Ambrosia Software Web Board: Various Philosophical Thingies - Ambrosia Software Web Board

Right. So, with Joveia's two topics, I've been philosophically spurred and such, and I found that my piece of paper with a good deal of my philosophical findings on it was easier to get at than I expected. I don't think it has all of my findings on it, as I only have on it what I could remember at the time I made it. I don't think there's too much more, though.

So, without too much further introduction, here we go. Feel free to ask me about the logic behind any of the following statements, or debate them with me. I'm open to changing my opinion, as I will hopefully be more accurate as I hear more arguments and ideas (I consider philosophical accuracy to be imporant, as I try to base my morals off of it, and conflicting morals are bad things).

Firstly, I think that efficiency is very important. Waste and such generally ends up leading to bad things. So, thinking about efficiency, I've come up with the five elements of efficiency. There are probably at least six, but this is what I've come up with: the results, the time it takes to do whatever it is, the materials required, the money required (only applies in some things, and could arguably count as materials, and has no meaning whatsoever for people that don't use money), and the difficulty/crappiness of the work required.

Bad fokes can't help it if they're bad. They don't determine their genes, which play a large role in thought processes, or the variations in the formation of their brain, which would also play a role, and they don't determine the events in their life that shape their personality. They do have control over some events that would shape their personality, but their control is influenced completely by their personality, which starts out with no events on it, which means that at some point they have a personality that they have had no control over, and all control over their personality comes from their starting ("factory") personality. This is a complicated one.

Everything capable of thought is a person. Cats and dogs make plans and such, they simply can't communicate very efficiently with humans, and don't have many options open. If you were to study people who spoke a different language than you in the same style as scientists study animal behavior, you'd only see them as animals. This argument (about a person being defined as anything that can think) is somewhat vague, as I'm not sure what defines thought, or where the border is between thought and mimicking thought, or if there is actually such a thing as mimicking thought.

People are not their bodies. I am not the hands I am using to type this, or the lungs that are breathing, or even my brain. People are nonphysical entities that are run by their brains, much as software is run on a computer. You can't hold or see software, only the device that contains/runs it. People are connected to their bodies, but are not actually a part of them.

There's also the good versus evil bit, which I posted in Joveia's topic relating to good and evil. Essentially, evil is more powerful, because it isn't hindered as much by its morals, but good rebels more often when evil is in power, as it cares more.

This is also briefly in Joveia's topic. It's also not one that I came up with, but it's one that I agree with strongly and use often when thinking about things. People are not black and white, or wholly good or wholly evil. They are "varying shades of grey," or different and varied, with some conflicts and clashes coming about, due to their differences.

This one is quite radical, in my opinion, and I apologize for anybody who is offended by it. Killing/murder is not a bad thing in itself. It is only bad when it is done in painful ways. Painful can be physical or emotional. Nonlethal torture is much, much worse than painless murder. War, therefore, could actually not be bad, if it was done painlessly for the people involved, and all of the people who died and their families were willing to accept their deaths.

This one was arrived at semi-independantly. I believe that Darkk told me this (or at least something very similar to this) sometime on GR, and I have since thought over it and arrived at it independantly. Everything should be legal, so long as it harms nobody but the person doing it and/or anybody that doesn't mind being harmed by it.

This isn't really philosophy, but is was gleaned while thinking along the same lines that I think along when thinking about philosophy, plus I think it's arguable, so here goes: Because Pi is infinite, and it can be expressed in an infinite number of number bases (binary, trinary, quadrinary, base 10, etc....), and it is only possible to map infinite things that have stuff in them over an infinite amount of time, software can never be copyrighted, as it probably exists somewhere in Pi (the 1's and 0's, that is), and Pi can never be fully mapped to prove that it doesn't exist in it. This is the iffy part, see. Because it can't be mapped, then, if the software isn't in the mapped parts, it's arguable that that would be proof that the developer created the software independantly. However, you could always say that the developer could have mapped it just a bit further than the current mapping on his/her own, which could mean that they found it in Pi.

On a related note, what if one were to express Pi in binary, and then convert it to morse code? What would it say? I have a friend at school who's into Pi and morse code, so maybe I'll try to get him to try it.

Anyway, that's it for my philosophies. Thank you, and good night.

------------------
"Cleanliness is evil. Embrace the mess!"

Whoa. This is on major piece of writing, I'll see what relevant stuff I have to it. I'm also happy you've decided to take part in my philosophical spree. I love philosophy. Ahem.

Quote

People certainly don't have control over their personality. If you did have a desire to have some control, the very desire to have control over it is part of your personality.

