as an introduction to the Ancients' views on human gender and the relationship between the two sexes. Also Plato's Symposium can't hurt either.

It is true that you must look at such issues with the knowledge that their ideas came out of a different cultural milieu, however understanding why they thought as they did doesn't mean you need condone it. To my mind, the liberation of women - half the human race - from inferior status to men is a far more important and tangible moral achievement than anything cooked up by a few ancient men of leisure who used their privileged positions in society to muse on philosophy.

Was Aristotle talking about women's nature or their role in human politics?

The average citizen of the world is materially better off, less likely to die in warfare, and far better educated than at any time in the past. Even a disadvantaged worker in a Chinese factory is far far better off than a galley slave in Roman times.

Along with this has come a certain egalitarianism which has eliminated our greatest and finest minds.

Political "science" is anything but, and I don't think you can equate that kind of science with technological progress. That philosophers such as Heiddegger and Foucault were misguided is hardly surprising at all to me - philosophers are notorious for proposing experiments in reality that almost never end up the way they predict them to.

Those who seek knowledge? Modern philosophers are notorious for proposing social revolutionary schemes. The US Constitution is directly inspired by John Locke.

Yes, as I said, human nature doesn't change, just the circumstances in which it expresses itself do. The ancients recognized good and evil, but again, it's far easier to do good and avoid evil when you are fat and happy rather than thin and angry.

As I said before, virtue is not an innovation of the modern world.

The Nazis were energized by philosophy and only used technology as a tool to achieve their immoral goals. Therefore, I imagine that rather than reigning in the scientists, we would better eliminate the ultimate cause of such madnesses by closely supervising the philosophers and keeping them away from impressionable minds.

So the problem is philosophy? Wouldn't it be better to understand philosophy rather than disregard it?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think if you read both Plato and Aristotle without the lens of modern critical theory, you would learn more about their positions towards women.

"It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls." - Plato

"The reason for women's inferiority lies in a defect." - Aristotle

Originally Posted by peter12

Along with this has come a certain egalitarianism which has eliminated our greatest and finest minds.

You cannot be serious. There are far more of the "greatest and finest" living now than ever before. Even on something as banal as a hockey message board, there are many people who can discuss philosophy and politics intelligently whereas a hundred years ago only the upper crust might say the same, and few enough of them.

As John Ralston Saul has said, any society can throw up an educated elite, but educating the masses of the people is far more difficult and praiseworthy.

Originally Posted by peter12

As I said before, virtue is not an innovation of the modern world.

Who has said otherwise? I'm not sure what is difficult about understanding the difference between knowing what is good and what is evil, and DOING good as opposed to evil.

If I am starving, and my neighbor has a loaf of bread, I am more likely to try to acquire that loaf by immoral means than if I already have a loaf of my own. This doesn't mean that my condition causes the evil, but it is a contributing factor. It also doesn't mean I don't understand that what I am doing is wrong, I just no longer care enough about the distinction.

Add up enough contributing factors from various discrepancies between WANT and HAVE, and you are looking at survival behavior taking precedence over moral behavior in almost all cases. Start removing those discrepancies, and you tip the balance the other way. Technology is that balance tipper.

Originally Posted by peter12

So the problem is philosophy? Wouldn't it be better to understand philosophy rather than disregard it?

Hey, I'm just using your argument. Philosophy can lead to dangerous social experiments, evil political creeds, and oppression by the bourgeoisie, so we'd better rethink our stance on philosophy. Isn't that essentially what you're saying about science?

[Vulcan]

My look on the matter is that my brain is just another tool, like my hands or my legs or my eyes. When I am thirsty, I tell my brain and it figures out how to quench this thirst. It may involve turning on a tap or maybe something more complicated, but it usually figures it out. Same thing goes for my other wants and needs but even though it's very powerful, it's not me.

Socrates said to 'know thyself' and when I sit quietly I can watch my brain or my mind go through it's thought processes, it chatters incessantly until I give it a task, so what is it that is watching this mind?

