Ok, because you are saying that will is a construct of the brain. You make it sound like a computer we can put input into and it will run an algorithm and spit out output. That's exactly what I believe it is. But you are suggesting that giving it the same input twice would produce different results, without that being a function of the computer. Or that if we installed the same software into multiple computers and gave them the same input multiple times, each computer would repeatedly make the same choice but would be different from the choices of the other computers. I'm saying the same input into the brain will always produce the same choice, but that input includes everything, every experience, every chance occurrance, everything. If two people were born with the same genes and experienced everything the exact same, exactly the same, they would make the exact same choices every time. That means that choice is dependent on input.
I know what you're saying. What you're ignoring is the algorithm by just assuming it's an unchanging constant. The will of humans is not built to process things through a logical algorithm in the manner of a computer. A computer's algorithm is typically built upon principle of complete information, much like a "lower" animal's instinct. Human will, however, is built upon a principle of incomplete information. In the confines of if/then logic, the human will would collapse into inaction, but the purpose of human will is the opposite - action. The will provides man the ability to make things other than the logical choice based on incomplete information, thereby making it much more flexible.
How do we form identity and morality that can't be programed into a computer?
You don't, most likely. I can't think of any identity or morality that can't be programmed. However, I can think of billions of identities and moralities that were formed completely independent of those computers.
Because I feel it is wrong to harm another, to discount their own emotions. I can't think of a need to harm another person that would outweigh the feelings of another besides self defense. Harmony and peace in this world are dependent of this.
No, this doesn't work. I could just say "because I feel it is right to harm another" and we'd be on equal footing. You need to go deeper than that. You need to understand why you feel this way and, more importantly, why you logically accept that feeling over the one you have from time to time telling you the opposite, namely anger and hate.
The birds and the bees, of course.
This is how you reproduce a human, not how you create them.
Why as opposed to the feelings of another human? Would these self aware computers not also object to being considered irrelevant and act out? Would it be ok to program humans to not have self defense as you could the computer? Wouldn't the computers feelings be just as real whether or not they acted out in self defense? So what you're basically saying is we program ourselves where as a machine is dependent upon outside programming?
All good questions, but it's getting ahead of where we are. You need to really dig into the concept above about your feeling regarding human interaction. Then we can flesh out the difference between a man with a will and a machine with the exact same will.
I know what you're saying. What you're ignoring is the algorithm by just assuming it's an unchanging constant. The will of humans is not built to process things through a logical algorithm in the manner of a computer. A computer's algorithm is typically built upon principle of complete information, much like a "lower" animal's instinct. Human will, however, is built upon a principle of incomplete information. In the confines of if/then logic, the human will would collapse into inaction, but the purpose of human will is the opposite - action. The will provides man the ability to make things other than the logical choice based on incomplete action, thereby making it much more flexible.
More flexible but still determined by input. Without stimuli without input, there is no reason for action. Why do we have it then? To process information. The algorithm, whatever it is, really doesn't matter to my point that it's the information that's important to the outcome.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Without stimuli without input, there is no reason for action. Why do we have it then? To process information. The algorithm, whatever it is, really doesn't matter to my point that it's the information that's important to the outcome.
The algorithm is your point. Your point is that the algorithm is rigid. Input is input, and cannot be a determinator of output without an algorithm (even in a computer). Only an algorithm can process that input, and the algorithm is either rigid or it is not.
You don't, most likely. I can't think of any identity or morality that can't be programmed. However, I can think of billions of identities and moralities that were formed completely independent of those computers.
No, this doesn't work. I could just say "because I feel it is right to harm another" and we'd be on equal footing. You need to go deeper than that. You need to understand why you feel this way and, more importantly, why you logically accept that feeling over the one you have from time to time telling you the opposite, namely anger and hate.
This is how you reproduce a human, not how you create them.
All good questions, but it's getting ahead of where we are. You need to really dig into the concept above about your feeling regarding human interaction. Then we can flesh out the difference between a man with a will and a machine with the exact same will.
