Interesting analogy by Taleb (1 Viewer)

[rounder]

What then?



Proving that a mind exist is not the same as proving that a memory exists.



Sure it is, you're lying to him. And even if you say he'll never find out there's always a chance he will, and then he'll be hurt. On the other hand, if it turns out he's not hurt, then it wasn't unethical.



Sure it can. If my responses to this woman are the same as they are to some other beautiful woman, then that's all the proof you need.

Well, then we can't prove that a memory exists while we do knpw that a memory exists.

Imagine he never does find out. He lives and dies without ever knowing, does this deem the brother's action ethical since his brother was not hurt? No. It is still unethical because lying in itself is unethical regardless of whether the other party is hurt by it or not.

Very well. Scratch the whole beautiful woman theory out. Can you explain that an artist's drawing is beautiful? Don't tell me drawings make you breathe heavilly too.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Bjerknes]

They can't be proven literally.

So 1+1 does not equal 2?

The limit of n/1 as n approaches zero is not zero?

How does that work?

 

[Martin]

Well, then we can't prove that a memory exists while we do knpw that a memory exists.

So how do you know that it exists then? If you ask her if she remembers, and she tells you, then that's empirical proof and voila you have proof.

Imagine he never does find out. He lives and dies without ever knowing, does this deem the brother's action ethical since his brother was not hurt? No. It is still unethical because lying in itself is unethical regardless of whether the other party is hurt by it or not.

No, it's not. Lying as a general rule is hurtful and therefore unethical. But that doesn't mean it is wrong in every single case. You can just as well make a deal with your best friend never to tell the truth, because life is more exciting that way, and there's nothing unethical in that.

You can also analyze lying more deeply. Say you lie to your brother and he never knows. But you know, and it bothers you. And as a result you feel uncomfortable being around him, you start to avoid him. He doesn't know why, but he's hurt. Indirectly, because you lied.

Or further still, say you tell a lie and as a result you torment yourself for it, because you think your brother would be hurt if he were to find out, even though he never will. I suppose a case could be made along the lines of suicide that inflicting suffering on yourself is in some sense unethical, but I wouldn't go there. I'd stick with the way it affects others.

Very well. Scratch the whole beautiful woman theory out. Can you explain that an artist's drawing is beautiful? Don't tell me drawings make you breathe heavilly too.

Again, brain scans might tell us something. Or they might not. Brain scans are actually quite crude, and there may be more accurate methods to examine the brain in coming years. So for the present, I would say no, but not as something that we'll never be able to know.

 

[rounder]

So 1+1 does not equal 2?

The limit of n/1 as n approaches zero is not zero?

How does that work?

To be perfectly honest, I don't quite understand what he means in his 1st statement. I assumed it would mean that certain mathematical theorems could only stand as theories but could never be applied physically so to speak means that they could not have been proven. I can see the sense in that if he were talking about physics but certainly not about maths.

 

[rounder]

So how do you know that it exists then? If you ask her if she remembers, and she tells you, then that's empirical proof and voila you have proof.

No, it's not. Lying as a general rule is hurtful and therefore unethical. But that doesn't mean it is wrong in every single case. You can just as well make a deal with your best friend never to tell the truth, because life is more exciting that way, and there's nothing unethical in that.

You can also analyze lying more deeply. Say you lie to your brother and he never knows. But you know, and it bothers you. And as a result you feel uncomfortable being around him, you start to avoid him. He doesn't know why, but he's hurt. Indirectly, because you lied.

Or further still, say you tell a lie and as a result you torment yourself for it, because you think your brother would be hurt if he were to find out, even though he never will. I suppose a case could be made along the lines of suicide that inflicting suffering on yourself is in some sense unethical, but I wouldn't go there. I'd stick with the way it affects others.

Again, brain scans might tell us something. Or they might not. Brain scans are actually quite crude, and there may be more accurate methods to examine the brain in coming years. So for the present, I would say no, but not as something that we'll never be able to know.

Imagine she passes away but you know for sure that she would always remember that first kiss yet you will never be able to prove it.

Okay, imagine after you tell the lie, you never see your brother again. He dies in a car accident or something. You will always carry the burden of lying to him, you simply know it was unethical despite the fact that he never received any pain whatsoever from it, that's what a conscience is.

We don't know what the future holds therefore our conclusions can be based soley on the present. Maybe someday we will be able to prove it, but we can't now so the argument stands.

 

[Martin]

I have another example for you. If you're watching the game with a friend, and Inter wins 5-0, and your friend becomes so crazy over this that he wants to kill some Inter fans, and he knows you have a gun in the house, and he asks you for it, and you really believe he's going to go out killing, is it wrong to lie to him?

 

[rounder]

Obviously not. But you don't have to lie to him. You can stop him by reasoning with him, explaining to him that it is just a game, making him understand the legal consequences etc..

I know where you're getting at. You are trying to make it seem that there is not absolute right or wrong but this is simply not true. I think it's a universal quality with all human beings that we posess a sense of absolute right and absolute wrong. Let me give an example.