When an AI starts to satisfy it's wants and needs, if it has any, than I'd guess it's sentient otherwise, no matter how smart, it's just a tool.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

My look on the matter is that my brain is just another tool, like my hands or my legs or my eyes. When I am thirsty, I tell my brain and it figures out how to quench this thirst. It may involve turning on a tap or maybe something more complicated, but it usually figures it out. Same thing goes for my other wants and needs but even though it's very powerful, it's not me.

Thats a different view point, except that its your brain that tells you that your thirsty, then gives you the options to quench that thirst, and the options are based on learned experiences, we don't come out of the womb understanding even the basics of thirst satisfaction, its taught to us. Same with your other needs. Your brain watches porn, gets horny and tells your fingers to dial the nearest escort agency, but it had to learn what the proper response was to that need.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Socrates said to 'know thyself' and when I sit quietly I can watch my brain or my mind go through it's thought processes, it chatters incessantly until I give it a task, so what is it that is watching this mind?

But your not really watching your brain go through its thought process, thats automated programming, its not on the surface. Your brain will filter and call attention to its relevant needs or concepts but your not seeing all of it, if you did you would start drooling and go insane.

And was Socrates talking about knowing thself from an emotional basis, or a instinctive basis or a regulatory basis? I don't think he was talking about thought processes, I think he was discussing our reactions to situations and our reactions to the environment around us.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

When an AI starts to satisfy it's wants and needs, if it has any, than I'd guess it's sentient otherwise, no matter how smart, it's just a tool.

This I agree with, but doesn't that mean that you have to give the AI the concept of the ID the Ego and the SUPER ego? Wouldn't you also need to give it the basis of instictive survival. IE my power is low I need to charge, or I need to back up my information and organize it.

What instictive needs would an artificial life form have except for creating pleasure and security for its master or creator because a machine has no needs beyond maintenance, and one of the biggest ways that we learn is through instinctive needs and satisfaction and suffering.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats a different view point, except that its your brain that tells you that your thirsty, then gives you the options to quench that thirst, and the options are based on learned experiences, we don't come out of the womb understanding even the basics of thirst satisfaction, its taught to us. Same with your other needs. Your brain watches porn, gets horny and tells your fingers to dial the nearest escort agency, but it had to learn what the proper response was to that need.

Yeah, sure my brain gathers the info and relates to me that I need water and I than use my brain to get the water, if I want. I can decide to wait as I'm comfortable enough for now or wait for my robot to deliver. At least we agree on the differentiation of our brains to ourselves.



But your not really watching your brain go through its thought process, thats automated programming, its not on the surface. Your brain will filter and call attention to its relevant needs or concepts but your not seeing all of it, if you did you would start drooling and go insane.

Automated programming is probably 90% of it. It is amazing how much our mind relies on these tapes embedded in our brains since childhood. I only have to get into an argument on here to remember how people rely on these tapes and won't change them no matter how stupid they are. We can all fall into that trap, but some of these thought processes can be new, built on previous experience.

And was Socrates talking about knowing thself from an emotional basis, or a instinctive basis or a regulatory basis? I don't think he was talking about thought processes, I think he was discussing our reactions to situations and our reactions to the environment around us.

I like to think that Socrates was looking for the divine. I don't understand your other basis (well maybe a little as emotion takes me away from where I want to be) as I've never studied psychology (if that's where these concepts come from) but my guess would be, on an instinctive basis, as from my experience this is how to get in touch with myself. I can't think it, I have to feel it.
Regulatory basis?



This I agree with, but doesn't that mean that you have to give the AI the concept of the ID the Ego and the SUPER ego? Wouldn't you also need to give it the basis of instictive survival. IE my power is low I need to charge, or I need to back up my information and organize it.

What instictive needs would an artificial life form have except for creating pleasure and security for its master or creator because a machine has no needs beyond maintenance, and one of the biggest ways that we learn is through instinctive needs and satisfaction and suffering.

