Considering that entropy is the final stage of everything, how we do we go about to preserve or should we preserve:
1. Cultural artifacts
2. History
3. Ideas
4. Culture
honestly, things like social networking sites, wikipedia, and stuff like that is the best way to really capture us. We will be remembered through our hard drives. That's what we should protect. Pretty soon there will be more books on computers than on shelves and this will be even more relevant. considering more far off entropy, I'd say we need to start making headway into space, and influence various forces in the world around us. Maybe we can alter certain regions of space to being more conducive for life. the universe will end too, and that is something to overcome whether we're here for it or not.
And this is not irrelevant to my argument. In fact, the reason why I think it would be unethical to do this is because you're forcing the evolution of an animal in a direction that it may not necessarily take naturally in this environment. It's also very problematic because you're crowding the "conscious" niche on this planet, and in doing so you're forcing all members of this niche (now the whales as well as humans) to compete for limited resources. Nature would eventually bring itself back to equilibrium, but not without suffering and further evolution.
so we were wrong to play god with dogs, most of our edible fruit, cats, etc?
Quote from Highroller »
Whales are already sentient. What exactly is it that you want us to speed these things along toward?
The point where they can manufacture their own artificial intelligence? shrug
We base our 'counciouss meter' by markers such as, ability to make tools, ability to recognize oneself in a reflection.
I mean, we make determinations on what animals are too concious for us to use as a food source or perfume, so we do have approximations in place. some of them, like whales have been added more recently, but we still don't afford them the same rights as humans, so we obviously don't view whales as equal.
if possible, is it inevitable, given pressures from environment, given ability to prevent extinction.
If so,(and perhaps even if you disagree): If you had the technological ability to manipulate genomes in whales to speed along their route to sentience-assuming this is an actual thing for the sake of argument- would it be ethical, or unethical to do so?
but the problem with not doing anything... well it means nothing is getting done. Being grumpy and dissaffected just allows the machine to keep running. the military industrial complex isn't going to stop because you're on your couch eating flaming hot cheetos.
well, this might not have been exactly what you meant, but America was researching small powered nuclear warheads to use as bunker busters. We've been having issues dealing with insurgent groups entrentched deep within cave systems and that was a proposition that came forward. not sure if it's still on the table, but it shows you where it could progress.
Well, since you seem to believe the nine eleven stories, lies and distortions, this should be an easy argument. Taking the stories as the truth, you should then believe that the passengers, "heroes" if you will, of flight 93 rose up and fought back against the terrorists and successfully thwarted the attack.
Maybe thats what people should do instead of allowing the government to "handle" (quotations representing of course that the govt isn't handling it very well) things. The govt decides this method will be effective at preventing attacks by terrorists. I say terrorists will merely find another way. This method is hardly foolproof and all I see occuring is that people are allowing the govt to further expand itself into their lives and become even more invasive. This seems a lot like softening up the beachhead and all it will accomplish is that the law abiding people will be numb to the fact that our govt is slowly encroaching on our freedom overall. If we settle for nothing now, we'll settle for nothing later.
so we shouldn't use security cameras because I can just wear a ski mask? You're missing the point.
besides: you're VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a plane owned by a PRIVATE company. Since you're a 'wolf', I assume you read the fine print when you purchase a plane ticket?
Ok, HOW? How does it depend ultimately on the way we evolved? Further, why is an understanding of how we evolved necessary or even helpful in this particular circumstance?
if it could speak, how would the morality of a bee compare with that of a human? How about a squid?
With my eyes, I say I see the chair, but I don't.
My eyes pick up the light that bounces off the chair, which my nerves bring to my brain, which interprets those singles. I never see the chair. At MOST I see the light reflecting from it, and one could argue I don't even really 'see' that.
I believe the objective world exists. I can affect that world. I can write these words and you can read them and be affected by them. I can influence hundreds of people, and care about what each one thinks and feels. I can assign meaning to them and to what I do, and what I do can echo down the ages. My life can live in memory forever. What I do can influence all of creation and have a profound impact on the objective for all time.
But, when I die, my perception dies with me. People could still care about what I did, but I will lose the ability to care what people think of me. My words will still exist, and they could continue to influence the objective for eternity. But, I will have lost the ability to give that meaning. The chair will still exist, but I will not.
