Discussion:
The Nature of Man
Rami Rustom
2012-11-16 14:42:08 UTC
Permalink
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.

The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.

It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.

Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.

As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.

At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.


Criticisms? Questions?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Bruno Marchal
2012-11-17 10:51:06 UTC
Permalink
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; sìho; d=yahoogroups.com;
b=HJJ7C9EddpX0OG0+BLL5U6qYsa1g2Z8dDFl8CL+kfmhZHnsitaG5hJZn9qE4n9+qKTYjiChxs3u5McljBTV5dM262SeZwGKMx/3qvrBaDEZghP5ixKsK+vqpEqWZIh+uBbzkAqxkh3AedJR6rtg/TKprv64nKivyIfvxNBfX17E=;
Received: from [98.139.164.125] by ng5.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:05 -0000
Received: from [98.137.34.40] by tg6.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:04 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 1888600-m25182
Received: (qmail 94983 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2012 10:57:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (98.137.35.162)
by m4.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ng12-ip2.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com) (98.139.165.98)
by mta6.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:03 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; sìho; t53149823; bh=ZOPAGErrUsmnzv6rVr65/Qm81EifyhDsBtmzcNB4828=; h=Received:Received:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Virus-Scanned:X-Received:X-Received:Message-Id:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Date:References:X-Mailer:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:From:Subject:X-Yahoo-Group-Post:X-YGroups-SubInfo:Sender:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-eGroups-Approved-By:X-eGroups-Auth; b=Pz7luvwhbdQ/fxz9p48kVo/YvKODqiiHghuN6Xeefy/YTKCg14VfG5TSVPBL9Xj0nq7s9MEKRCQVuLqt+u7qeXaV3vypHHr47Fvuw/1zpRwdLiwyiK5pCHGIhunzERoYfxaQ96gWgME9TzL3a0K+2lxKSkYueyC/MQQrMlonjdwReceived: from [98.139.164.125] by ng12.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:03 -0000
Received: from [98.137.34.35] by tg6.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:03 -0000
X-Sender: marchal-gFQn2mEGIOGzQB+***@public.gmane.org
X-Apparently-To: Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
X-Received: (qmail 54729 invoked from network); 17 Nov 2012 10:51:10 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.34.45)
by m13.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Nov 2012 10:51:10 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO relay04ant.iops.be) (212.53.5.219)
by mta2.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2012 10:51:09 -0000
X-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by relay04ant.iops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5884061B826C
for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:51:09 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iops.be
X-Received: from relay04ant.iops.be ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bdell029.dcn.iops.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with LMTP id 4QS1nKZj3xiU for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>;
Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:51:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Received: from Unknown-00-1e-c2-a1-9c-d4.lan (cust-207-23-109-94.dyn.as47377.net [94.109.23.207])
by relay04ant.iops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A4B61B8268
for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:51:07 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <CAChhRtPNBFTC6jqNie+vQbWEuE2n32arTOV7tz1jKpy=DWu27w-JsoAwUIsXosN+***@public.gmane.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Originating-IP: 212.53.5.219
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
X-eGroups-Approved-By: alan_forrester2 <alan_forrester2-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org> via web; 17 Nov 2012 10:57:03 -0000
Sender: Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
Mailing-List: list Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org; contact Fabric-of-Reality-owner-***@public.gmane.org
Delivered-To: mailing list Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
List-Id: <Fabric-of-Reality.yahoogroups.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org>
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-tradt-m
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16886>
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
I am not convinced. I think that human evil comes from jealousy,
addiction to power, inferiority/superiority complexes, the instinct of
following leadership, etc.

I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.

A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival instinct,
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.

I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part. So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.

Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
unavoidable: we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.