Quote

Everything capable of thought is a person. Cats and dogs make plans and such, they simply can't communicate very efficiently with humans, and don't have many options open. If you were to study people who spoke a different language than you in the same style as scientists study animal behavior, you'd only see them as animals. This argument (about a person being defined as anything that can think) is somewhat vague, as I'm not sure what defines thought, or where the border is between thought and mimicking thought, or if there is actually such a thing as mimicking thought.

I think you'd look for the method in the way the thing you were studying goes about it's life. An animal would show less innate intelligence than a human. But - if a human didn't show any innate intelligence, I would be perfectly happy defining them as an animal.

Quote

People are not their bodies. I am not the hands I am using to type this, or the lungs that are breathing, or even my brain. People are nonphysical entities that are run by their brains, much as software is run on a computer. You can't hold or see software, only the device that contains/runs it. People are connected to their bodies, but are not actually a part of them.

I think I get what you're saying, but it does sound a bit too much like 'the ghost behind the machine'. Instead of that, I believe that consciousness is a description of the neural processes that take place in the mind. They certainly seem to have control over the body, because people react to things that happen consciously. However, it might be argued that they would react this way without consciousness being necessary. A man at the steering wheel of a car, who held it while it steered itself, would, after a time, come to believe that he was steering the car. Perhaps it is like that with consciousness. Regardless, people do not have as much power over their actions as it might like to be thought. And I certainly don't believe in 'souls.'

Quote

This is also briefly in Joveia's topic. It's also not one that I came up with, but it's one that I agree with strongly and use often when thinking about things. People are not black and white, or wholly good or wholly evil. They are "varying shades of grey," or different and varied, with some conflicts and clashes coming about, due to their differences.

People are individuals. Good and evil is meaningless when applied to an individual, from an individual. You have to be looking at it in terms of the group(s) you exist in, for it to be good or evil.

Quote

Quite so.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

It would be almost impossible to get their families to accept things immediately; there's almost no way to avoid emotional pain in such situations.

Quote

How about defining the criteria for being thought of as a person as any entity able to comprehend the term and desire to be thought of as such?

Quote

I agree, but things almost always harm people other than the user, directly or indirectly; if not a direct effect on the people around them, then emotional effect on those close to them; people don't like to see friends harm themselves. Does this count as harming others, or is it only physical kind of stuff?

------------------
If at first you don't succeed, use more duct tape.

Quote

War is fighting for something worth death or worth living through. Random killing sprees are bad for you ended a life mercilessly when there was no cause.

Now about absolute truth. Why is it not possible? There are absolute natural rules that govern this earth. This is funny because in religious debates people deny miracles because of proven physics or chemistry. blah blah blah

------------------
And then there were the toe-socks...

The development of a personality is quite invariably tied into my definitions of Good and Evil. However, I think that the only fundamental difference that is not determined by experience is how much a person desires to emulate Good, and to avoid Evil. Set genetics aside from this; other than this one instance, a person is a complete tabula rasa when born.

Obviously a prerequisite to be defined as a person is to be capable of thought. However, I believe that to be truly a "person," an entity first must be capable of reevaluating a course of action multiple times. And I don't think that any small number of reevaluations would qualify either. Secondly, however, a "person" must be capable of accepting and shedding drives, even if not of free will. A "person" cannot be hardcoded the way animals, computers, and the universe seem to be.

To an extent, I agree with you on the nature of the body, and to an extent, I agree with Joveia. A person is more of a pattern than a body; in development, certain circuits in your brain were put into place a certain way. However, the pattern cannot be replicated, and cannot be accurately represented "outside." The only way to create a pattern is to set up the same structure, and to let it fall. Yet no structure will fall into the same pattern twice.

And while painful torture is certainly bad, I don't think that you could say that murder is less so. By murdering someone, you remove a consciousness pattern from the possibilities remaining in the universe. It is impossible to predict how a person might have otherwise affected everything, so by killing someone, you could be creating more pain than anything you could do to the person individually. You might not, but you can't say that for certain.

------------------
"Welcome to our Pirate outpost. Please enjoy your stay, and realize that any irregular actions can and will be used against you in the afterlife."

What I've been noticing, is that people are very attached to the idea that the human race is correct in what it does. Example time.

I've noticed in the few years of my life that people either don't like labels at all, or constantly label everything. Both of these are very stupid ways to go about things (to me). Labelling something is going with the definition whatever language you speak has given it. What makes up a definition? More words with definitions. The circle is infinite.
What does this mean? There is no way to properly express your emotions or feelings, even with actions; as love to someone might be sex, while to another it would be gifts.

