U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2014, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,210 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760

Advertisements

mordant
Quote:
Well if you're deliberately contriving a situation I guess I would invoke the principle that no one can give to others without it coming from some sort of overflow for themselves.
I've long seen the above as valid when applied to nations. The most moral nations are always the wealthiest nations, economic and technological progress makes it possible do away with societal abominations which formerly had been seen as evil necessities, or perhaps just necessities. Was it morality which ended slavery, or the machinery which replaced them?

Where do you find child labor sweatshops and people who aspire to bureaucratic jobs for the graft opportunities presented? The low rent third world nations.

Civil rights are actually luxuries more than rights. Providing an accused offender with an attorney and a long string of potential appeals after the verdict costs a lot of money. You have to be able to afford the rights you guarantee your citizens.

And of course grand scale works of charity require that some grand scale wealth exists.

I hadn't given it any thought on an individual level, but I suppose that it couldn't work like nations. There is no common recognition of what would be someone's overflow point, it will be a product of the pathology of individual's personality. Maybe we are already hard wired in this regard, the programming I referenced earlier already exists but is distributed randomly by nature rather than deliberately via human engineering.

Last edited by Grandstander; 01-24-2014 at 05:45 PM..

 
Old 01-24-2014, 06:10 PM
 
16,300 posts, read 24,993,806 times
Reputation: 8282
Think Issac covered all the bases, without conflicts. Done
 
Old 01-24-2014, 06:15 PM
 
39,266 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
mordant

I've long seen the above as valid when applied to nations. The most moral nations are always the wealthiest nations, economic and technological progress makes it possible do away with societal abominations which formerly had been seen as evil necessities, or perhaps just necessities. Was it morality which ended slavery, or the machinery which replaced them?

Where do you find child labor sweatshops and people who aspire to bureaucratic jobs for the graft opportunities presented? The low rent third world nations.

Civil rights are actually luxuries more than rights. Providing an accused offender with an attorney and a long string of potential appeals after the verdict costs a lot of money. You have to be able to afford the rights you guarantee your citizens.

And of course grand scale works of charity require that some grand scale wealth exists.

I hadn't given it any thought on an individual level, but I suppose that it couldn't work like nations. There is no common recognition of what would be someone's overflow point, it will be a product of the pathology of individual's personality. Maybe we are already hard wired in this regard, the programming I referenced earlier already exists but is distributed randomly by nature rather than deliberately via human engineering.
If by 'programming' you mean instinctive social behaviour which is passed on genetically and must be the product of evolution, then yes. But that is aimed at survival and is more competitive than morality ought to be.

That is where the social experiment and the thrashed out consensus of moral behaviour comes in. And maybe that too can become an instinct, passed on genetically in time.
 
Old 01-24-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,210 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
If by 'programming' you mean instinctive social behaviour which is passed on genetically and must be the product of evolution, then yes. But that is aimed at survival and is more competitive than morality ought to be.
.
There is evolutionary overlap, characteristics which were preserved because of their survival utility which spill over into situations where survival isn't the issue. Running out of a room because you were humiliated in front of a group of people might be some carry over from basic flight/fight programing even though nothing was on the line apart from ego. Someone else may stand his or her ground and remain defiant.
We're stuck with all sorts of evolutionary behavior which at one time had to do with survival, but now appear in different applications.
 
Old 01-25-2014, 04:04 AM
 
39,266 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5102
I am sure that you are right, and the evolutionary -survival instinct (indeed the instinctive need for recognition with the peer -group seems an obvious candidate -example) and its relation to social behaviour, politics, morality and even the arts..oh yes.. is something is impatientlty await research into. rather more useful, I am tempted to think than speculations about the collective unconscious.
 
Old 01-25-2014, 05:35 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,413 posts, read 2,993,722 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
There is evolutionary overlap, characteristics which were preserved because of their survival utility which spill over into situations where survival isn't the issue. Running out of a room because you were humiliated in front of a group of people might be some carry over from basic flight/fight programing even though nothing was on the line apart from ego. Someone else may stand his or her ground and remain defiant.
We're stuck with all sorts of evolutionary behavior which at one time had to do with survival, but now appear in different applications.


If we're not sure if the android is sentient or self aware, we need to take steps to determine whether or not it is sentient or self-aware, or how likely the android is to be sentient or self-aware.

If there is a negligible possibility the android is self-aware and sentient, it should be made as virtuous as possible.

It there is a small chance that it is self-aware or sentient, we should make its personality as close as possible to that of the typical human, with some exceptions. That way when it inevitably has psychological problems we'll better understand them.


Exceptions to making its personality as close as possible to that of a typical human would be that we should modify certain characteristics that seem most clearly obsolete in most humans.

In modern times, we don't need to worry about running from wolf packs very often, for example. Rather than having the android become ready to run or fight when nervous, the android's multi-tasking skills might enhance, along with its ability to analyze and solve problems.

Rather than becoming more aggressive when sensing aggression in others like we humans frequently do, perhaps it should become more empathetic and calm.

The fight or flight reflex doesn't seem to do anyone much good, except for maybe a few American football players and boxers and rugby players, who can feed off that aggression and be motivated by it.

The aggression in response to aggression might be more beneficial, but still doesn't seem important for most of us. Probably the android, if modified to be not respond to aggression with aggression, should avoid employment such as being a police officer, and certain leadership positions where expressing dominance is important.


On second thought, maybe even the obsolete characteristics of humans should not be removed from the android (unless most other humans have already removed aspects of their personality they dislike through genetic engineering). If we remove the less desirable characteristics of humans from the android, the android would be less able to understand humans. That could be a problem.

I think it should be made as similar as possible to the average human, weaknesses and all.

Last edited by Clintone; 01-25-2014 at 06:35 AM..
 
Old 01-25-2014, 07:41 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,210 posts, read 18,624,767 times
Reputation: 18760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post

I think it should be made as similar as possible to the average human, weaknesses and all.
Very interesting response, I think your above conclusion would represent the most common position.

Would be be doing the above for the sake of the android or for our own sakes? That may be akin to asking if we would be afraid to create a life form better than ourselves, or asking if the familiar but flawed is superior to the improved but unknown.
 
Old 01-25-2014, 08:31 AM
 
7,814 posts, read 10,715,321 times
Reputation: 3443
Thread closed as it does not pertain to either atheism or agnosticism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top