|
| Thread: The common purpose |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted October 12, 2009 01:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And, whatever Death might say, machines will never replace humans in all tasks.
I don't see the relevance, however, the point was that you could be in a virtual world, not that machines would replace you. (which "you" are you? the one who you think you feel, touch etc... virtual; or the REAL you which you are not even aware of?).
A virtual world would allow you to have complete control over everything without affecting others, should they not wish it. Like having your own private world 
May I ask though, why are you so sure? It's a bit premature to say such a thing. (if not too off topic)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
(which "you" are you? the one who you think you feel, touch etc... virtual; or the REAL you which you are not even aware of?).
I am aware of myself - the two are one and the same.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 06:49 AM |
|
|
Interesting thread OhforfSake...
Have you ever heard about Wicca? Do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm others is one of their key principles. A beautiful principle, but in our current society of individuals very hard to achieve.
Suppose you have a large maple tree in your yard, one that you have planted yourself. One neighbour could like the tree because it give a little shade, or like it because its magnificent autumn colours, or the squirrels that live in it. Another neighbour might dislike this tree because it casts a large shadow over his house, because he's afraid the tree might fall on his roof during a storm, or because he doesn't like having to clean up fallen leaves in his garden during the fall.
You see what doesn't hurt one person doesn't necessarily hurt anyone else. All 'sensitivities' considered in fact you wouldn't be able to move or do anything trying not to hurt some people. Personally I believe the key is in that balance, the thin line between what is generally accepted as okay, and what not. People with strong ethics 'feel' where this line is most of the time, others need laws to show them the way.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 08:30 AM |
|
Edited by ihor at 08:31, 12 Oct 2009.
|
If you say that the common purpose is something like "Do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm others" then I don't get the problem. Don't you have this principle now? All new constitutions and also criminal codes are based on this principle. It is a bit restated "Everything is allowed, if it is not banned".
Then we all can say we have this common purpose, and what the question is about?
____________
Your advertisement could be
here only for 100$ per day.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Human capital refers to the stock of skills and knowledge embodied in the ability to perform labor so as to produce economic value." - Wikipedia.
Thanks, I think I get it now.  (I only looked for the capital alone)
Quote:
machines will never replace humans in all tasks.
First of all, it's important to note what tasks are important, which needs to be for a system to work. Looking at the excellent list AntiPaladin made, it's clear we need stuff like food and medicine, etc.
This it the most fundamental part, if we can make this automatic, there's for example no need for an economical system, because there's no need for trade.
So having made what kind of tasks that should be automatic clear, let me ask you this, why shouldn't a machine be able to do so in stead of? Is it not a little much credit to give to the human brain?
A bit off topic:
I remember having a conversation like this earlier, where the hardest problem was that a machine, where its memory is defined through a list of actions to take given a given situation, would always be limited, thereby meaning if something goes wrong, and as infinite many things can go wrong, you can never have a machine doing such a job (as when it fails, everything falls apart, no matter how good you've programmed it).
This I however disagree with, first of all, there's always a finite amount of problems, if you group those problems, but that's not the point, the point is to make a circular backup system, which means for the system to fail, everything has to fail in a very short time span, which is very unlikely, especially if you let the system grow to a huge size. As the idea, I believe, would benefit everyone, and as our (and other) populations grow, the system will grow, and thereby will the safety as well.
Quote:
Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all unless it infringes to a great degree on the rights of others.
I agree, but in my opinion, life and pursuit are, though probably the most occuring ones, "only" an undergroup of liberty (or to say freedom), so basicly I think we're saying the same thing.
Quote:
A small and limited government so that it does not oppress us. I don't need a big brother government I am quite capable of taking care of myself, thank you very much.
I completely agree with you, the definition of government should be clear, so its limit is also clear, government is there to make certain we've the freedom to choose for ourself, not to say we've to do what's best for us.
All to much lately, it has been evolved into laws that isn't intended to extend our freedom, but decrease it in a "I know what's best for you" kind of way. Examples of these are that you must bike with a biking helm on, or that you've to have a seatbelt on, while driving a car. Certainly anyone with common senses would do so, but you should always have the freedom to decide by yourself, if you want to do be safe or not, as long as it isn't in danger of others.
The role of government is to give us the freedom, a freedom we can only achieve if we work together (through government), however with the role unclear, often politicians, who do nothing for a long period, until it's time for election, and then they go out and win a popularity contest, in stead of actually proposing change into what they believe in, and get this done.