I've also realized that the world is too ordered. If you look at our math, our science, even nature, you see these little patterns that we've given everything. 2+2=4. The Periodic Table. The little niches (I'll get to human niches later). All of these things have been processed by countless people, making you think that they would be correct, right? Nope, they've all used the same way to see things. Everyone has the need to put things into nice neat patterns, even Chaos. We've gotten Chaos, the one thing that is supposed to have no pattern, a pattern. Chaos comes in between Order and Order, thus giving is a pattern. Chaos will always occur. Now my take on it.
Things should not be this ordered. When thought about for long enough, it is impossible to achieve Order. If you look into nature yourself (not from a textbook or what someone tells you), you will notice that nothing is ever the same. A blade of grass is gone, a pebble is moved, the rain that just came down on you isn't there anymore. Things happen in nature chaotically. There is no true way to determine how things will end out in the end. So, in turn, there is no true Order, only Chaos.

This Chaos then applies to religion (this is short, because there is not much need to explain it). Religions have a set pattern, all of them do. You could go on comparing how each religious text and rituals are different, but in the end, they all end up the same. Now use my statement before of how there is no true Order and stick it with the patterns in Religion. I think you get the point. And besides, religions are based on what others tell you (human or writing), and these things use definitions. Definitions are patterns, patterns are Order, and *shock* there is no Order.

Now, on to Humanity. I took health over last summer. I began to get a little tired hearing how smoking can kill you and how it's bad to have unprotected sex. I then realized: Humans care for nothing but Humans, even those who say they don't (tree-huggers). If we cared for other things, we would be putting our needs, the things that make us alive, aside and be putting other's needs on top. This would lead to destruction of ourselves.
This also pushes the fact that we, as Humans, are made up of the same stuff that everything else is made up of. There could be a squirrell running across the road, he's the same as you. There is no way to put anything on top of anything else. Chaos, where everything is just kind of mingling in the middle, with no place to go. Unless there is some sort of divine intervention (someone or something outside the rules of Chaos and Order; this could also be known as the TRUE Order) which EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING experiences and acknowledges, then there is no way to put yourself on top of anything else.

All these things demolish the idea that things are put in place, that we have no "free will". We have to have a "free will", otherwise things would be ordered, and as we all know from my previous statements, there is no true Order.

I don't really have any thoughts on how the inner human works, because that would be giving it an Order, and eliminating "free will", and everything I've mentioned.

Of course, I could be wrong and there IS a greater scheme to things that I don't know of because my life is patterned in a way that everything else's existence is
patterned.

But until that day when I die, I'll stick to the Chaos.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Quote

I've not heard of this "ghost behind the machine" bit before, what do you mean? And what I'm trying to say is that conciousness/people is/are a pattern, or a form of software, and that it isn't an object such as a human or a rock.

Quote

What if there was only one person in the group? It would be an individual in that situation. And I think the examples for groups you gave (in the other topic) were a bit overly simplistic. For instance, not all of America is that upset by September 11. I've never really cared that much about it. There are worse things out there.

Quote

I agree. It'd also be almost impossible to invent painless weapons that could be manufactured and used on the scale of a war. However, if it ever happened, it wouldn't be a bad war.

Quote

What if they comprehended the term and did not desire to be thought of as such for some odd reason? And anyway, I'm not really sure. It seems to me that thought would define something as a person, but I can't really think of why it would be so. If something that could think wasn't able to comprehend the idea of a person, I don't think that that would make it not a person.

Quote

Emotional harm would count as harm, yes.

Quote

But is it really a bad thing if that person didn't mind being killed? Although I would agree that random killing sprees for no reason would be bad, as they'd be inefficient, and someday a long time from now, the resources used in the killing spree could be necessary to stop some pain/harm/etc..

Quote

I assume that by absolute truth you mean a religious type of thing? It's entirely possible. I even consider it to be extremely likely, from what evidence I've seen. Although I don't think that any major religions are entirely correct. They probably are all at least partially correct, but not entirely. I think that any religious type things are probably beyond humans' abilities to fully comprehend them, so we can only get so close. Perhaps all religions are fully correct, and are simply different ways of understanding/interpreting the same thing.

Quote

That's an interesting way to think of it. I'll have to ponder that. Although I think that animals only seem to be hardcoded due to us not being able to understand their thoughts nearly as easily as we can for humans, and so it makes us not see many things about what they're doing and why.

Quote

I'm not really sure what you're saying, here. And I disagree about the structures not falling the same way twice. When you have the same starting conditions, and the same introduced conditions during and event, I think it'd turn out the same way.

Quote

On the other hand, you could also be preventing more pain than anything you could do to the person individually. You can't say that for certain, either. Therefore, since it's completely random, it averages out to neutral, which would make it inefficient to kill people for no reason, but not bad to painlessly kill people for good reasons.