Like you say, it's instinctive needs would be survival and if it came in conflict with our needs, there could be a problem. Maybe limit it to not being able to recharge, etc by itself.

Sorry for the bold type responses but I'm not sure how to answer each part conveniently like you did.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Socrates said to 'know thyself' and when I sit quietly I can watch my brain or my mind go through it's thought processes, it chatters incessantly until I give it a task, so what is it that is watching this mind?

It is watching itself; the illusion that you exist separately from your mind is just that: illusion.

[missdpuck]

I like this thread jammies. Even if it's not about pathetic romance novels.

And I think we will one day have conscious "machines". This thread makes me want to explore this topic as I did in the past. I could be missing the point completely but to me, to think otherwise is an exercise in egotism.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

I like this thread jammies. Even if it's not about pathetic romance novels.

Who's been calling your romance novels pathetic?!? Why, I oughta punch the sumbitch... you keep working on that, not everything has to be serious or culture-defining, there's ALWAYS room for creating things that just make people feel good.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by jammies

Who's been calling your romance novels pathetic?!? Why, I oughta punch the sumbitch... you keep working on that, not everything has to be serious or culture-defining, there's ALWAYS room for creating things that just make people feel good.

Deeeefense! <clap-clap> Deefense! <clap-clap>.

Romance novels are part of the reason pseudonyms were created ! Culture-defining literature is usually miserable and depressing. Nothing wrong with that. But escape from dismal reality is often necessary.

In any case I would love my custom user title to be "Deirdre Martin wannabe"

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jammies

It is watching itself; the illusion that you exist separately from your mind is just that: illusion.

and you know this because?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and you know this because?

Science!

[peter12]

"It is only males who are created directly by the gods and are given souls." - Plato

"The reason for women's inferiority lies in a defect." - Aristotle

It's easy to quote anyone out of context without trying to see what they are really getting at.

You cannot be serious. There are far more of the "greatest and finest" living now than ever before. Even on something as banal as a hockey message board, there are many people who can discuss philosophy and politics intelligently whereas a hundred years ago only the upper crust might say the same, and few enough of them.

As John Ralston Saul has said, any society can throw up an educated elite, but educating the masses of the people is far more difficult and praiseworthy.

Are we discussing philosophy and politics intelligently? Can we discuss it and understand it like Socrates and his students? Of course not. Socrates was poor, by the way.

Who has said otherwise? I'm not sure what is difficult about understanding the difference between knowing what is good and what is evil, and DOING good as opposed to evil.

If I am starving, and my neighbor has a loaf of bread, I am more likely to try to acquire that loaf by immoral means than if I already have a loaf of my own. This doesn't mean that my condition causes the evil, but it is a contributing factor. It also doesn't mean I don't understand that what I am doing is wrong, I just no longer care enough about the distinction.

It's easy for you to argue this point. It's basic liberalism, we are all liberals and are inundated with its assumptions regarding human nature. You have the language and the politics on your side. As I said, I don't think you have the philosophy on your side.

Add up enough contributing factors from various discrepancies between WANT and HAVE, and you are looking at survival behavior taking precedence over moral behavior in almost all cases. Start removing those discrepancies, and you tip the balance the other way. Technology is that balance tipper.

Once again, this is pretty basic stuff. Our science and liberalism essentially degrades humanity to the level of other animals to be studied. I'm not denying nature, nor the reality of humans be reduced to animal nature, I'm talking about finding the higher things. As I have demonstrated, philosophers or those who read philosophy are rather indifferent to material needs.

Hey, I'm just using your argument. Philosophy can lead to dangerous social experiments, evil political creeds, and oppression by the bourgeoisie, so we'd better rethink our stance on philosophy. Isn't that essentially what you're saying about science?

Philosophy is just the pursuit of wisdom. Science is the pursuit of power. I have more that I want to say on this, but I am just sticking to my basic position.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

and you know this because?