Sadly I think it's because politics have become a way of living, so even when you're out of ideas, and even when you know you've done what you wanted, or realised your earlier mistakes, you still claim your position, because it's a way of life, in stead of being what it should be, a possibility to change our society into something better, and then let the next person with the next idea get through.
I'm all in for democracy, but I honestly think, we should be voting for ideas and not for people, and then the people behind the ideas can get to get it done, and when the idea they came up with, which got voted in, have been accomplished (in the time span they've), then someone else, with other ideas will take over their post.
Of course they should be taken care of while working for all os us (politicians have a very high wage, so high it may not need to be, it should not be because of the wage (failure of capitalism), but because of the change you want to make), but when done with their job, they should return to their earlier life, and let the ones with the new ideas that've got voted in, take over.
Who stands for ideas, and what they've done in the past, should always be secret/anonym, likewise who's doing the ideas, the only thing the people needs to know, is what the idea is, if the idea have been voted in or not, and finally how the progress is going (and if the idea goes through).
Certainly, you may say, this will only limit the government to an impractical state, where it's extremely hard to get anything through, but that's why we actually need a clearly defined, limited government in the first place, let the government be about extending freedom, let what this means be well defined (hospitals, transport, education, etc.), and through that, let anything revolving this, be something that's free to change into something better, like it's now, and maybe even easier, however I must claim the use of the scientific method in this way, we can't just change system as the wind blows, we've to have evidence of the change will most likely be beneficial, and I mean solid evidence.
An example of this, is in Denmark, where we changed our system most recently, and we also changed our grades, and made rules that 10% of the population studying automatic should have maximum grade, etc.
The problem with this, is that it's not a change in favor of education, it's a change in favor of letting danish people look good on the international market, to create economical growth, education is about learning something, not about a fancy title. Many other examples could also be mentioned as well.
Quote:
Limited government. Low taxes. Max freedom.
And hopefully in the future, where energy support is automatic, and fail-safe, we won't need taxes (or economic/trade) at all.
The government is our protector, but it must know what it should protect us against (oppression), otherwise it'll always fail.
Quote:
A virtual world would allow you to have complete control over everything without affecting others, should they not wish it. Like having your own private world
Yes exactly! Likewise it's important that this world opens up for the exact same possibilites, like any other "private property function" would, meaning possibility to invite people in, possibility to ban people form entering, etc.
Quote:
What about copyright?
What do you need copyright for, if there's no trade?
Of course you might like to get the credit, but then again, that's a bit emotional I think, and I don't have solutions for emotional problems, as for me it's much like this:
I really want to go left, but if I go left, I'm going to feel very bad, but if I stay here, and don't do what I want, I'm also going to feel bad.
I.e. to random for me to be able to solve.
Quote:
I said before. Unless we go into the virtual world (where you won't affect the outside world), exploitation (resources or land) will happen.
I agree private property have to go through an isolated virtual world, as every other type would be limiting the freedom of some, in favor of others. Though if ressources are infinite (or high enough for there always to be enough), I don't think it matters if someone uses more than others, for example, I don't care if some guy likes to buy fancy cars, etc. because I've no interest in such thing, and thereby I only use the ressource I need (in contrary to, say, uncle scrooge, who's harvesting ressources eventhough he doesn't need them).
If the ressources aren't unlimited though, then I agree there'd be a problem in that department as well (which is exactly the real world of today), but I do assume it's possible for us to reach this level, like described in the first post.
Quote:
I believe this, in a way, addresses the last point as well. For example, suppose there's a third person, who is not affected directly by the former two at all.
Anyone is of course free to take the side they want, but if their want (like in this example) becomes something that limits others, then it goes against the idea of a common purpose.
I think the hardest part will always be, to make people realise, that they can't decide what other people should be doing, but as we're all equal (in the way I define us being important, through consciousness), it has to be like that.
I may be misunderstanding you though.
Quote:
Personally I believe the key is in that balance, the thin line between what is generally accepted as okay, and what not.
Yes, I agree, that it's about creating a balance, a balance where everyone have equal freedom, which I still believe will be infinite in all directions except that you can't limit the freedom of others, given we make the necessary requirements possible. Finding these requirements is the hardest part, the second hardest probably get people to agree upon a common purpose as I suggested in the first place.