I am not sure if a lot of evil is not coming from the attempts made by
some humans to eradicate evil. Those humans very often believe to know
some truth, and tend to impose it to others. That is evil: when others
try to think at your place. The best we can hope is that people minds
their own business, and do their work. Each of us is the only judge of
what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very different
from each others.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Rami Rustom
2012-11-17 14:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
I am not convinced. I think that human evil comes from jealousy,
Feeling jealous means that the person has a lack of knowledge. To be
jealous means to dislike the idea that somebody else has something
that I don't have and that I want to have. What could I possibly gain
by this sort of thinking? Nothing good. A better way to think about it
is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
learn it (or acquire it).
Post by Bruno Marchal
addiction to power,
People who want that have a zero-sum worldview. This is a lack of knowledge.
Post by Bruno Marchal
inferiority/superiority complexes,
If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
superior one to improve himself.
Post by Bruno Marchal
the instinct of
following leadership, etc.
There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
Post by Bruno Marchal
I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.
A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival instinct,
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
Post by Bruno Marchal
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
Post by Bruno Marchal
So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
some problems are insoluble?
Post by Bruno Marchal
we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.
Justification is a false concept. Could you rephrase your idea without
using that word?

Why do you care about **public** justification?
Post by Bruno Marchal
I am not sure if a lot of evil is not coming from the attempts made by
some humans to eradicate evil.
Yes, via coercion.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Those humans very often believe to know
some truth, and tend to impose it to others.
via coercion.
Post by Bruno Marchal
That is evil: when others
try to think at your place.
Right. Like most parents do to their children.
Post by Bruno Marchal
The best we can hope is that people minds
their own business, and do their work.
Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our own
happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
their own happiness.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Each of us is the only judge of
what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very different
from each others.
Are you saying that morality is relative?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Jeffrey S. Owens
2012-11-17 22:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
--Is that true? I think we can see quite a bit of "evil" instincts, namely
the propensity for physical violence. Children lash out when they are
angry. Its almost as if that instinct has to be unlearned, as humans are
socialized over time. Even though we invest a lot toward controlling it,
violence is still pervasive.

-Jeff



___________________________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail and
attached
document(s)contain confidential information that is intended only for the
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised
that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in
reliance upon the information is prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail
in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your
system.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rami Rustom
2012-11-18 01:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
Post by Rami Rustom
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
--Is that true? I think we can see quite a bit of "evil" instincts, namely
the propensity for physical violence. Children lash out when they are
angry.
Only children that learns that from their parents.
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
Its almost as if that instinct has to be unlearned, as humans are
socialized over time.
Yes people can learn better habits to replace the violence and anger habits.
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
Even though we invest a lot toward controlling it,
violence is still pervasive.
Most people are unskilled in conflict resolution.

-- Rami
Elliot Temple
2012-12-17 23:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
Post by Rami Rustom
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
--Is that true? I think we can see quite a bit of "evil" instincts, namely
the propensity for physical violence. Children lash out when they are
angry. Its almost as if that instinct has to be unlearned, as humans are
socialized over time. Even though we invest a lot toward controlling it,
violence is still pervasive.
If a child does something, that does not make it an instinct (or genetic or inborn).

If something is common, that does not make it an instinct (or genetic or inborn).

A counter example for both is saying the words "I love you mom". Commonly done by children, not an instinct.

If something is pervasive despite attempts to control it, that does not make it an instinct (or genetic or inborn).

A counter example is bad philosophy, which is pervasive, despite attempts towards controlling it, but which is not an instinct.


So your arguments are no good. Do you now understand this in the general case?