Sacrficing people was not wrong in the Aztec civilization, yet we now know that it is simply wrong. This means there is an absolute truth, we know killing is bad. If you were walking down the street and a complete stranger asked for your help, you would help him because you know it is the right thing to do.

 

[Martin]

Imagine she passes away but you know for sure that she would always remember that first kiss yet you will never be able to prove it.

If I do believe that, then I know that this memory is somewhere in her brain, even if I don't know how to locate it. But then if I drop a coin in a desert, I probably can't find it either. The problem is I don't have an efficient way of searching for it. But my reason for thinking it's there is very solid. I dropped the coin, it has to be there, unless someone took it (seems unlikely). And this girl I'm sure will have this memory, based on what I know of people and the things they tend to remember. And because she did still remember it just recently, so I doubt she'd forgotten. Again, I have plenty of empirical observations to back up my belief here.

Okay, imagine after you tell the lie, you never see your brother again. He dies in a car accident or something. You will always carry the burden of lying to him, you simply know it was unethical despite the fact that he never received any pain whatsoever from it, that's what a conscience is.

True, but that is our conditioned response. We emotionally feel that lying is wrong, because it almost always is. And the consequences are often serious, damaged relationships, broken trust etc. And you feel guilty even after your brother is dead. But again, no harm came to him as a result of the lie, so there was nothing wrong with that particular lie. As opposed to all the other lies you told that did hurt him, which are now triggering this sadness in you.

We don't know what the future holds therefore our conclusions can be based soley on the present. Maybe someday we will be able to prove it, but we can't now so the argument stands.

No, because the whole argument is trying to equate religious faith with other kinds of faith. And while religion explicitly says that you can never prove god or eternal life or anything religious, you can prove a lot other beliefs we have. And art/beauty is on the list of things we may be able to prove also. There is absolutely no reason to think that we'll never be able to. Who says?

 

[rounder]

If I do believe that, then I know that this memory is somewhere in her brain, even if I don't know how to locate it. But then if I drop a coin in a desert, I probably can't find it either. The problem is I don't have an efficient way of searching for it. But my reason for thinking it's there is very solid. I dropped the coin, it has to be there, unless someone took it (seems unlikely). And this girl I'm sure will have this memory, based on what I know of people and the things they tend to remember. And because she did still remember it just recently, so I doubt she'd forgotten. Again, I have plenty of empirical observations to back up my belief here.



True, but that is our conditioned response. We emotionally feel that lying is wrong, because it almost always is. And the consequences are often serious, damaged relationships, broken trust etc. And you feel guilty even after your brother is dead. But again, no harm came to him as a result of the lie, so there was nothing wrong with that particular lie. As opposed to all the other lies you told that did hurt him, which are now triggering this sadness in you.



No, because the whole argument is trying to equate religious faith with other kinds of faith. And while religion explicitly says that you can never prove god or eternal life or anything religious, you can prove a lot other beliefs we have. And art/beauty is on the list of things we may be able to prove also. There is absolutely no reason to think that we'll never be able to. Who says?

Again, you cannot prove it. You are merely assuming.

We do know lying is wrong, not because of the memories it triggers but because we know it is morally wrong. You may have not lied to your brother your entire life, or even lied to anyone for that matter. You still would feel very bad about lying to him. You never told a lie, you never hurt anyone with your lies, hell, you never even knew what a lie was yet you still would feel bad because you know deep inside that what you did was wrong. Hence the Moral Law.

We may be able to prove it soon, but we cannot now. Therefore we cannot. It is useless to hypothesize of what may potentially be in this case. We can only take into account what currently exists. And currently, we have no evidence to siggest why we might think something is beautiful.

 

[Martin]

Obviously not. But you don't have to lie to him. You can stop him by reasoning with him, explaining to him that it is just a game, making him understand the legal consequences etc..

I know where you're getting at. You are trying to make it seem that there is not absolute right or wrong but this is simply not true. I think it's a universal quality with all human beings that we posess a sense of absolute right and absolute wrong. Let me give an example.

Sacrficing people was not wrong in the Aztec civilization, yet we now know that it is simply wrong. This means there is an absolute truth, we know killing is bad. If you were walking down the street and a complete stranger asked for your help, you would help him because you know it is the right thing to do.

I see, so the Aztecs had human sacrifices and the colonists had slaves and all through history various people did unethical things, until today when we who are lawful human beings just happen to do everything that is ethical, right? Just like that?

I'm afraid you're looking at history with 2008 glasses on. If you asked the Aztecs if they thought human sacrifice was wrong, I think they'd have a different answer for you.

Ethics is an evolving standard. A few centuries back we discriminated against people based on skin color. Then we gave women the right to vote. And now homosexual couples have equal rights in many countries. This latest development is an ethical imperative to many people today, people my age. And yet 50 years ago noone cared about the rights of homosexuals. Why is that then? People were just bad? No, the standard is rising. The more we try to improve our society the more we are able to appreciate the suffering of people who thus far haven't been treated fairly.