The reason I could never harm another is because I wouldn't want to cause feelings such as fear, pain, anguish, despair to another person. No amount of hate or anger could make me want to cause that.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The reason I could never harm another is because I wouldn't want to cause feelings such as fear, pain, anguish, despair to another person. No amount of hate or anger could make me want to cause that.
Ok, I get that, and that's good. But we need to go further though, and I apologize for pushing this hard. It's very important, even outside of this "is it ok if I punch Data on Star Trek" discussion.
You say that you could never harm another because you wouldn't want to cause fear or pain or anguish or despair. I definitely agree. But why do we feel this way?
Hehe...no, I didn't miss that. They never really touched on how I could actually create humans, however. They only taught me how to reproduce them.
Hey, try passing one through any of your bodily orifaces and you'll take credit for the creation of it, I'm sure.
"re-produce"--doesn't that connote that it had been produced before? Are they teaching reincarnation in health class in those alternative schools you attended when growing up?
I've always seen myself as a creator, having given birth, among other things. I (with help) uniquely created two humans beings who did not exist prior to said creation!
Create:
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design
7. to do something creative or constructive.
(dictionary.com)
The definitions of reproduce seem to speak in a generic organism-ic sense rather than in the miraculous sense of creation. For example making a copy of something does not capture the magic of the creation involved in human conception-birth. And when I "reproduce", I don't just re-produce myself or my partner--a new vastly unique being comes into existence. And of course, I feel the creation stems far beyond my own individuality or that of my partner.
It doesn't surprise me that health class reduces it to "reproduce" though. It's kinda par for the science/logic-course, where we remove facts from the glorious miraculous fullness of life.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ok, I get that, and that's good. But we need to go further though, and I apologize for pushing this hard. It's very important, even outside of this "is it ok if I punch Data on Star Trek" discussion.
You say that you could never harm another because you wouldn't want to cause fear or pain or anguish or despair. I definitely agree. But why do we feel this way?
Is fear bad? Is anguish bad? Is despair bad?
Because we know how they feel even without experiencing them directly. We sense it. We can imagine what they must be feeling and when doing so we can feel it ourselves.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Because we know how they feel even without experiencing them directly. We sense it. We can imagine what they must be feeling and when doing so we can feel it ourselves.
YES!!! Now we're really getting somewhere. We've arrived at a very important juncture. We understand that fear and anguish and despair are bad in other people because we experience these things ourselves. We're very much aware of our own internal workings and project those workings on others like us. This is the first departure we make from machines in the context of morality, but it is only a small departure, particularly considering we built these things in our likeness and would therefore have a pretty good idea what they're going through.
Now, undestanding that those things (pain and fear and despair, etc) are bad from our own experience invites an interesting question:
If the avoidance of pain and fear and despair is morally good, is a situation wherein I can cause the utmost pain for other humans in order to ensure that I never experience these things the morally correct thing to do? Why or why not?
YES!!! Now we're really getting somewhere. We've arrived at a very important juncture. We understand that fear and anguish and despair are bad in other people because we experience these things ourselves. We're very much aware of our own internal workings and project those workings on others like us. This is the first departure we make from machines in the context of morality, but it is only a small departure, particularly considering we built these things in our likeness and would therefore have a pretty good idea what they're going through.
Now, undestanding that those things (pain and fear and despair, etc) are bad from our own experience invites an interesting question:
If the avoidance of pain and fear and despair is morally good, is a situation wherein I can cause the utmost pain for other humans in order to ensure that I never experience these things the morally correct thing to do? Why or why not?
That's where peace and harmony come in both inside and out. That would be living like a coward, making decisions based on fear and insecurity. I don't think I should put myself above others out of fear. That would put me against myself.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hey, try passing one through any of your bodily orifaces and you'll take credit for the creation of it, I'm sure.
It doesn't surprise me that health class reduces it to "reproduce" though. It's kinda par for the science/logic-course, where we remove facts from the glorious miraculous fullness of life.