I am not the chair; I am me.
The only meaning I can have is my meaning.
Right, but that's as far as subjective opinion. Our concept of meaning relates to personal meaning, subjective meaning. but a rock has meaning in broader sense. It is part of a causal chain, and a specific moment in time. This has nothing to do with meaning, but instead as a part of existence. Life does have meaning because it effects the universe. Things have happened in the universe that wouldn't have if life didn't happen. I think that's an important thing to consider. If meaning applies in an any sense beyond a concept, it's that 'meaning' is the ability to effect something else. That is there because this happened.
or maybe I'm just rambling with the words. I'm more exploring than any sort of argument honestly.
As far as I see, the world doesn't always do the same thing. I mean, yesterday it was hot, today the weather isn't so warm... So once again it is not deterministic...
no, because that's not how determinism works. Determinism doesn't require that we be able to predict everything. But only that we could predict everything if we know all of the causes and forces acting on it. This we find is true. For example, if you throw a football, you can determine where it will end up based upon speed, trajectory, drag, wind resistance, gravity, etc. In fact your brain does this for you, which is why you can anticipate where it will be to catch it. If the universe wasn't deterministic in nature, the football wouldn't need to follow a specific path at all. The football travelling is an action. I caused it by throwing the football. It's effect is that it flies through the air. Only a few major forces are noticeable to us acting on the football travelling, so its trajectoy is pretty simple to plot, although some things- like a moving organism- is depedent on millions and millions of different interactions and forces. So to try to simplify this think; if I know all of the forces acting on this, can I predict how it will act? If I drop this coffee mug by me, it will fall. This is a cause and effect chain.
"Something" has to give meaning to something else (or itself).
If you're looking for "objective meaning" you have to have an "objective something" that can give that meaning. So, it does not matter WHAT that "objective something" is, as long as it is capable of subscribing meaning.
I like to think that the sum total of human perspective is something "objective," or at the very least "less subjective."
Edit:
I believe objective objects exists, like this chair I'm sitting on, but I still am only capable of observing them through my own subjective perception.
but as long as there is a chair that can be effected by our actions, those actions, and the motivating factors have an objective aspect at least. so you don't need memories to have meaning. The fact that you exist and can influence things outside of yourself is meaning, in a sense. you need memories to have subjective meaning, because you need to be able to understand the concept to have a subjective opinion, but you don't need to understand sound for a tree to fall in a forest and make noise.
causaul determinism requires absolute predictability. If all actions come from a prior cause than all choice is an illusion. It's merely a complex process. Our universe obviously has some qualities of determinism, but quantum uncertainty throws some questions into the mix.
You've defined meaning as the product of perception, perception the product of the individual, and the individual a sum of his experiences. that meaning exists as long as the individual does. And that individual exists as long as his experiences exist and he is capable comprehending them, right?
Now, you can be a part of someone else's experiences. But that's their subjective measure based upon their internal values, and it ends with them. My meaning, is not your meaning. Meaning is arbitrary.
The point where they can manufacture their own artificial intelligence? shrug
We base our 'counciouss meter' by markers such as, ability to make tools, ability to recognize oneself in a reflection.
I mean, we make determinations on what animals are too concious for us to use as a food source or perfume, so we do have approximations in place. some of them, like whales have been added more recently, but we still don't afford them the same rights as humans, so we obviously don't view whales as equal.
If so,(and perhaps even if you disagree): If you had the technological ability to manipulate genomes in whales to speed along their route to sentience-assuming this is an actual thing for the sake of argument- would it be ethical, or unethical to do so?
besides: you're VOLUNTARILY agreeing to board a plane owned by a PRIVATE company. Since you're a 'wolf', I assume you read the fine print when you purchase a plane ticket?
or maybe I'm just rambling with the words. I'm more exploring than any sort of argument honestly.
doesn't the fact that our existence effects things outside itself give it meaning in an objective sense?
Now, you can be a part of someone else's experiences. But that's their subjective measure based upon their internal values, and it ends with them. My meaning, is not your meaning. Meaning is arbitrary.