Quote:
Have you ever heard about Wicca? Do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm others is one of their key principles. A beautiful principle, but in our current society of individuals very hard to achieve.
I didn't know about the site, and if harm is defined as I do, I can of course only agree, though most of it (if not all?) seems to be written in dutch, I'll check it out.
About your example, I think it's clear that as the shadow casts into the neighbours garden, it's clearly an "attack" of private property. With the solution suggested in this thread, it'd not be possible for such an event, though of course, as it is now, it should always be able to talk between neighbours and decide if the shadow may stay or not.
It doesn't mean the three needs to be cut completely down though, it does however mean that it has a maximum height.
Something else interesting, and maybe a bit more paradoxial, is the case of a fence, a fence can make you invisible for your neighbour, which you've all rights to be, but on the same time, likewise cast a shadow into the garden of the neighbour, and thereby limiting the neighbours freedom to maybe plant some tullips in that area, because they wouldn't get enough light.
This is a case where I think the guy with the fence would win, as lons as it isn't unreasonably tall, but again, to make it optimal, you really need to make certain situations like this can't arise, otherwise you'd always have someone with a limited freedom due to the freedom of others, which this thread is all about to prevent (and also to try to get to a state, where people actually agree upon a common purpose in the form suggested, with some possible twists, that I may not have though about, of course).
Secondly about this:
Quote:
All 'sensitivities' considered
I think it's important that we realise, that we should aim for physical freedom, as "psychic freedom", such as sensitivities to others eating something you find gross, etc. is something that's based upon irrational behaviour, of course you should always be able to do this irrational behaviour, but not limit others due to it.
An example from the real world, if I go out late at night, in the weekend, I often see drunk people going around in a large group, as they're in a group, and they're drunk, they both have the courage and the stupidity to do stuff they normally wouldn't do, like yelling at someone (like yelling to someone across the street that they're ugly or something).
My point is, as long as it isn't a physical attack, then it doesn't really matter for me, of course I should have the freedom to choose if I want to hear them or not (which as it is now, they can only limit by physically restraining me), as these people are neither someone I know, nor someone I actually care about, so I'll most likely not even consider what they're saying.
On the other hand, you'll see some very sensitive people, getting emotionally depressed, believing it's true, etc. and this kind of sensitivity is something we've to get rid out, through self-development and not through limiting others possibility to speak.
Here's an example from a comic (warning if you don't like nudity, don't look at other pages):
As you can see, this person is overly sensitive in the case she believes someone she doesn't even know, or have any kind of relation to, over her current boyfriend.
It's important people understand that first of all, statements need to be made likely, before you believe them, secondly statements that involves someone you care about, should only come from those you care about, remember you care about them, that means what others may think doesn't matter, and nor what they do.
And finally about this:
Quote:
People with strong ethics 'feel' where this line is most of the time, others need laws to show them the way.
I think that's giving way to much credit, because it's important to already have clear definition so you always can make the right decision, having these definition is no different than having laws, except with laws, I believe the idea is, you tell people your stand point, convince them it's true via argumentation, and we all agree upon them, and make a law that it should be like this, so if anyone ever wants to do something, that limits others, they'll be prevented.
Quote:
If you say that the common purpose is something like "Do whatever you like, as long as you don't harm others" then I don't get the problem. Don't you have this principle now? All new constitutions and also criminal codes are based on this principle. It is a bit restated "Everything is allowed, if it is not banned".
Then we all can say we have this common purpose, and what the question is about?
I'm glad that you agree, though there's something specific to mention:
First of, harm is defined directly in the other posts, that definition is important, secondly do whatever you want as long as it's not banned, as nothing to do with this, as any set of rules will most likely not be equal.
Finally, it may be true it's like this most places, that'd indeed be very good in my opinion, but it's important that the individual understands that we should try to achieve this society, where the wants of everyone is possible, and only limited through not being able to limit the freedom of others. Where freedom is basicly defined again as you can do what you want, as long as you don't limit the freedom of others (it's quite circular it seems ).
Having a system where what I suggest is possible, is what I believe to be the ultimate system, because everyone would have what they want (except control of others), and as everyone is equal (defined through being consciously aware) I think it's also the optimal possible balance you can achieve.
