Please cite some of the alien lifeforms who have agreed to your acid test of rationality.
Errr… as I’ve been arguing that feelings are not primary, it might have been obvious that my answers are no and no, but no harm in you confirming though, I guess. :compcoff:
Depends what you’re doing.It is pointless attempting to have a rational discussion with some one who constantly evades answering questions.
If you’re explaining to someone how to post on CAF, it wont help to describe the functioning of transistors in the arithmetic unit of her computer’s CPU, yet posting on CAF depends on their existence.
It’s a mistake to confuse reality for our perception or explanations of reality.
The quotes were from tonyrey, not me.
Up to now, hopefully not for much longer in some way it has, in the same way that deaths on the road are tolerated around the world because it would be darned inconvenient if we couldn’t drive to the mall. An automatic weapon and a Ferrari are cool, and in our heads cool is worthy of sacrifice. Rational we are not.
That was my best answer, why do you think it’s an evasion?
No. Why isn’t that clear from what I’ve been saying?
If you mean scanning for radio signatures then yes, I think the probability of it succeeding is low. It escapes me as to what that has to do with anything though - do all hypothetical rational aliens have to develop radio technology to demonstrate they are rational? Isn’t that just imposing 21st century human values on them?
Where did I assert that?
Their feelings are less reliable because they’re a criminal.
I know - what I posted was the latest in a long-drawn-out debate between Tonyrey and myself on the nature of fundamental realityThe quotes were from tonyrey, not me.
I suspect there are degrees of practicality and ‘coolness’ involved in one’s chosen mode of transportation. In an ideal world, perhaps, everyone would walk, ride a pushbike or catch public transport (thus minimising the communal costs to society of obesity and automobile-generated pollution/traffic congestion etc) but the fact of the matter is that whilst it’s true that cars can and do kill, that is not their primary purpose; the primary purpose of guns is to kill, if not people necessarily, then certainly other animals. It’s true, I think, that whilst the principles of utilitarianism are simple and practical, the exercise of it is far more complex and nuanced…
Good point, but the primary purpose of a Ferrari isn’t to take the kids to school
.Personal view - I’ve never found a system of ethics that always gives sensible answers. Each of them is valuable in exposing a moral issue to a logical process, but it’s more useful to use a variety of systems and compare the reasoning. Imho
Very true - they usually don’t have much in the way of kiddie-carrying capacity!Good point, but the primary purpose of a Ferrari isn’t to take the kids to school
Also true, but then again, there are plenty of actions we take that are subject to such post-rationalisation. That is one of the things that betrays our deeply imperfect rationality, after all - for the most part, unless they’re particularly complex, our decisions are not made on the basis of straightforward rational analysis. We generally spend more time justifying our actions after the fact.
I think there’s a difference between sensible answers and agreeable answers. It’s quite true that utilitarianism does not always give answers that we can readily accept, on an emotional level, no matter how rational they might be.
As I read this I imagine some one taking their AKA out for quail hunting. Seems that humans are talented at killing things. Take away all restrictions against hunting and killing and I’d bet that all the animals in the forests could be dead by nightfall.
After seeing this question posted multiple times I feel compelled to comment. SETI is on of those projects where even if the pursuit of ETI produced nothing the development of the tools for that pursuit has positive outcome. For example, there were DSPs that were developed for SETI that have terrestrial use. Similarly I don’t think planting a man on the moon had any direct benefits. But many of the changes that were implemented to make it happened played a role in me being able to go to college. Because of these collateral benefits one can feel that SETI’s most known accomplishment is discovering lots of places in the sky where life hasn’t been found (after all, I can fail to find life at a fraction of the price!) but still see benefits from the other outcomes.
Irrefutable!If it’s not an evasion it’s lack of persuasion!
[/QUOTE]
I used to go walking in the Pyrenees near Jaca. There is a deathly silence in the forest because all the birds have been shot…
Speak for yourself!
There is a vast difference between the luxury (for most people) of a weapon and the necessity (for many people) of a vehicle…I certainly do. Except for big red shiny power tools of course, they’re obviously always essential, you can never have too many.
The trolley problem is interesting. In the dilemma as described in the overview of the article, apparently most people sacrifice one man to save five. But when the scenario changes to the one described under the Fat Man heading, most apparently choose the exact opposite.
Animals should live in towns and pay tax like everyone else. Forests occupy valuable real estate which would be far better used as open pasture for burger cattle.
I almost agree but. Some people say no big science projects should be funded while there are people in need, and the counter-argument is the track record of all the unpredicted spin-off benefits. But would that excuse a project from failing to achieve its mission, would non-stick frying pan technology have excused NASA if it hadn’t got a man on the moon? It sounds a bit like saying you’d never have the benefit of this great view if you weren’t plunging to your death after falling out the aircraft, if you see what I mean.
That’s not what you said in post #158, but then with one bound Jack was free.
It’s 23 Celsius here, and given that we’re a long way above sea level that’s unseasonably warm for winter solstice. Christmas Day is forecast to be much colder but meanwhile it’s very nice to sit outdoors and listen to the birdies. Which is by way of explaining that convoluted or tortured logic rarely if ever carries a warm day around the Med.