No offense intended, but the only one denying the "glorious miraculous fullness of life" is the one who's pretending to be responsible for inventing it, just because she happened to push a copy of it out of a bodily oriface
No offense intended, but the only one denying the "glorious miraculous fullness of life" is the one who's pretending to be responsible for inventing it, just because she happened to push a copy of it out of a bodily oriface
With that logic, the same goes for if you create a fictional story, or a business. Or an invention--credit goes to the miraculousness of life, then. I'll have to keep track of this post for the next socialist thread that arises and wherein you support an individual getting credit (including extra financial compensation) for any of the above, and being paid in a way that reflects their potency in terms of creating something unique. As a matter of fact, there's a thread out there right now.....
Oh, and no offense taken.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
That's where peace and harmony come in both inside and out. That would be living like a coward, making decisions based on fear and insecurity. I don't think I should put myself above others out of fear. That would put me against myself.
Bingo. But we need to expand this out a bit to confirm your "living like a coward" logic.
If I'm handed a genie's lamp and I wish for a life free to pain and despair and the genie pops out and says "sure, but I'm going to have to cause pain and despair in everyone else to make it happen", am I still morally wrong? That decision is arguably not made on "fear and insecurity", but is still morally wrong. Why?
With that logic, the same goes for if you create a fictional story, or a business. Or an invention--credit goes to the miraculousness of life, then. I'll have to keep track of this post for the next socialist thread that arises and wherein you support an individual getting credit (including extra financial compensation) for any of the above, and being paid in a way that reflects their potency in terms of creating something unique. As a matter of fact, there's a thread out there right now.....
Oh, and no offense taken.
Hehe, it is and isn't different, depending on what you mean. If, by starting a business, I claim that I "created business", it's pretty much as silly. Or, if I write a novel and claim that I "created novels", it's pretty much as silly.
However, if I invent a brand new art form, largely separate from all others, I may take credit for inventing that brand new art form (though I certainly cannot take credit for inventing art itself).
Creativity is a measure of difference. When it comes to creating a human life, you're much closer to reproducing than to creating. Something else deserves credit for creating it. Can you name it?
Hehe, it is and isn't different, depending on what you mean. If, by starting a business, I claim that I "created business", it's pretty much as silly. Or, if I write a novel and claim that I "created novels", it's pretty much as silly.
However, if I invent a brand new art form, largely separate from all others, I may take credit for inventing that brand new art form (though I certainly cannot take credit for inventing art itself).
Creativity is a measure of difference. When it comes to creating a human life, you're much closer to reproducing than to creating. Something else deserves credit for creating it. Can you name it?
If you check back, you'll see the part where I said "And when I "reproduce", I don't just re-produce myself or my partner--a new vastly unique being comes into existence. And of course, I feel the creation stems far beyond my own individuality or that of my partner."
I don't say I created "children" but that I created my own children (again, with the gracious help, support and even Divine design of nature). Just like I think you consider that you have created your own businesses (where applicable) or your own writing (where applicable). Aren't you the guy who feels that the creator of the business deserves financial compensation that rewards such "creation"?
(Hopefully El Kabong is referencing these posts for those up and coming tax/socialism debates.)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If I'm handed a genie's lamp and I wish for a life free to pain and despair and the genie pops out and says "sure, but I'm going to have to cause pain and despair in everyone else to make it happen", am I still morally wrong? That decision is arguably not made on "fear and insecurity", but is still morally wrong. Why?
The decision is still based on the fear of pain and despair. Why else would you wish them away? You would choose to avoid these by placing them on everyone else. You would have to live with the terms you accepted, putting you against yourself.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
(Consider the context of this discussion -- man wholly creating self-aware machines.)
Is there not a difference here? Man did not invent man. Nature did. We participate in the process by reproducing ourselves into, as you say, unique beings, but we do so by Nature's rules for such creations, not our own. Even when we do things like IVF and cloning, we're still doing this consistent with Nature's rules, not inventing new ones. This is going to bring us to a very important moral difference between dealing with men and dealing with machines, but requires we get to moral reciprocity first. Can you hold tight for a second?