-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/

Bruno Marchal
2012-11-18 13:10:43 UTC
Permalink
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; sìho; d=yahoogroups.com;
b=bRffFya/TnrLCK73/fyTXgXec2J3Ehhsab0sBaxPMCKO9hKpToQbD3tgRLxejxs/DNJFQRKVHlBedLfByXXRgFsae5VTFC7ddbpTEgXLsUMJdHABe2hwsGXM3JUDhpJiIyPD1bZ9bnkEJR+jRE0MMmj/QBUTVhDW5oX8U2oLnC8=;
Received: from [98.138.217.177] by ng7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:37 -0000
Received: from [98.137.35.157] by tg2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:36 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 1888600-m25188
Received: (qmail 36958 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2012 18:23:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (98.137.35.162)
by m7.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ng15-vm5.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com) (98.136.219.187)
by mta6.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:35 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; sìho; t53263015; bh=g3HY/a4WhSNWLAnbv2iG9RGC7bv4omMlCZ0YxPztg8M=; h=Received:Received:X-Sender:X-Apparently-To:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Received:X-Virus-Scanned:X-Received:X-Received:Message-Id:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Date:References:X-Mailer:X-Originating-IP:X-eGroups-Msg-Info:From:Subject:X-Yahoo-Group-Post:X-YGroups-SubInfo:Sender:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-eGroups-Approved-By:X-eGroups-Auth; bë7mhm1G1ntFgh8KjpNb9BP4FiLfB2l4KYFEZu9USYH5NXNxVrXM8VrqKHDxWle/OZO+dsSzj/WMeqnmgcpPFSq/ILY6e1cR1MNAQZjfAxvwUJKr0s5HoQ/B1WLHGbAL9pWxhABFJ882c9tkd8/4ns4D3yFvQpMGHoQR7ugg5JwReceived: from [98.137.0.88] by ng15.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:35 -0000
Received: from [98.137.34.184] by tg8.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:35 -0000
X-Sender: marchal-gFQn2mEGIOGzQB+***@public.gmane.org
X-Apparently-To: Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
X-Received: (qmail 33015 invoked from network); 18 Nov 2012 13:11:32 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (98.137.35.161)
by m16.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Nov 2012 13:11:32 -0000
X-Received: from unknown (HELO relay03ant.iops.be) (212.53.5.218)
by mta5.grp.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Nov 2012 13:11:32 -0000
X-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by relay03ant.iops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC136BF00FC
for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:11:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iops.be
X-Received: from relay03ant.iops.be ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bdell028.dcn.iops.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with LMTP id 1KFiagd69UoN for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>;
Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:11:26 +0100 (CET)
X-Received: from Unknown-00-1e-c2-a1-9c-d4.lan (cust-95-21-109-94.dyn.as47377.net [94.109.21.95])
by relay03ant.iops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E645B6BF00DC
for <Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org>; Sun, 18 Nov 2012 14:10:43 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <CAChhRtN8YLnCtCBv7YT2B9Mo1Bcf_3fU4uZD6yyFvFY-p-Z_oA-JsoAwUIsXosN+***@public.gmane.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Originating-IP: 212.53.5.218
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0:0
X-eGroups-Approved-By: alan_forrester2 <alan_forrester2-/E1597aS9LT10XsdtD+***@public.gmane.org> via web; 18 Nov 2012 18:23:34 -0000
Sender: Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
Mailing-List: list Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org; contact Fabric-of-Reality-owner-***@public.gmane.org
Delivered-To: mailing list Fabric-of-Reality-***@public.gmane.org
List-Id: <Fabric-of-Reality.yahoogroups.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org>
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email-tradt-m
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.physics.fabric-of-reality/16892>
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby
responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
I am not convinced. I think that human evil comes from jealousy,
Feeling jealous means that the person has a lack of knowledge. To be
jealous means to dislike the idea that somebody else has something
that I don't have and that I want to have. What could I possibly gain
by this sort of thinking? Nothing good.
I agree, but jealousy is irrational at the start, and is highly
emotive. I say this by experience, you can reason people on it. they
will say "i understand" (in the lmucky case), but they will still be
jealous; never seen someone jealous cured, except rarely by big life
experience, or some shock.
Post by Rami Rustom
A better way to think about it
is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
learn it (or acquire it).
It will not work. For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always
(irrationally) more green, even if yellow.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
addiction to power,
People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.
Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power
(or money).
Post by Rami Rustom
This is a lack of knowledge.
This is not clear.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
inferiority/superiority complexes,
If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
superior one to improve himself.
Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being
superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with
respect to some task) to be inferior.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
the instinct of
following leadership, etc.
There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and
instincts.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.
A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival
instinct,
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm
reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and
observations.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative
to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat
the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.