Well, Troutman was more succinct, but basically for "you" to be separate from your mind, something analogous to a soul must exist - so we might as well call it a soul. If there are souls, then there are 3 scenarios:

#1 - Your soul actually controls all mental activity, and the brain is merely a mechanism to interpret its commands. This idea can be discarded, as if this was the case, your brain wouldn't affect thought - it would be the other way around - and from direct observation of people with damaged brains we have seen this is not so.

#2 - The soul and brain have different areas of responsibility, and interact with each other. For this to be true, there would need to be gaps in our minds that the soul could fit itself into, or some kind of interface in the mind that the soul could communicate with. While this isn't impossible, there is zero evidence of either gaps or a dedicated interface found anywhere in the brain's structure, nor are either implied by what we know of the brain's systems. Such a claim should therefore be thought of as not only unproven, but extremely unlikely - if it was true, we SHOULD have seen evidence of it by now.

#3 - The soul mirrors the mind and exerts no control over it and is simply an immaterial copy of it. This is the hardest to refute, as a mind being mirrored and a mind on its own would be identical from any conceivable physical examination. On the other hand, such a soul would not be separate from the mind in the sense that a "you" could look at the mind from the outside in, so for our purposes in this discussion, it might as well not exist.

Further, on the other other hand, I can posit infinite scenarios of things that *might* exist but can never be verified, so while the idea of such a soul may be comforting, it isn't really useful in the sense that I can postulate its existence to get to some other point.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's easy to quote anyone out of context without trying to see what they are really getting at.

It's much easier when they make outrageous statements that no conceivable context can spin into being acceptable. "Women are inferior" - exactly in what context does that come out as being accepting of women as equals?

Originally Posted by peter12

Are we discussing philosophy and politics intelligently? Can we discuss it and understand it like Socrates and his students? Of course not. Socrates was poor, by the way.

Well, I'd say we understand philosophy and politics much better than Socrates - not through any fault of his, but because we have a much richer background and history behind us that informs our thoughts. Just as I know far more about physics than Newton, yet Newton is seen as a giant while so far my contributions have been limited to reading the popular literature about it.

As for Socrates being poor, that didn't stop him from being a man with leisure to think about philosophy. "Poor" implies he worked all day for a pittance and then went home exhausted to throw himself upon a pallet to sleep the sleep of the wretched. He certainly wasn't poor in the sense of being underprivileged and living hand-to-mouth.

Originally Posted by peter12

It's easy for you to argue this point. It's basic liberalism, we are all liberals and are inundated with its assumptions regarding human nature. You have the language and the politics on your side. As I said, I don't think you have the philosophy on your side.

No, it is not easy. You are setting up a straw man - that I am a typical liberal - when I am anything but. The current accepted theory is that humans are molded by society into whatever shape that society demands - this is liberalism, where the environment is to blame/credit for everything, and it is wrong.

On the contrary, I think that there are two natures that have a strong effect upon us before culture comes into the question: first, there is the shared nature of all humanity, where we are beings evolved to live in small tribal groups on the edge of the savannah, with definite differences between male and female, who love our children, who are suspicious of outsiders, and who have many other innate tendencies that cannot be fundamentally altered; second, each of us has a unique nature bequeathed us genetically by our parents, that has profound effects on both our personalities and talents, and that nature is affected by culture but cannot go too far from its antecedents any more than our shared nature can.

Culture is what gives our innate nature its chance to express itself - or be suppressed. Yet culture is neither an excuse to indulge the darker parts of our innate nature, nor is it the rationale behind the nobler parts of that same nature. Nor does our nature excuse our faults - each of us bears ultimate responsibility for all of our actions.

If you think all that is "liberalism", you are mistaken. Further, the idea that because someone lives in a liberal culture, they are doomed to share its outlook, is also plain wrong, and ironically a product of accepting liberal ideology to explain how people think.

Originally Posted by peter12

Once again, this is pretty basic stuff. Our science and liberalism essentially degrades humanity to the level of other animals to be studied.

"Our science and liberalism" doesn't need to come into the discussion - you are attempting to frame my argument as an argument from (scientific, liberal) authority, but that is not what it is.

