= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
We'd have to be able to randomly run reality to completion several times.
Universe seems to be doing that, only problem is that instead of us getting results we are only part of them.
In response to
Guardians of Ayn Rand
Atleast Atlas Shrugged is written in a way that suggests cultishness. All good people are good at everything, good looking and always right. Enemies are stupid, wrong and ugly. There are no bad sides in good ideas or good sides in bad ideas.
In response to
Guardians of the Gene Pool
"if you failed hard enough to endorse coercive eugenics"
This might be found a bit too controversial, but I was tempted to come up with not-so-revolting coercive eugenics system. Of course it's not needed, if there is technology for correcting genes, but let's say we only have circa 1900 technology. It has nothing to do with the point of Elizer's note, it's ust my musing.
Coervie eugenics isn't strictly immoral itself. It is a way of protecting people not yet born from genetical flaws - possible diseases, etc. But even giving them less then optimal features - intelligence, strength, looks - is quite equivalent to making them stupidier, weaker, uglier. If you could give your child healthy and pleasent life, yet decide to strip him from that, you are hurting him - it's not like his well-being is your property. But can you have YOUR child, while eugenics prevent you from breeding? Not in genetic sense, but it seems deeply flawed to base parent-child relation simply on genetic code. It's upbringing that matters. Adopted child is in any meaningful way YOUR child. But there are two problems - you can't really use "good genes" people for producing babies for "bad gene" people and "bad gene" mothers may have problem caring newborns without hormonal effect of birth. Way to make eugenics weaker, but overcome these problems, is to limit only mens' breading. When a couple with "good gene man" wants children - let them. If couple with "bad gene man" wants children, then future mother is impregnated by some (possible hired) "good gene man". Normally the couple have protected sex.
It is by no means perfect. But the price for relative well-being of future people is only for a woman to have sex with not her husband, and for husband to be "cheated on". While it seems quite unsettling, it's mainly our cultural norm. While this might be unpleasant for both, it isn't considerably worse then not being able to drink and smoke for woman through pregnancy. Therefore, such coercive eugenics would gradually improve gene pool, while not being considerable more evil then forbidding pregnant woman to smoke cigarettes.
I don't mean to say that such a system would be a good choice. But simply that it would be trading the rights of alive for the rights of not yet born.
I apologize, if above was inappropriate.
"But can you have YOUR child, while eugenics prevent you from breeding? Not in genetic sense, but it seems deeply flawed to base parent-child relation simply on genetic code. It's upbringing that matters. Adopted child is in any meaningful way YOUR child."
Treating people not genetically your children as if they were is a big minus in our evolutionary game these days. It also helps bad behaviour (making children and letting others raise them), so i´d say that it manages to be bad both for yourself and population, though the second part depends on why the child was given for adoption.
In general improving gene pool would be a good idea, but finding collective solutions for it that don´t cause more bad than good seems hard. Also if our evolution gets rid of the heuristic that sex=children=good which isn´t working anymore and replaces it with something like "acts that lead to you children=good" we then get people spending their money smarter, which increases reproductive success of richer people who tend to be >average intelligent.
In response to
Guardians of the Truth
Perhaps the difference between the Inquisition and Feynman is that science specifically claims it has nothing to say about morality, so it can't justify killing anyone in its name.
Science has much to say about morality. It can say which morals different groups of people have, what are probable causes for morals, and which morals are useful on an gene|individual|group|society|planet level.
It's simpler than you think: you just treat i as an unknown variable where all you know is that i^2 = -1. Then if you want to, say, multiply together two complex numbers, it's all the algebra you're already familiar with: (a + bi)(c + di) = ac + adi + bci + bdi^2 = ac - bd + (ad + bc)i. That's it - that's all the complex maths you need to follow the QM sequence.
To better understand why it is used imagine a map, going right is +, going left is -, going up is i, going down is -i. Turning left is multiplying by i, turning right is multiplying by -i. So i is used to calculate things where you need 2 dimensions.
View more: Prev
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I like the spirit of what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that you've made a rational argument for it. Also, I'm concerned that you might have started with the conclusion that a rational argument must flow forward and constructed an account to justify it. If so, in your terms, though not in mine, that would make your conclusion irrational.
I think it can be perfectly rational to think backwards from any conclusion you want to any explanation that fits. Rationality is among other things about being bound by the requirement of consistency in reasoning. It's about creating an account from the evidence. But it's also about evaluating evidence, and that part is where it gets problematic.
In an open and complex world like the one we live in every day, weighing evidence is largely a non-rational (para-rational? quasi-rational?) process. We are operating only with bounded rationality and collections of murky impressions. So, your idea of making a checklist and somehow discovering who the best candidate is is already doomed. There is no truly evidence-driven way of doing that, because evidence does not drive reasoning-- it's our BELIEFS about evidence that drive reasoning. Our beliefs are mostly not a product of a rational process.
A logical explanation is one that follows from premises to conclusions without violating any rule of logic. Additionally, all logical explanations of real world situations involves a claim that the logical model we put forward corresponds usefully to the state of the real world. What we called a "cat" in our reasoning corresponded to that furry thing we understand as a cat, etc. If I can think backwards from a conclusion without finding an absurd premise, then I have a logical explanation. (It may be wrong, of course.)
To attack my self-consistent, logical account of a situation that suggests that X is TRUE, based solely on the fact that I was looking for evidence that X is true, is equivalent to an ad hominem fallacy. I think you can certainly suspect that my argument is weak, and it probably is, but you can't credibly attack my sound argument simply because you don't like me, or you don't like my method of arriving at my sound argument. A lot of science would have to be thrown out if a scientist wasn't allowed to search for evidence to support something he hoped would be true. Also, as you know, many theorems have been proven using backward reasoning.
If you want to attack the argument, you can attack it rationally by offering counter-evidence, or an alternative reasoning that is more consistent with more reliable facts. Furthermore, our entire legal system is built on the idea that two opposing sides in a dispute, marshaling the best stories they can marshal, will provide judges and juries with a good basis on which to decide the dispute.
Instead of calling it irrational, I would say that it's a generally self-deceptive practice to start from a conclusion and work backward. I don't trust that process, but I couldn't disqualify an argument solely on those grounds.
Instead of prescribing forward reasoning only, I would prescribe self-critical thinking and de-biasing strategies.
(BTW, one of the reasons I don't vote is that I am confident that I cannot, under any circumstances, EVER, have sufficient and reliable information about the candidates to allow me to make a good decision. So, I believe all voting decisions people actually make are irrational.)
You only need to have better information than average voter for your vote to improve result of election. Though then again, effect of 1 vote is usually so small that the rational choice would be to vote for whatever gives you more social status.