There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have
that indexical feature;
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
some problems are insoluble?
Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.
Justification is a false concept.
Could you rephrase your idea without
using that word?
Please feel free to use any other word which convey a similar meaning.
You can use "explanation" here.
Post by Rami Rustom
Why do you care about **public** justification?
So that people can criticize them.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I am not sure if a lot of evil is not coming from the attempts made by
some humans to eradicate evil.
Yes, via coercion.
I am not sure. Coercion can be recognized and we can fight it.
Hypocrisy is more subtle. I prefer clear coercion than brain washing
subtle technic.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Those humans very often believe to know
some truth, and tend to impose it to others.
via coercion.
Post by Bruno Marchal
That is evil: when others
try to think at your place.
Right. Like most parents do to their children.
This can be justified, or explained, for little children.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
The best we can hope is that people minds
their own business, and do their work.
Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our own
happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
their own happiness.
So you agree that If some people want be romantic and married, it is
OK (unless they coerce for other people doing that, 'course)?
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Each of us is the only judge of
what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very different
from each others.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so. See above.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Rami Rustom
2012-11-18 19:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby
responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
I am not convinced. I think that human evil comes from jealousy,
Feeling jealous means that the person has a lack of knowledge. To be
jealous means to dislike the idea that somebody else has something
that I don't have and that I want to have. What could I possibly gain
by this sort of thinking? Nothing good.
I agree, but jealousy is irrational at the start, and is highly
emotive. I say this by experience, you can reason people on it. they
will say "i understand" (in the lmucky case), but they will still be
jealous; never seen someone jealous cured, except rarely by big life
experience, or some shock.
They can figure it out on their own.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
A better way to think about it
is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
learn it (or acquire it).
It will not work.
i.e. some problems are insoluble. But that is false. Do you have a
criticism of DD's "All problems are soluble"?
Post by Bruno Marchal
For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always
(irrationally) more green, even if yellow.
And that is caused by a lack of knowledge. Are you saying they can not
gain that knowledge? Of course not. You gave a situation where
somebody does gain the knowledge: "except rarely by big life
experience, or some shock."

Persuasion works too.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
addiction to power,
People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.
Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power
(or money).
What do you mean by addiction of power? Doesn't that mean wanting to
control people and then liking the feeling of controlling people?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
This is a lack of knowledge.
This is not clear.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
inferiority/superiority complexes,
If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
superior one to improve himself.
Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being
superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with
respect to some task) to be inferior.
Why can't they?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
the instinct of
following leadership, etc.
There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and
instincts.
Humans are born with very little.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.
A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival
instinct,
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).
I have 2.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm
reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and
observations.
What does "the opposition between bad and good has never work" mean?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative
to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat
the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.
Fish get eaten by all sorts of animals. He doesn't care if a human
kills him or another animals. So I don't see the problem.
Post by Bruno Marchal
There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have
that indexical feature;
By indexical, do you mean contextual?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
some problems are insoluble?
Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.
Examples?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.
I'm still unable to parse that. What do you mean by "or they become lies"?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Justification is a false concept.
Could you rephrase your idea without
using that word?
Please feel free to use any other word which convey a similar meaning.
You can use "explanation" here.
Post by Rami Rustom
Why do you care about **public** justification?
So that people can criticize them.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I am not sure if a lot of evil is not coming from the attempts made by
some humans to eradicate evil.
Yes, via coercion.
I am not sure. Coercion can be recognized and we can fight it.
Hypocrisy is more subtle. I prefer clear coercion than brain washing
subtle technic.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Those humans very often believe to know
some truth, and tend to impose it to others.
via coercion.
Post by Bruno Marchal
That is evil: when others
try to think at your place.
Right. Like most parents do to their children.
This can be justified, or explained, for little children.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
The best we can hope is that people minds
their own business, and do their work.
Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our own
happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
their own happiness.
So you agree that If some people want be romantic and married, it is
OK (unless they coerce for other people doing that, 'course)?
If two people value marriage (and have no criticisms of marriage), and
value each other, and want to get married to each other (and have no
criticisms of this idea), then they should marry.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Each of us is the only judge of
what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very different
from each others.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so. See above.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Bruno Marchal
2012-11-19 14:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
<snip>
A better way to think about it
is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
learn it (or acquire it).
It will not work.
i.e. some problems are insoluble. But that is false. Do you have a
criticism of DD's "All problems are soluble"?
Like Hilbert? There is no "ignorabimus"!
I agree on this at the metalevel, but not at the level of the things
under scrutiny.