Finally, it may in principle be like this most place already, but many places you still see stuff like religion (i.e. ideas that cannot ever be made likely to be true, nor ever disproved, yet accepted as the truth), big brother ideas (making laws that isn't about your freedom, but about your security, no matter if you want it or not (don't get me wrong, of course society should protect us, as life is something most of us want, and to have life, we need security against whatever may go against life, but I'm talking about laws like, you may not drink beer, beause it's unhealthy, where's a law that states you may not smoke in publicity is mostly positive (as most people don't consider wind when they smoke in my experience, and refuse to put it out, when they are troubling you with their smoke, eventhough you were there first, etc.))), and what there else may be (closed boarders is also a good example).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Looking at the excellent list AntiPaladin made, it's clear we need stuff like food and medicine, etc.
This it the most fundamental part, if we can make this automatic, there's for example no need for an economical system, because there's no need for trade.
Even if food and medicine cease to be scarce, there'll still be PLENTY to trade.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think it matters if someone uses more than others, for example, I don't care if some guy likes to buy fancy cars, etc. because I've no interest in such thing
But I do
That would be like saying, you are not gay nor have any gay friends, so speaking up for gays you don't know is not your problem since you have no interest in that. Which is ok for you obviously, but not on the neutral scale of things.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 05:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even if food and medicine cease to be scarce, there'll still be PLENTY to trade.
I don't mind trade, I mind necessary trade (to survive). I think we should make a list of all necessary trade. Then find a way to make these ressources automaticly achieveable, with a fail safe backup system. Thereby the dependency among eachother will dissapear and so will any reason for an economical system. Likewise this would be the amount of actions we'd need to be able to make automatic.
So let's look at it while coming up with it, an example, food.
Food is basicly chemical components that needs to be in the right configuration. It is this something that we should be able to make automatic (as it's a recipe, and any recipe can be mass produced), as long as the technology to do this, and the energy required are present.
Let's continue the list, and add up as we go.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think it matters if someone uses more than others, for example, I don't care if some guy likes to buy fancy cars, etc. because I've no interest in such thing
But I do
That would be like saying, you are not gay nor have any gay friends, so speaking up for gays you don't know is not your problem since you have no interest in that. Which is ok for you obviously, but not on the neutral scale of things.
I think, as with the freedom goes, we'd be able to choose our own battles, so if it doesn't interest you, I think you'd be free to not participate.
I still can't see though, how it makes it matter, if someone uses more than others, as long as there's enough for everyone.
I can reason as follows:
Either you care due to yourself, and in that case you can use more than others.
Otherwise you care due to others, and in that case, if others have the freedom to choose, and they choose no, we should respect that freedom, and not try to force something upon them.
In a way it somehow reminds of a view of money I've seen.
Given you get money, it's expected you use them, because you've them, but for me, it's not about that, it's about doing what I want to do, it's very important that given us more freedom (opportunity) doesn't limit our freedom in an idea of we having to use this freedom to its full extend.
Only do what you really want to, it's not about "doing everything", it's about doing what you want, in my opinion.
Then again, I think it differs a lot between the people who defines their life through experiences and those who define their life, through merely being alive.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 06:02 PM |
|
|
Of course you are free not to participate and I agree with that.
However, that is not a reason to say that such things are ok, which you implied if there are "infinite REAL resources".
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 06:17 PM |
|
|
Ohforfsake:
What's necessary? A lot of food and medicine aren't necessary at all - cave men survived on a simple diet and almost without medicine. They didn't have much trade. Do we want to live like them?
Death:
Quote:
That would be like saying, you are not gay nor have any gay friends, so speaking up for gays you don't know is not your problem since you have no interest in that.
Except I do have an interest in that, even though I'm not gay - I want to live in a country in which the state doesn't get in people's way unnecessarily.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 06:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, that is not a reason to say that such things are ok, which you implied if there are "infinite REAL resources".
I must admit, this is a point where we don't agree apparently. So now it's my turn to ask in stead of trying to answer.
Why is it important to hinder, given everyone have what they want (in the limits presented here), that some may have more than others? (That's how I understand what you're writing).
Quote:
What's necessary?
You're right, this shouldn't be only about survival, it should be about what was the intention to begin with, to get what you want.
So what's necessary to make automatic, is those actions required for everyone to get what they want, without limiting the freedom of others, without being dependent on others.
(Certainly you'd always be dependent on the system, likewise you'll always be dependent on whatever it's that may be expressing "the true you", no matter what kind of body it is).
So all in all, I should have written enough to get what we want, and not to survive, yet I don't think your examples were that good (cavemen didn't survive long, as far as I know, compared to modern day people).