Quote

There are patterns to the chaos, and, if the patterns were to be fully understood, everything could be predicted. However, I doubt that humans, at least, will ever fully understand the patterns.


------------------
"Cleanliness is evil. Embrace the mess!"

"There are patterns to the chaos, and, if the patterns were to be fully understood, everything could be predicted. However, I doubt that humans, at least, will ever fully understand the patterns."

Mag, this is exactly what I was talking about in every other sentence. What you've just done, is set everything up in a neat little package (as you did with all the other ideas), and created an Order to things, putting your ideas where you deem necessary.

*PING*

You've just proved my point. You put your needs ahead of those around you (your need being to prove your point onto someone else (and don't say that wasn't the TRUE point of this topic, be it concsious or subconcsious)), thus proving you are alive.

You put yourself in this pattern that I've put together, thus giving you an Order. But with this Order is a paradoxical equation. And when looked at enough, paradoxes are Chaos, for they have no set pattern and there is no way you can predict it by putting it in an equation. Chaos prevails over Order.

******

My "equation" for life, can be put to anything, and you'll see the pattern.

I realized my own hypocrosy after I had posted and read it a few times. I don't think I have a good enough answer for my own theory, but I do know one thing.

In nature, there are a lot of problems that we, as a human race, have stuck into equations (equations being labels to define things), that I do not believe. I find it extremely hard to believe that the entire Periodic Table falls perfectly in place with every other element that we've discovered. And my entire Chaos idea (not to be confused with Chaos Theory), falls into a pattern.

Now I will start writing as I think it, bear with me.

But then again, what if Chaos was a pattern, an Order. Then the entire system would crash. But after it crashed, what would be left? Chaos? Yeah, because there is Chaos when there is nothing. But that would give Chaos another pattern. There is no end to this. But I said paradoxes would end in Chaos. This means that there _has_ to be a TRUE Chaos. With the creation of a TRUE Chaos, that would mean there would have to be a TRUE Order. But that is giving it the pattern of balance, which has been forced on me since birth, that in the end, we are all equal, but we aren't. No matter what system, we aren't equal. But what about the whole Chaos in nature and life? Where everything is equal, and nothing is more important than anything else. Wait. That last bit is true, and the sentence before it is false. AHA! The former was an idea, a moral, enforced on me at the time that I figured out that we weren't all equal. So I started as believing all were equal, then not equal. But now, we ARE all equal, because these ideas and morals were forced upon me by others that want me to have the same morals, and essentially, help them survive life.

Oh my god... I've just proved my whole life wrong... And then built it back up and broke it down again. This is incredible. Thank you.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

Kah, I can't grasp at why you choose to place so much emphasis on chaos on order. Are you completely sure they are relevant?

Ghost behind the machine: Was proposed by Descartes or someone in the 18 or 19 century. It proposed the 'soul' as an scientific basis for conciousness.

About 9/11, you may associate yourself with different groups than the rest of your Americans. You may tend to view things dispassionately.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

KahBasha: You have confused me. Ah, well. And I agree that proving my ideas to fokes was part of the subconcious reasoning for this topic, although I think most of it was to test them out and see what others thought and such. Oh, and you're quite welcome, although I'm not quite sure what all happened, but that's okay.

Joveia: Nope, I didn't really mean a soul. Although we may have souls. I don't know about them. It seems unlikely that we'd have souls. And I see what you mean about the groups. American was just a group, not necessarily including all Americans. (btw, I plan on probably becoming a non-American when I get older and get a house of my own and such. (unless I move to South America, in which case I'd be an American in another sense))

------------------
"Cleanliness is evil. Embrace the mess!"

The reason why I choose emphasis on Chaos and Order is because it explains everything. Chaos, the thing that is supposed to be the opposite of Order, explains everything with some weird equations. If you put something into this equation, it will turn out to be Chaos, but that would be Order, but then the paradox thing and blah blah blah...


But Joveia, we can never agree. But I would like to speak of things related to this subject with you.

Where did you come to these conclusions? I'll speak of mine.

During classes, I could never understand why everything worked out so well. And when I realized this, I realized this same confusion I had with science and math to be related to politics and eventually the world. After watching (and reading) Fight Club and reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, I began to grasp a little of the chaos that could really be happening at any time, and that there is no need to continue with anything not necessary for survival. So now I don't try in school anymore, don't laugh at things I don't find funny (usually, it's a bad habit we've all been raised to have), and try to figure everything out without outside influence. Because with outside influence, I believe, brings your theories along, which I completely disagree with.