Assume comp, then the brain can be described by a code having some X
gigabytes.
Almost all sequences having more than X giga bytes will be random and
yet cannot be proved as such by a machine having X gigabytes of
description. So the problem to figure out if something more complex
than us is random or is the result of a "short" programs will be
necessarily insoluble for us.

Our self-consistency, in case we are self-consistent, is also insoluble.
I can explain that IF we are machine, a part of the consciousness
problem will have to be insoluble.
The problem of where the natural numbers comes from is also insoluble.
If you don't assume them, you don't get them.
In fact, almost all diophantine equations are non solvable by humans,
or machines. In some case we can meta-solve them, by explaining why
they have to be insolvable.

I think DD should be OK with this, as this go in the direction of the
beginning of infinity.

I think we might agree, here, but the thread on this should be clearer
on what is meant by "solvable", as the question is different in the
short term and the infinitely long term.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always
(irrationally) more green, even if yellow.
And that is caused by a lack of knowledge. Are you saying they can not
gain that knowledge? Of course not. You gave a situation where
somebody does gain the knowledge: "except rarely by big life
experience, or some shock."
Persuasion works too.
I don't think so. You will, with chance, convince the "right brain",
but the "left brain" will not understand. You might be correct in some
ideal case, with immortal and rational persons. But not, today, in the
real limited life of those persons. Jealousy might use some hardwired
part of the limbic system.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
addiction to power,
People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.
Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power
(or money).
What do you mean by addiction of power? Doesn't that mean wanting to
control people and then liking the feeling of controlling people?
Feeling perhaps reassured, yes.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
This is a lack of knowledge.
This is not clear.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
inferiority/superiority complexes,
If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
superior one to improve himself.
Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being
superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with
respect to some task) to be inferior.
Why can't they?
Because they are sticked by their prejudices about themselves.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
the instinct of
following leadership, etc.
There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and
instincts.
Humans are born with very little.
I doubt this. I can imagine that the cortex contains some virgin
universal system, but it is controlled by the limbic system, the
cerebral stem, etc. At birth we are giving a very sophisticated
organic computer, which is based on billions years of evolution. It is
not little.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.
A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival instinct,
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).
I have 2.
OK.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm
reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and
observations.
What does "the opposition between bad and good has never work" mean?
I was thinking of the myth common in many religion (but made explicit
in the manicheism ...
(http://www.livius.org/man-md/manicheism/manicheism.html))
... according to which there is an opposition between Light and Dark
powers.

It is the idea that there is a sort of war between good and bad.
Platonism can justified that there are some partial truth there, but
also that the relation between good and bad, as absolute concept is
very complex, a bit like inside or outside the Mandelbrot set, so that
from our relative points of view (we are embedded in the reality),
that opposition can be and usually is misleading, and that a part of
the Good needs the Bad, if only to make sense, and that in practice we
can only reduce the bad, never make it completely disappear. Today,
harm reduction is practiced in the construction of cars (like with the
security belt, for example), but is violently opposed by the
pharmaceutical industry, and the political world, probably for special
interests. There is a good journal on the harm reduction strategy.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative
to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat
the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.
Fish get eaten by all sorts of animals. He doesn't care if a human
kills him or another animals.
?
How can you know that?
Post by Rami Rustom
So I don't see the problem.
*ALL* animals and plants "care" in surviving.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have
that indexical feature;
By indexical, do you mean contextual?
OK. (it is enough related).
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
some problems are insoluble?
Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.
Examples?
See above.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.
I'm still unable to parse that. What do you mean by "or they become lies"?
Take a consistent machine. Using some logical tools, we can define "I
am consistent" in the language of that machine, and it gives a true
proposition. But if the machine take that true proposition as axiom,
she becomes a new inconsistent machine.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
<snip>
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
The best we can hope is that people minds
their own business, and do their work.
Yes. Freedom. Each one of us should have the freedom to pursue our own
happiness and we should not violate the freedom of others to pursue
their own happiness.
So you agree that If some people want be romantic and married, it is
OK (unless they coerce for other people doing that, 'course)?
If two people value marriage (and have no criticisms of marriage), and
value each other, and want to get married to each other (and have no
criticisms of this idea), then they should marry.
OK, nice.