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I must admit, this is a point where we don't agree apparently. So now it's my turn to ask in stead of trying to answer.
Why is it important to hinder, given everyone have what they want (in the limits presented here), that some may have more than others? (That's how I understand what you're writing).
That's not really simple at all, not sure why you make it that way. What if someone wants the head of the guy he is annoyed at?
You can say he is not allowed (and enforce it) since he would be breaking the other guy's freedom, however, if this guy has a reason for that (not just "random"), then by not allowing him, you ARE restricting his freedom and making him mad or affecting him. i.e you don't allow him to get what he wants.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 12, 2009 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So what's necessary to make automatic, is those actions required for everyone to get what they want, without limiting the freedom of others, without being dependent on others.
That will never happen. Unless we find a way to replicate planets and make it so cheap as to be free, there will always be a shortage of beachfront California property, for example. (Then again, there's the "virtual world".)
Quote:
cavemen didn't survive long, as far as I know, compared to modern day people
That's my point.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 09:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not really simple at all, not sure why you make it that way. What if someone wants the head of the guy he is annoyed at?
You can say he is not allowed (and enforce it) since he would be breaking the other guy's freedom, however, if this guy has a reason for that (not just "random"), then by not allowing him, you ARE restricting his freedom and making him mad or affecting him. i.e you don't allow him to get what he wants.
That is still not in the limits presented here. Moreover there couldn't exist a reason.
Quote:
That will never happen. Unless we find a way to replicate planets and make it so cheap as to be free, there will always be a shortage of beachfront California property, for example. (Then again, there's the "virtual world".)
Here I agree. What if someone wants an island. What if everybody wants his own island. We can say it could be enough fancy cars but not all.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 01:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You can say he is not allowed (and enforce it) since he would be breaking the other guy's freedom, however, if this guy has a reason for that (not just "random"), then by not allowing him, you ARE restricting his freedom and making him mad or affecting him. i.e you don't allow him to get what he wants.
As Ihor wrote, I don't think such a non-random reason can exist in these limits, without the limits already have been broken.
(Actually I don't think a reason of killing can ever exist, but that may just be me).
Beside no matter the reason, with the limits presented, such an action can never be accepted, though it's not that he should be hindered actively, it's more that, the action in itself should be impossible (not to come up with, but to do).
Quote:
That will never happen. Unless we find a way to replicate planets and make it so cheap as to be free, there will always be a shortage of beachfront California property, for example. (Then again, there's the "virtual world".)
Quote:
Here I agree. What if someone wants an island. What if everybody wants his own island. We can say it could be enough fancy cars but not all.
True, but isn't it the "private property debate" that already have taken place here, with the solution represented?
Quote:
"virtual world"
Of course it's important that it's a world where you completely contron the physical reality of everything, except your guests, which you may ban, etc. and a world that live up to have the exact same qualities as the real world, so what will differ will be the fact that the people you care about, like you, also have their free will, and can do what they want, etc.
I can imagine some might think, such a world will never be "as good as" this world, in the qualities I mentioned (everything except control of others, who're truely alive (you can have robots if you want that looks like humans in every way, except you control them), but remember that this world may very well also "just" be a simulation so sophisticated that we've actually developed awareness, or maybe our awareness comes from this outer world, from which there may yet be layer of layer of outer worlds.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As Ihor wrote, I don't think such a non-random reason can exist in these limits, without the limits already have been broken.
(Actually I don't think a reason of killing can ever exist, but that may just be me).
Beside no matter the reason, with the limits presented, such an action can never be accepted, though it's not that he should be hindered actively, it's more that, the action in itself should be impossible (not to come up with, but to do).
The "limits" themselves are restricting freedom, and many will not find them "common" (i.e don't agree with them).
The Soviet Union had plenty of limits as well, does that make it a common purpose?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted October 13, 2009 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The "limits" themselves are restricting freedom, and many will not find them "common" (i.e don't agree with them).
As I hope for everyone being able to get what they want, limits will automatic rise, these limits being control of everything except other people, so if your wants includes others, i.e. limiting the freedom of others, then that's the only want, which can't be done. So yes, it's limiting the freedom of all, that you can't limit the freedom of others, but that's the limits that must be, for all to be able to get what they want, in every case, except for that limit.
The people who will not find them common, and understand what I'm saying, are the people who want to be able to control others.
Though I may be wrong of course, so if I am, please show me.
|
| |
|
|