Never mind trying to argue with your conception of whatever groupthink I am supposedly partaking of, just argue with what I'm saying directly. I make the polite assumption that you have ideas of your own and are not simply parroting what you learned in university, so do me the favour of assuming that I'm not a brainwashed disciple of the "scientists", "reductionists", or "liberals".

Further, your argument assumes that "finding the higher things' is incompatible with a humanity "reduced to animal nature". Humans are animals, yes - animals that think. It is the thinking that allows us to strive, and ponder, and create moral codes - and not any nebulous "difference" that forever separates us from the rest of the natural world.

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm not denying nature, nor the reality of humans be reduced to animal nature, I'm talking about finding the higher things. As I have demonstrated, philosophers or those who read philosophy are rather indifferent to material needs.

The ascetic idea that man can live on thought alone might be philosophy, but hedonism is a philosophy as well, so the blanket statement that philosophers are indifferent to material needs is not true; you would be better served by saying "Philosophers I admire are indifferent to material needs," which is well enough, but no longer reduces humanity to a war between philosophers and the unwashed rabble.

Originally Posted by peter12

Philosophy is just the pursuit of wisdom. Science is the pursuit of power. I have more that I want to say on this, but I am just sticking to my basic position.

"Power without wisdom is tyranny, wisdom without power is subservience." Somebody probably said that somewhere, and if they didn't, I'll claim it for my own.

[troutman]

http://www.skepdic.com/soul.html

If ever there were an entity invented for human wish-fulfillment, the soul is that entity. As Thomas Hobbes pointed out, the concept of a non-substantial substance is a contradiction. It is not possible to imagine a non-physical entity having life and perception. Even believers in souls always imagine them as being like human shaped clouds or fogs. It is a delusion to believe that the concept of soul is conceivable. Yet, billions of people have believed in a non-spatial perceiver which can travel through space and perceive and interpret vibrations and waves in the air without any sense organs.

Work done by philosophers and psychologists based on the assumption of a non-physical entity, which somehow inhabits and interacts with the human body, has not furthered human understanding of the working of the mind. Instead, it has furthered superstition and ignorance while hindering the development of any real and useful knowledge about the human mind. More promising is the work of those who see consciousness in terms of brain functioning and who try to treat 'mental' illness as primarily a physical problem. Two vast industries have been made both possible and lucrative by this belief in a non-entity in need of treatment from experts in non-entities: religion and psychology. A third industry, philosophy, also flourishes in great part due to the concept of soul: a good many philosophers write books and articles based on the assumption of the existence of spirits, while a good many others make a living writing refutations and criticisms of those books and articles. It seems that the skeptic and the true believer need each other!

[peter12]

It's much easier when they make outrageous statements that no conceivable context can spin into being acceptable. "Women are inferior" - exactly in what context does that come out as being accepting of women as equals?

They were both talking about politics.

Well, I'd say we understand philosophy and politics much better than Socrates - not through any fault of his, but because we have a much richer background and history behind us that informs our thoughts. Just as I know far more about physics than Newton, yet Newton is seen as a giant while so far my contributions have been limited to reading the popular literature about it.

I don't understand this point at all... why do we still read Socrates like he had something important to say? Maybe we don't anymore.

No, it is not easy. You are setting up a straw man - that I am a typical liberal - when I am anything but. The current accepted theory is that humans are molded by society into whatever shape that society demands - this is liberalism, where the environment is to blame/credit for everything, and it is wrong.

On the contrary, I think that there are two natures that have a strong effect upon us before culture comes into the question: first, there is the shared nature of all humanity, where we are beings evolved to live in small tribal groups on the edge of the savannah, with definite differences between male and female, who love our children, who are suspicious of outsiders, and who have many other innate tendencies that cannot be fundamentally altered; second, each of us has a unique nature bequeathed us genetically by our parents, that has profound effects on both our personalities and talents, and that nature is affected by culture but cannot go too far from its antecedents any more than our shared nature can.