 

[Martin]

Again, you cannot prove it. You are merely assuming.

I have enough empirical evidence to be confident about it. Just like the 1001st experiment.

We do know lying is wrong, not because of the memories it triggers but because we know it is morally wrong. You may have not lied to your brother your entire life, or even lied to anyone for that matter. You still would feel very bad about lying to him. You never told a lie, you never hurt anyone with your lies, hell, you never even knew what a lie was yet you still would feel bad because you know deep inside that what you did was wrong. Hence the Moral Law.

If we take this as a premise, then it can be explained in terms of evolution. Even if you have never told a lie, you know innately that lying is wrong, because generations upon generations of your ancestors have codified this fact to you via DNA. Again, it might be hard to show it in a picture, but it doesn't make it a mystery where it came from.

We may be able to prove it soon, but we cannot now. Therefore we cannot. It is useless to hypothesize of what may potentially be in this case. We can only take into account what currently exists. And currently, we have no evidence to siggest why we might think something is beautiful.

And?

 

[rounder]

I see, so the Aztecs had human sacrifices and the colonists had slaves and all through history various people did unethical things, until today when we who are lawful human beings just happen to do everything that is ethical, right? Just like that?

I'm afraid you're looking at history with 2008 glasses on. If you asked the Aztecs if they thought human sacrifice was wrong, I think they'd have a different answer for you.

Ethics is an evolving standard. A few centuries back we discriminated against people based on skin color. Then we gave women the right to vote. And now homosexual couples have equal rights in many countries. This latest development is an ethical imperative to many people today, people my age. And yet 50 years ago noone cared about the rights of homosexuals. Why is that then? People were just bad? No, the standard is rising. The more we try to improve our society the more we are able to appreciate the suffering of people who thus far haven't been treated fairly.

When the Aztecs thought sacrificing people was okay, Jews condemned these actions back then.

I disagree. Ethics is not an evolving standard. While in America black people were discriminated against, in many ither regions in the world, they were not. The same applies to homosexual rights. No standard is rising, man has always had moral values since the beggining if time. Some cultures ignored these values while others didn't. The point is, they aren't just values that develop with time to increase the quality of our society. They were values that were always held by man, only now they are more universal because of the media etc...

In Saudi Arabia, women are still denied any women rights. they are not allowed to obtain a driver's license for example. An example of how ethics vary by cultures, not time.

 

[rounder]

I have enough empirical evidence to be confident about it. Just like the 1001st experiment.



If we take this as a premise, then it can be explained in terms of evolution. Even if you have never told a lie, you know innately that lying is wrong, because generations upon generations of your ancestors have codified this fact to you via DNA. Again, it might be hard to show it in a picture, but it doesn't make it a mystery where it came from.



And?

You can be as confident about as you like. You still cannot prove it.

I agree, it was part of evolution. The Moral Law was passed from generation to generation. The ability to distinguish right from wrong is based upon pure impulse, this suggests dive intervention. There is a Moral Law that we follow, something we go by to determine what is right and wrong. It is of our very nature. I am very tired right now and I will support this argument strongly some other time. Right now, I need to hit the sack because it's 5 a.m over here.

Good night, or morning.

 

[Nenz]

I wouldn't bother with this Juve Rev. They've all lost the plot son. Prove them wrong 1000 times they won't concede. In fact one of them likes to personally insult you as his last resort.

 

[Bjerknes]

I wouldn't bother with this Juve Rev. They've all lost the plot son. Prove them wrong 1000 times they won't concede. In fact one of them likes to personally insult you as his last resort.

 

[Nenz]

don't bother. you're being ignored.

 

[Ahmed]

I wouldn't bother with this Juve Rev. They've all lost the plot son. Prove them wrong 1000 times they won't concede. In fact one of them likes to personally insult you as his last resort.

if you had just checked out the video he posted, you would see that is was an extremely far-fetched argument in the 1st place

 

[Bjerknes]

don't bother. you're being ignored.

You don't even have a grasp of simple economic concepts.

No wonder why you don't even follow this stocks argument.

Sheep like you need to learn from me.

But what do you care, you're going to hell anyway.

 

[Nenz]

I have a good enough grasp on economic concepts to know that the replacement of oil will not completely bring down the world economy.
You have no idea about international relations yet you seem to pose you know everything about that too. That WWIII prediction ..get real. You trying to make yourself look foolish? Know your history dude.

 

[Bjerknes]

I have a good enough grasp on economic concepts to know that the replacement of oil will not completely bring down the world economy.
You have no idea about international relations yet you seem to pose you know everything about that too. That WWIII prediction ..get real. You trying to make yourself look foolish? Know your history dude.

History?

History tells us wars are fought due to economic concerns, proven by the statements of people from Paul Wolfowitz to Adolf Hitler.

With a war RIGHT NOW being fought for oil, in Iraq, you must be one delusional human being to deny these facts.

But what do you care, you're going to hell anyway.