Bruno
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Each of us is the only judge of
what is good or evil for only oneself, as we might be very
different
from each others.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so. See above.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rami Rustom
2012-11-19 20:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
<snip>
A better way to think about it
is to like the idea that I just learned that somebody else has
something that I don't have and I want it and I could emulate him to
learn it (or acquire it).
It will not work.
i.e. some problems are insoluble. But that is false. Do you have a
criticism of DD's "All problems are soluble"?
Like Hilbert? There is no "ignorabimus"!
I agree on this at the metalevel, but not at the level of the things
under scrutiny.
I don't know what you mean by metalevel. Could you explain your
criticism again without using that word?

And I don't know what you mean by "things under scrutiny". Any "thing"
(aka idea) can be under scrutiny.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Assume comp, then the brain can be described by a code having some X
gigabytes.
Almost all sequences having more than X giga bytes will be random and
yet cannot be proved as such by a machine having X gigabytes of
description. So the problem to figure out if something more complex
than us is random or is the result of a "short" programs will be
necessarily insoluble for us.
That sounds like a physical limitation. Right?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Our self-consistency, in case we are self-consistent, is also insoluble.
I can explain that IF we are machine, a part of the consciousness
problem will have to be insoluble.
The problem of where the natural numbers comes from is also insoluble.
If you don't assume them, you don't get them.
In fact, almost all diophantine equations are non solvable by humans,
or machines. In some case we can meta-solve them, by explaining why
they have to be insolvable.
Sounds like a physical limitation again.
Post by Bruno Marchal
I think DD should be OK with this, as this go in the direction of the
beginning of infinity.
I think we might agree, here, but the thread on this should be clearer
on what is meant by "solvable", as the question is different in the
short term and the infinitely long term.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
For jealous people, the neighbors' grass is always
(irrationally) more green, even if yellow.
And that is caused by a lack of knowledge. Are you saying they can not
gain that knowledge? Of course not. You gave a situation where
somebody does gain the knowledge: "except rarely by big life
experience, or some shock."
Persuasion works too.
I don't think so. You will, with chance, convince the "right brain",
but the "left brain" will not understand.
All behavior is theory-laden. That means that all behavior is caused
by one's ideas. Do you agree?
Post by Bruno Marchal
You might be correct in some
ideal case, with immortal and rational persons. But not, today, in the
real limited life of those persons.
Today, most people have insufficient knowledge to be able to learn
from persuasion. That is consistent with my _The Nature of Man_ essay.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Jealousy might use some hardwired
part of the limbic system.
No. Your limbic system doesn't know your values. It doesn't know that
someone has stuff that you don't have and you want.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
addiction to power,
People who want that have a zero-sum worldview.
Explain what you mean and how you related that to addiction of power
(or money).
What do you mean by addiction of power? Doesn't that mean wanting to
control people and then liking the feeling of controlling people?
Feeling perhaps reassured, yes.
Feeling good about that means to value it, which means having a
zero-sum attitude.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
This is a lack of knowledge.
This is not clear.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
inferiority/superiority complexes,
If one believes he is inferior to another, he should emulate the
superior one to improve himself.
Those who feel inferior can't emulate the one they think being
superior, and that is why the feel (usually wrongly, not always with
respect to some task) to be inferior.
Why can't they?
Because they are sticked by their prejudices about themselves.
Lack of knowledge. So its consistent with my essay.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
the instinct of
following leadership, etc.
There is no such instinct. Instincts are inborn. We are not born with
knowledge that explains what is a leader and what is a follower.
I doubt this. All mammals are born with a tun of prejudices and
instincts.