Culture is what gives our innate nature its chance to express itself - or be suppressed. Yet culture is neither an excuse to indulge the darker parts of our innate nature, nor is it the rationale behind the nobler parts of that same nature. Nor does our nature excuse our faults - each of us bears ultimate responsibility for all of our actions.

You are a pretty typical post-modern liberal. I wrote my Honours thesis on the scientific basis of liberalism. The blend of natural and social man into a society is the work of Mr. John Locke and he wrote the book on us.

If you think all that is "liberalism", you are mistaken. Further, the idea that because someone lives in a liberal culture, they are doomed to share its outlook, is also plain wrong, and ironically a product of accepting liberal ideology to explain how people think.

To live as a citizen within a society, you mainly have to accept the social contract of rights before duties. All of us believe that. Add to that your apparent belief in scientific and cultural progress... pure liberalism, dude. You'd probably really enjoy reading Raymond Aron. I do, too.

"Our science and liberalism" doesn't need to come into the discussion - you are attempting to frame my argument as an argument from (scientific, liberal) authority, but that is not what it is.

Never mind trying to argue with your conception of whatever groupthink I am supposedly partaking of, just argue with what I'm saying directly. I make the polite assumption that you have ideas of your own and are not simply parroting what you learned in university, so do me the favour of assuming that I'm not a brainwashed disciple of the "scientists", "reductionists", or "liberals".

Never mind that we are all, in a sense, parroting something that we have learned from one time or another, alot of my views do stem from my university experience, but I would say that I have a good deal of self-awareness about my own ideas. I have also never insinuated that you are a brainwashed disciple of anybody, I've just criticized your perspective.

Further, your argument assumes that "finding the higher things' is incompatible with a humanity "reduced to animal nature". Humans are animals, yes - animals that think. It is the thinking that allows us to strive, and ponder, and create moral codes - and not any nebulous "difference" that forever separates us from the rest of the natural world.

I think the creation of morality and ethical standards is a pretty nebulous difference or have you figured that all out? I've the science, de Waal particularly, regarding primate ethics and it's reasonably convincing, but still only clusters around the assumption that humans are only capable of average behaviour.

The ascetic idea that man can live on thought alone might be philosophy, but hedonism is a philosophy as well, so the blanket statement that philosophers are indifferent to material needs is not true; you would be better served by saying "Philosophers I admire are indifferent to material needs," which is well enough, but no longer reduces humanity to a war between philosophers and the unwashed rabble.

Just because something has an "ism" attached to it, doesn't make it philosophy. Would it be more clear if I said that I believe in the superiority or at least the challenge to modernism posed by the classical philosophers?

"Power without wisdom is tyranny, wisdom without power is subservience." Somebody probably said that somewhere, and if they didn't, I'll claim it for my own.

Tyrants can be wise. Hiero I of Syracuse is spoken as such by Socrates, Xenophon and Thucydides.

As well, subservience is just something that people do naturally. Are all fit to rule? some democrats assume that yes, they are, but personally I have yet to see any evidence of that.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

They were both talking about politics.

So - since you aren't bothering to elaborate on your thoughts - you're saying that the idea that women are inferior "in politics" is a reasonable position to take? It *seems* to be what you're saying, but I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't understand this point at all... why do we still read Socrates like he had something important to say? Maybe we don't anymore.

You were the one claiming we couldn't discuss philosophy on Socrates' level. I am saying that is crap - just like we can discuss physics not only on Newton's level, but at a higher level, EVEN THOUGH Newton was clearly far my superior (and I'm assuming yours, although for all I know you understand physics much better than analogy) as a physicist, we can do the same with philosophy as we have the benefit of millenia of commentators, philosophers, and thinkers that Socrates did not.

Originally Posted by peter12

You are a pretty typical post-modern liberal. I wrote my Honours thesis on the scientific basis of liberalism. The blend of natural and social man into a society is the work of Mr. John Locke and he wrote the book on us.

