S
STT
Guest
His act was rationally right from his perspective. That is all which matter when it comes to a choice.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
I means that his choice was correct according to his logic.
S
STT
Guest
It depends on perspective my friend. He hasn’t done anything bad from his perspective. He hasn’t done anything wrong at all if all people think like him.
S
STT
Guest
I know about objective and subjective. The point that I am making is that his act is rationally correct because we have to look at the situation from his perspective. There are four cases here, (1) the act is objectively wrong, (2) the act is objectively right, (3) the act is subjectively wrong and (4) the act is subjectively right. His action is rationally correct in first case because he was not aware that the act is objectively wrong. His action is rationally correct in the second case because he committed a correct action. His action is rationally correct in the third case because he again was not aware of that the act is wrong. Finally, his action is rationally correct in the fourth case because he committed a right act.
P
PseuTonym
Guest
What if all computer programmers believed that there is a moral obligation to start wars until all governments in the world ban the work of fiction known as “The Satanic Verses”? In that case, the computers could be programmed to say that the best option is to start wars.
Please review the following exchange from earlier in this thread:
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
Can you create world peace by making computers that tell people that the best option isn’t war?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Were people doing good when they invented computers?
What inventions have been created by computers? If free will isn’t needed to do good, then computers should be able to create good inventions. Also, if free will just opens a door toward bad action, then computers should be unable to create bad inventions.
Is it time for people around the world to stop creating new inventions, and to leave such creative pursuits to computers?
S
STT
Guest
Then it is programmer fault who program computer in order to make war. Computer is just a logical entity.
S
STT
Guest
Of course yes.
You need creativity for invention. We don’t know yet that what is creativity otherwise we could perhaps program a computer to invent things too giving it sufficient resources.
It is too early. As I mentioned we still need time to understand how we creative beings.
N
Nyx
Guest
Most often in our life we don’t have clear cut “good options” vs “bad options”, especially if we take different motivations, situations of life, past experiences etc into consideration. So, even if we take our decisions in a rational way it doesn’t guarantee the best outcome for us (or society).
Lets say someone doesn’t have a job and limited abilities to find even a “decent” job. He also have problems with interpersonal relationships. Someone proposes him to take an action that could potentially resolve his money problems and he won’t need to worry about finding a job anymore. He might also get the attention and admiration of a group and he believes this success would probably increase his chances to find a romantic partner.
But he might fail in his task and the consequences would be serious legal problems, losing some of the few people he managed to get close to, and even less options for a job.
Even if he is successful, he would have to move and lose direct contact with his family.
In this hypothetical example, which would be the rational choice to make?
Lets say someone doesn’t have a job and limited abilities to find even a “decent” job. He also have problems with interpersonal relationships. Someone proposes him to take an action that could potentially resolve his money problems and he won’t need to worry about finding a job anymore. He might also get the attention and admiration of a group and he believes this success would probably increase his chances to find a romantic partner.
But he might fail in his task and the consequences would be serious legal problems, losing some of the few people he managed to get close to, and even less options for a job.
Even if he is successful, he would have to move and lose direct contact with his family.
In this hypothetical example, which would be the rational choice to make?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Let us review this discussion in sequence:
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
“Can you create world peace by making computers that tell people that the best option isn’t war?”
Yes. Or if people were computers they would never start war.
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
“What if all computer programmers believed that there is a moral obligation to start wars until all governments in the world ban the work of fiction known as ‘The Satanic Verses’? In that case, the computers could be programmed to say that the best option is to start wars.”
Look at the following:
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
“Can you create world peace by making computers that tell people that the best option isn’t war?”
Yes. Or if people were computers they would never start war.
Originally Posted by PseuTonym:
“What if all computer programmers believed that there is a moral obligation to start wars until all governments in the world ban the work of fiction known as ‘The Satanic Verses’? In that case, the computers could be programmed to say that the best option is to start wars.”
If all computers were programmed to tell people that the best option is war, then how do you conclude that there is a fault and blame needs to be assigned?