The decision is still based on the fear of pain and despair. Why else would you wish them away? You would choose to avoid these by placing them on everyone else. You would have to live with the terms you accepted, putting you against yourself.
YES!!! That last part....beautifully said. I'm going to repeat it:
"You would have to live with the terms you accepted, putting you against yourself"
In essence, the decision to make that wish at the genie's lamp is to accept the very pain and despair you're in effect wishing on everyone else. That's the second foundation of morality after self-awareness -- reciprocity.
Angelica, abook, hold on -- I'm going to merge these two threads together.
Again, it is certainly possible that a machine could be built to be self-aware. Furthermore, it is certainly possible that a machine could have the logical capability of understanding reciprocity, which in turn would make them moral beings. Therefore, human interaction with those machines will have ethical implications. However, I need to ask a question before we get to the details of those things:
Imagine for a moment that you live on a nice island with a lot of food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all the wonderful things you need for happiness and contentment. Now, imagine that a giant tsunami hits your island and sweeps you away to a new island, one that is desolate and bare. You are suddenly alone, your body broken, your food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all gone without any hope of retrieving them.
Again, it is certainly possible that a machine could be built to be self-aware. Furthermore, it is certainly possible that a machine could have the logical capability of understanding reciprocity, which in turn would make them moral beings. Therefore, human interaction with those machines will have ethical implications. However, I need to ask a question before we get to the details of those things:
Imagine for a moment that you live on a nice island with a lot of food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all the wonderful things you need for happiness and contentment. Now, imagine that a giant tsunami hits your island and sweeps you away to a new island, one that is desolate and bare. You are suddenly alone, your body broken, your food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all gone without any hope of retrieving them.
Now, would you feel pain? Would you feel despair?
Of course.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Now I completely agree with you (maybe minus that whole Divine part, but whatever). Note the original post:
(Consider the context of this discussion -- man wholly creating self-aware machines.)
Is there not a difference here? Man did not invent man. Nature did. We participate in the process by reproducing ourselves into, as you say, unique beings, but we do so by Nature's rules for such creations, not our own. Even when we do things like IVF and cloning, we're still doing this consistent with Nature's rules, not inventing new ones. This is going to bring us to a very important moral difference between dealing with men and dealing with machines, but requires we get to moral reciprocity first. Can you hold tight for a second?
I see what you are saying. At the same time, I point again to the applicable dictionary definitions. Due to my choices I gave rise to the creation of humans. They were constructed where they otherwise would not have been, due to my will (and a lot of Divine happenstance, including nature). Had I not created these children when and how I did, they would not otherwise exist! I'm super aware that all of my processes come from forces far beyond myself. I am the channel. I still see my will as being crucial in my having specifically created (again, with help) these beings. There is a reason that I am a crucial part of the miracle of life, and in such creation. My will and choices are a stunningly miraculous part of life, too. I'm not just an egotist trying to hoard credit here! I clearly differentiate between generic reproduction (which is a stunning concept, itself) and the creation of my specific 100%, undeniably unique, individual children including the unique circumstances of their mind-boggling creation.
I look forward to weaving this in with the creation of emotional machines.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I see what you are saying. At the same time, I point again to the applicable dictionary definitions. Due to my choices I gave rise to the creation of humans. They were constructed where they otherwise would not have been, due to my will (and a lot of Divine happenstance, including nature). Had I not created these children when and how I did, they would not otherwise exist! I'm super aware that all of my processes come from forces far beyond myself. I am the channel. I still see my will as being crucial in my having specifically created (again, with help) these beings. There is a reason that I am a crucial part of the miracle of life, and in such creation. My will and choices are a stunningly miraculous part of life, too. I'm not just an egotist trying to hoard credit here! I clearly differentiate between generic reproduction (which is a stunning concept, itself) and the creation of my specific 100%, undeniably unique, individual children including the unique circumstances of their mind-boggling creation.
I look forward to weaving this in with the creation of emotional machines.