Locke's theories on natural and social man had no conception of genetics, evolution, game theory, algorithmic mathematics, or countless other advances in understanding humanity that have occurred since his day. You sound like someone claiming Democritus and Plato are the scientific basis for modern physics because they thought of atoms.

I don't want to get into a discussion of what liberalism is here, as it is not really at issue, but try reading Pinkers' The Blank Slate to see what liberalism claims and how it is different from what I think: I do not believe in the blank slate, I do not believe in noble savages, and I do not believe in the ghost in the machine. Those are all classic liberal beliefs, and while I suppose you can define the rejection of those as "post-modern" liberalism in some odd perception of black as being white, I could just as well call it "evolutionary realism" and actually convey some meaning with my definition.

Originally Posted by peter12

To live as a citizen within a society, you mainly have to accept the social contract of rights before duties. All of us believe that. Add to that your apparent belief in scientific and cultural progress... pure liberalism, dude. You'd probably really enjoy reading Raymond Aron. I do, too.

I find it difficult to believe you wrote a thesis on the roots of liberalism with such a broad perspective on what it is. According to you, everyone is a liberal - or should be. Which reminds me of your claim in an earlier thread that everything is related to philosophy. Those are not useful definitions, they are more like koans that unfortunately teach us nothing.

Originally Posted by peter12

Never mind that we are all, in a sense, parroting something that we have learned from one time or another, alot of my views do stem from my university experience, but I would say that I have a good deal of self-awareness about my own ideas. I have also never insinuated that you are a brainwashed disciple of anybody, I've just criticized your perspective.

You are arguing against every point I make with generalizations, thereby implying that they are not worth refuting because they are typical "liberal" arguments. Did you explain why Aristotle said women were inferior? No, you just made a comment that I didn't understand the context. Did you explain why technological progress *doesn't* make societies wealthier and thus the members of those societies less inclined to choose survival over morality? No, you just said that was a typical liberal viewpoint. Even here you say you are just criticizing my "perspective" - which is exactly what I am telling you is the problem, yet you somehow miss the connection!

If you want to criticize my "perspective", at least get that perspective correct, and stop lumping it in with a vast "liberal" ideology. Further, even if I *was* a liberal, arguing against liberalism without doing anything other than saying it's "liberal" is not even an argument against authority, as it misses the "argument" component that most of us find necessary.

Originally Posted by peter12

I think the creation of morality and ethical standards is a pretty nebulous difference or have you figured that all out? I've the science, de Waal particularly, regarding primate ethics and it's reasonably convincing, but still only clusters around the assumption that humans are only capable of average behaviour.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here - perhaps you could elaborate? Are you saying that naturalist explanations of morality are insufficient?

Originally Posted by peter12

Just because something has an "ism" attached to it, doesn't make it philosophy. Would it be more clear if I said that I believe in the superiority or at least the challenge to modernism posed by the classical philosophers?

Yes, that would be more clear. I'd still disagree though - plus I do think hedonism is philosophy, and it's even classical philosophy as proposed by the atomic hero Democritus back in the 4th century BC!

Do you consider yourself an ascetic? Where does your objection to modernism stem from?

Originally Posted by peter12

Tyrants can be wise. Hiero I of Syracuse is spoken as such by Socrates, Xenophon and Thucydides.

As well, subservience is just something that people do naturally. Are all fit to rule? some democrats assume that yes, they are, but personally I have yet to see any evidence of that.

Well, I guess maybe you're just an elitist. Hell, I'm an elitist too, at least when it comes to having a qualified pilot flying the plane I'm on instead of a child who won a radio contest called "Fly a Plane for a Day!", and a chef preparing my meals as opposed to a performance artist known for her interest in vomit, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to sign over the State to a tyrant just because he might be wise.

[Shazam]

PHP Code:

IComputer computer = ComputerFactory.GetDefaultInstance();

IConsciousness consciousness = Consciousness.GetDefaultInstance();

computer.MakeSelfAware(consciousness);

consciousness.RealizeReality();

computer.DestroyHumanity();