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

WAIT!!

I think I just figured it out!!!

There are the Chaos and Order I have described, but there is the Paradoxical Chaos that Joveia has described.

When my 2 are put into the equation of his 1, mine come out to be his 1, but when his 1 are put on my 2, only Order is left (don't ask, it took me a while, and I doubt I could ever explain it to anyone EVER).

So what this all means is that mine is correct, only in the sense that his is correct. Because mine are PChaotic (TRUE Order) when thought about long enough.
It's kind of like a big circle. PChaos is the outer ring, with Chaos inside, and Order inside that. They all cancel eachother out, but PChaos wins.

Joveia, we might not see it the same way, but I've come to the conclusion you have. There is an order to how everything goes. I may not like it, but that was it from the beginning.

WAIT! ****e... Forget this, I can't speak of it anymore... Why the wait? Because if Chaos was surrounding PChaos, Chaos would win, because PChaos goes with Order, and there can't be that much of an Order to things...

DAMMIT!!

------------------
Beware My Big Stick

We seem to be arguing about the same thing over 3 different threads KahBasha. It would be better if we all argued them in 1 thread, or you can keep it at 3 if you want.

Now then, as to this. I'm sort of flattered that you said that my equation has to be right for some reason. Even this much of a concession from you must be good news! Unfortunately, I still lack the ability to understand your point of view and reasoning, which is rather mollifying.

Now then, when I encounter a Catch-22, (which is what is going on here, isn't it?) usually I totally abandon the reasoning. There isn't much life in catch-22's.

So KahBasha, when, in the formulation of your theories, did you turn to the outside for their experience in some of the philosophical areas you may have explored? I think, as a champion of Order (I'm beginning to like that), either you are wrong, or your opinion is so radical, I cannot possibly understand it. Atleast while sober, and before 3 am.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Well, yes. We've run in to what we can't prove one way or another. Although I think that the reason the Hardcoding clause is in there is much more interesting than its implications. The universe itself subjects any decision made within it to a countless number of different drives.

Assume for a minute that a "person" does not have to be hardcoded. Does this mean that the universe itself is somehow a person? Additionally, String Theory seems to suggest that there are numerous universes where our "constants" are not the same. Are universes "people" too?

Quote

Well, I have a limited belief in chaos as well, in that it is the natural way of things. There is always an element of randomness (chaos) in anything in our universe, and even the fact that order may emerge does not discount this.

To better explain my theory, I think I'll turn to the "Jenga" metaphor. Picture a "blank" personality as a stack of them. A couple blocks are missing, because of different starting conditions. Every time you have a major experience, you take a block from within, and put it on top. Eventually the stack collapses.

That pile of blocks is a personality.

Now, the table it's on can represent the body the personality resides in. The pile of blocks most definitely is *not* the table; the body and the personality are definitely distinct things. Thus my agreement with you.

However, it's impossible to remove the pile from the table and put it anywhere else without changing it. The change may be small, but you can never put the same personality into a different body. Thus my agreement with Joveia.

Quote

However, what seem to be good reasons now may not remain so if the subject is properly rememdied instead of killed. Thus, by your arguments, no form of killing is actually better than cold-blooded murder.

------------------
"Welcome to our Pirate outpost. Please enjoy your stay, and realize that any irregular actions can and will be used against you in the afterlife."

Well, no I hold it true that the personality is tied in completely with the body. If you change the composition of chemicals in someone's brain, even slightly, then their personality will change (as far as that part that is not memory.) Witness, puberty.

I also believe that everything except memory can, with sufficient technology, be replicated into another person. Thus, copying a person exactly. This happens alot today, (not copying them exactly) but imitating them. Our entire society is built on imitation.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

I suppose. But what if the only way to remedy them is killing them? Example: Some guy's coming at you with a sword. For some reason or another, you're unable to run. But you have a gun. Would that be a good situation to pop him in the head? (probably several times in rapid succession, to be sure to kill him as quickly and painlessly as possible)

And I do agree about the cold-blooded murder. As long as there are reasons, cold-blooded murder is no worse than not-cold-blooded murder.

------------------
"Vampiric chickens are spiffy. Bak bak bak ARRR!"

I once accidentally stepped on a snail. I was so *distraught. The poor thing was lying there, half dead, so I decided to put it out of it's misery. I stamped it and stamped it and stamped it again, until there was no possibility that it could feel pain any longer.

*this is not sarcasm.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

Ah, yes. The "putting things out of their misery" bit. I should have used this sort of thing as an example.

------------------
"Vampiric chickens are spiffy. Bak bak bak ARRR!"

Oh, cool. So that was relevant to this discussion?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.