Look at the following:
Also, please explain why you transfer the blame from the computers to the people who programmed the computers. If computers cannot be blamed for telling people that the best option is war, then how can you blame computers for telling people that (8 times 8) equals 68? And if you cannot blame computers for telling people that (8 times 8) equals 68, then how can you give credit for accuracy and logic to computers that tell people that (8 times 8) equals 64?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
Can you give an estimate of how much time is needed?
Isn’t it obvious that actions in the world that can be good or evil are analogous to attempts to solve a problem that requires creativity?
One major difference is that the label “false” in the creative pursuit of inventing techniques and doing research doesn’t correspond to the label “bad” in action in the world that affects people. For example, in mathematics, a conjecture that is given the label “conjecture” can be of positive value, even if the conjecture is false. The discovery that a particular conjecture is false can be an important contribution to mathematics.
Please see quotes of Thomas Edison about the number of ways he attempted to make a light bulb, and what label to put on those attempts. He didn’t see them as “bad” or “failures”, but rather as the preliminary work on the path to finding one way that works.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
There are always more then 2 options.Think of a situation that you have two options which you can only choose one. Suppose that you study the situation well and realize that one option is good and another is bad. It seems rationally reasonable to choose good instead of bad but we know that we sometimes choose bad. There are two scenarios available here: (1) We have free will and (2) There is a underlying reason for choosing bad, curiosity or another deep reason that we are not consciously aware of it. In first case, it is interesting to note that there is no point in having free will whether we are created being or the result of evolution. It is just absurd. In the second case we are simply a machine and we are not consciously aware why we want bad.
Your argument is based on a precept of polarised thinking.
Good vs bad
creation vs evolution
free will vs being a machine
conciousness vs no conciousness.
Creativity is a great gift to the creatures of the earth. We know how we are creative, we know why we are creative.
Predictability tells me statistically of an outcome. But there are always outliers. And variables.
Rationale is not the same as free will. They are seperate entities and function independently.
I can make a choice that is either rational or irrational. I have free will to do that, i might work within a legal framework where there is no free choice, the choices were made already.
Whether that opinion of that legal outcome is rational, is quite subjective at times, although its inception may have been objective.
We are free to rationalise
we are free to choose fight or flight
Free will is not linked to rational decisions.
Eg
I am walking along the road. Its summer, its hot, everything is tinder dry. It is also very windy.
A car drives by. The driver exercises his free will and throws a still burning cigarette butt out the window. Now that driver has not (we hope, unless he is an arsonist) exercised any rational thinking. He lives on the next farm. But he exercised free will in throwing out the butt.
So without intervention, that butt has landed in some dry grass and is likely to start a bushfire ( with potential to waste life and property in the magnitude of the size of a country of Europe).
I see the butt thrown out, I see it land in the grass. I exercise free will in either ignoring it, picking it up, putting it out, going to this guy as he pulls into his driveway, phoning police, fire brigade etc. Lots of choices.
Being that I dont want a bushfire to start today, for whatever reason, I exercise my choice of free will, and rationally, to the thinking of many (but not the guy who threw the butt out) pick up the butt. I see the grass has already started to burn.
I exercise my free will and make what I believe is another rational choice, phone the CFA. They race out, deal with it, since the fire is starting to get away.
I exercise further free will, tell the police, also on the scene and redirecting traffic, who threw the butt out.
There is then a long list of rationale, written in law, that sees mr stupid charged and convicted. He and the law have no free will in this process now.
Mr stupid exercises his free will, after a lot of examination of his self, and being remorseful ( afterall , the fire burnt down his house before it was put out, and burnt his best mate to death, who was stuck on a firetruck when the wind changed and the fire burnt back on them), he becomes a great campaigner to explain the rationale of not throwing your burning cigarette butt out the window.
Now how Mr now remorseful stupid, chooses (exercises his free will) to conduct his anti throw butts out the window campaign, may or may not be based on rational thinking.
S
STT
Guest
S
STT
Guest
You of course need education for being rational. Is he guilty of his action because he haven’t received enough education?
- Status