Humans are born with very little.
I doubt this. I can imagine that the cortex contains some virgin
universal system, but it is controlled by the limbic system, the
cerebral stem, etc. At birth we are giving a very sophisticated
organic computer, which is based on billions years of evolution. It is
not little.
What inborn things does it know how to do?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
I can agree that at some level all this is a product of ignorance, but
I am still not sure that at such a level, the whole physical universe
is a product of ignorance and delusion, so that to eradicate the
delusion, and evil, would not be equivalent with the eradicating of
the physical reality.
A minimal but solid part of evil is build in in our survival instinct,
None of our (inborn) instincts are evil. They are ***all*** good. For
example, the inborn idea of crying when hungry or otherwise
uncomfortable.
When you have a baby you might change your mind (grin).
I have 2.
OK.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
and is part of the game, if only to make sense of the good. That i
something rather well explained by the taoist philosopher.
I am not sure we can eradicate evil, as the relation between evil and
good is like the extremities of an arrow, and if you cut the arrows
you just get two new one, with still an evil part and a good part.
Why do you believe that good/evil is like an arrow?
Because the opposition between bad and good has never work, but harm
reduction does work, from my many reading and experiences, and
observations.
What does "the opposition between bad and good has never work" mean?
I was thinking of the myth common in many religion (but made explicit
in the manicheism ...
(http://www.livius.org/man-md/manicheism/manicheism.html))
... according to which there is an opposition between Light and Dark
powers.
It is the idea that there is a sort of war between good and bad.
War means zero-sum attitude.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Platonism can justified that there are some partial truth there, but
also that the relation between good and bad, as absolute concept is
very complex, a bit like inside or outside the Mandelbrot set, so that
from our relative points of view (we are embedded in the reality),
that opposition can be and usually is misleading, and that a part of
the Good needs the Bad, if only to make sense, and that in practice we
can only reduce the bad, never make it completely disappear.
What is limiting us (besides the fact that we are infallible)?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Today,
harm reduction is practiced in the construction of cars (like with the
security belt, for example), but is violently opposed by the
pharmaceutical industry, and the political world, probably for special
interests. There is a good journal on the harm reduction strategy.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
So
I tend to not believe in an totally absolute good/evil distinction
(even if I do believe a part of it is absolute), but I do believe
strongly in harm reduction policy.
Are you saying that morality is relative?
Partially so, as moral is based on good/bad, and good/bad is relative
to me. If the tiger eat me, it is good for him, bad for me; if i eat
the fish it is good for me, bad for the fish.
Fish get eaten by all sorts of animals. He doesn't care if a human
kills him or another animals.
?
How can you know that?
Are you saying a fish has a preference for which animal will eat him?
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
So I don't see the problem.
*ALL* animals and plants "care" in surviving.
Yes. They have an inborn and hardcoded value of living.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
There is a part of good/bad which can be universal, but still have
that indexical feature;
By indexical, do you mean contextual?
OK. (it is enough related).
Agree that the truth of every decision depends on context.
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Evil has important relation with ignorance, but ignorance is
What do you mean by "ignorance is unavoidable"? Are you saying that
some problems are insoluble?
Most of them are. Both practically and theoretically.
Examples?
See above.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Bruno Marchal
we can only scratch the surface, and sometimes we can
only have faith--- as some truth can be known but never been publicly
justified, or they become lies.
I'm still unable to parse that. What do you mean by "or they become lies"?
Take a consistent machine. Using some logical tools, we can define "I
am consistent" in the language of that machine, and it gives a true
proposition. But if the machine take that true proposition as axiom,
she becomes a new inconsistent machine.
Sounds like a criticism of axioms.