Angelica, I'm certainly not trying to minimize your contributions to creating your children, particularly what they became after being conceived! I've been hurriedly trying to address a very complicated issue and certainly didn't mean to imply that you (or any parent) is just some innocent bystander in the creation of life. They certainly are not.
Comments
I know what you're saying. What you're ignoring is the algorithm by just assuming it's an unchanging constant. The will of humans is not built to process things through a logical algorithm in the manner of a computer. A computer's algorithm is typically built upon principle of complete information, much like a "lower" animal's instinct. Human will, however, is built upon a principle of incomplete information. In the confines of if/then logic, the human will would collapse into inaction, but the purpose of human will is the opposite - action. The will provides man the ability to make things other than the logical choice based on incomplete information, thereby making it much more flexible.
You don't, most likely. I can't think of any identity or morality that can't be programmed. However, I can think of billions of identities and moralities that were formed completely independent of those computers.
No, this doesn't work. I could just say "because I feel it is right to harm another" and we'd be on equal footing. You need to go deeper than that. You need to understand why you feel this way and, more importantly, why you logically accept that feeling over the one you have from time to time telling you the opposite, namely anger and hate.
This is how you reproduce a human, not how you create them.
All good questions, but it's getting ahead of where we are. You need to really dig into the concept above about your feeling regarding human interaction. Then we can flesh out the difference between a man with a will and a machine with the exact same will.
More flexible but still determined by input. Without stimuli without input, there is no reason for action. Why do we have it then? To process information. The algorithm, whatever it is, really doesn't matter to my point that it's the information that's important to the outcome.
No. That would make it equally flexible.
The algorithm is your point. Your point is that the algorithm is rigid. Input is input, and cannot be a determinator of output without an algorithm (even in a computer). Only an algorithm can process that input, and the algorithm is either rigid or it is not.
The reason I could never harm another is because I wouldn't want to cause feelings such as fear, pain, anguish, despair to another person. No amount of hate or anger could make me want to cause that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ok, I get that, and that's good. But we need to go further though, and I apologize for pushing this hard. It's very important, even outside of this "is it ok if I punch Data on Star Trek" discussion.
You say that you could never harm another because you wouldn't want to cause fear or pain or anguish or despair. I definitely agree. But why do we feel this way?
Is fear bad? Is anguish bad? Is despair bad?
"re-produce"--doesn't that connote that it had been produced before? Are they teaching reincarnation in health class in those alternative schools you attended when growing up?
I've always seen myself as a creator, having given birth, among other things. I (with help) uniquely created two humans beings who did not exist prior to said creation!
Create:
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to
6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design
7. to do something creative or constructive.
(dictionary.com)
The definitions of reproduce seem to speak in a generic organism-ic sense rather than in the miraculous sense of creation. For example making a copy of something does not capture the magic of the creation involved in human conception-birth. And when I "reproduce", I don't just re-produce myself or my partner--a new vastly unique being comes into existence. And of course, I feel the creation stems far beyond my own individuality or that of my partner.
It doesn't surprise me that health class reduces it to "reproduce" though. It's kinda par for the science/logic-course, where we remove facts from the glorious miraculous fullness of life.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Because we know how they feel even without experiencing them directly. We sense it. We can imagine what they must be feeling and when doing so we can feel it ourselves.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
YES!!! Now we're really getting somewhere. We've arrived at a very important juncture. We understand that fear and anguish and despair are bad in other people because we experience these things ourselves. We're very much aware of our own internal workings and project those workings on others like us. This is the first departure we make from machines in the context of morality, but it is only a small departure, particularly considering we built these things in our likeness and would therefore have a pretty good idea what they're going through.
Now, undestanding that those things (pain and fear and despair, etc) are bad from our own experience invites an interesting question:
If the avoidance of pain and fear and despair is morally good, is a situation wherein I can cause the utmost pain for other humans in order to ensure that I never experience these things the morally correct thing to do? Why or why not?
That's where peace and harmony come in both inside and out. That would be living like a coward, making decisions based on fear and insecurity. I don't think I should put myself above others out of fear. That would put me against myself.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No offense intended, but the only one denying the "glorious miraculous fullness of life" is the one who's pretending to be responsible for inventing it, just because she happened to push a copy of it out of a bodily oriface
Oh, and no offense taken.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Bingo. But we need to expand this out a bit to confirm your "living like a coward" logic.
If I'm handed a genie's lamp and I wish for a life free to pain and despair and the genie pops out and says "sure, but I'm going to have to cause pain and despair in everyone else to make it happen", am I still morally wrong? That decision is arguably not made on "fear and insecurity", but is still morally wrong. Why?
Hehe, it is and isn't different, depending on what you mean. If, by starting a business, I claim that I "created business", it's pretty much as silly. Or, if I write a novel and claim that I "created novels", it's pretty much as silly.
However, if I invent a brand new art form, largely separate from all others, I may take credit for inventing that brand new art form (though I certainly cannot take credit for inventing art itself).
Creativity is a measure of difference. When it comes to creating a human life, you're much closer to reproducing than to creating. Something else deserves credit for creating it. Can you name it?
If you check back, you'll see the part where I said "And when I "reproduce", I don't just re-produce myself or my partner--a new vastly unique being comes into existence. And of course, I feel the creation stems far beyond my own individuality or that of my partner."
I don't say I created "children" but that I created my own children (again, with the gracious help, support and even Divine design of nature). Just like I think you consider that you have created your own businesses (where applicable) or your own writing (where applicable). Aren't you the guy who feels that the creator of the business deserves financial compensation that rewards such "creation"?
(Hopefully El Kabong is referencing these posts for those up and coming tax/socialism debates.)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
To put one's self preservation above all else.
The decision is still based on the fear of pain and despair. Why else would you wish them away? You would choose to avoid these by placing them on everyone else. You would have to live with the terms you accepted, putting you against yourself.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Now I completely agree with you (maybe minus that whole Divine part, but whatever). Note the original post:
(Consider the context of this discussion -- man wholly creating self-aware machines.)
Is there not a difference here? Man did not invent man. Nature did. We participate in the process by reproducing ourselves into, as you say, unique beings, but we do so by Nature's rules for such creations, not our own. Even when we do things like IVF and cloning, we're still doing this consistent with Nature's rules, not inventing new ones. This is going to bring us to a very important moral difference between dealing with men and dealing with machines, but requires we get to moral reciprocity first. Can you hold tight for a second?
YES!!! That last part....beautifully said. I'm going to repeat it:
"You would have to live with the terms you accepted, putting you against yourself"
In essence, the decision to make that wish at the genie's lamp is to accept the very pain and despair you're in effect wishing on everyone else. That's the second foundation of morality after self-awareness -- reciprocity.
Angelica, abook, hold on -- I'm going to merge these two threads together.
Imagine for a moment that you live on a nice island with a lot of food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all the wonderful things you need for happiness and contentment. Now, imagine that a giant tsunami hits your island and sweeps you away to a new island, one that is desolate and bare. You are suddenly alone, your body broken, your food and shelter and clothing and friends and family all gone without any hope of retrieving them.
Now, would you feel pain? Would you feel despair?
Of course.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, of course. Now, does that make whatever caused that tsunami immoral? Why or why not?
I look forward to weaving this in with the creation of emotional machines.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, nature doesn't conduct itself by moral codes. It is without morals, not going against it's own morals.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Why?
Because nature doesn't feel. It's a force that creates.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Are you sure?
Yes. And, in this context, so are we.
Nature is brutal dude.
:rolleyes: indeed.
To us, yes.
I haven't seen any signs pointing out any different but I never rule things completely out.
But I know that we do have feelings and morals.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Angelica, I'm certainly not trying to minimize your contributions to creating your children, particularly what they became after being conceived! I've been hurriedly trying to address a very complicated issue and certainly didn't mean to imply that you (or any parent) is just some innocent bystander in the creation of life. They certainly are not.