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
Jeffrey S. Owens
2012-11-17 22:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
Seems that evil is typically defined in terms of human suffering or death.
I think that is a reasonable assumption to work from. I'd like to offer up
another practical example: technology transfer policy. To put it simply,
for the sake of brevity, the general policy orientation is for developed
nations to limit technology transfer to developing ones. The rationale for
this is many technologies can be used for military purposes (ex. nuclear
power, encryption algorithms, etc.), as well as population growth (water
infrastructure for farming, and so forth) and those are considered to be
threats.

In the case of technologies that can save lives (thereby increasing
population numbers) a good case can be made that keeping technology from
developing nations is evil. So to put this example in terms of your
question, If policy makers had sufficient knowledge of handling population
growth and military threats would they be likely to opt for transferring
technology?

-Jeff


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Rami Rustom
2012-11-18 01:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
Post by Rami Rustom
All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge. So all good is due to
sufficient knowledge. This is the principle of optimism. This means
that for every evil act, had the evildoer known that his act was evil,
and that there was a good option available to him, he would have done
good instead of evil. To explain this principle, I'll consider a few
hypothetical situations.
The first situation involves a parent giving her baby a bottle of
formula. The baby takes a sip and puts the bottle down on his tray.
Then the parent tried to coax the baby with cute eating methods
involving airplane sounds. The baby kept turning his head. Then the
parent got anxious and tried to force it in his mouth thinking that
she's doing it in the best interest of her baby. The baby responded by
hitting the bottle, knocking it to the floor. Then the parent used
more force and succeeded in getting her baby to drink the formula.
Hours later, the baby died. The autopsy showed that the baby was
poisoned. The police learned that the formula was tainted -- not just
the formula in the baby's bottle, but also the whole batch of formula
shipped by the manufacturer.
It’s important to consider who committed evil; the parent, the baby,
or both. The baby knew that the formula tasted really bad, so each
time that he rejected it, he was doing good. The parent knew that her
baby rejected the formula, so each time that she tried to coerce her
baby to drink it, she was committing evil.
Now consider a situation identical in all respects but one -- the
formula wasn’t tainted, so the baby didn't die. Who acted immorally?
Can the answer be different? Logically, the answer cannot be
different. Morality does not depend on the actual results, but rather
only the expected results. To illustrate this point, consider whether
or not it is moral for a father of five young children to choose to
spend all their wealth on lottery tickets. Does the moral choice
depend on whether or not he wins? No, the moral choice depends on
whether or not he’s expected to win.
As I’ve illustrated, every evil act is caused by insufficient
knowledge. In the case of the parent who forced her baby to drink the
bottle, had she known that coercing people is expected to lead to bad
results, and that persuasion doesn't have that fault, she would not
have resorted to coercion. In the case of the father who spent his
entire life savings on lottery tickets, had he known that his choice
is expected to lead to bad results, and that he had a better way to
spend the wealth, he would not have committed evil.
At some point in the future, when every human being understands this
principle of optimism well, and has sufficient knowledge, all evils
will be eradicated.
Criticisms? Questions?
Seems that evil is typically defined in terms of human suffering or death.
I think that is a reasonable assumption to work from. I'd like to offer up
another practical example: technology transfer policy. To put it simply,
for the sake of brevity, the general policy orientation is for developed
nations to limit technology transfer to developing ones.
That is anti-freedom -- anti-capitalism. Its coercion. Coercion is
expected to lead to bad results. Hence evil. Yes, it causes human
suffering.
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
The rationale for
this is many technologies can be used for military purposes (ex. nuclear
power, encryption algorithms, etc.), as well as population growth (water
infrastructure for farming, and so forth) and those are considered to be
threats.
Why are they threats?
Post by Jeffrey S. Owens
In the case of technologies that can save lives (thereby increasing
population numbers) a good case can be made that keeping technology from
developing nations is evil. So to put this example in terms of your
question, If policy makers had sufficient knowledge of handling population
growth and military threats would they be likely to opt for transferring
technology?
They would go further than that. They would not even consider the idea
of forcing companies from selling their products to certain potential
customers.

-- Rami


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Loading...