Ethics — What if we just keep asking why?

[baywax]

In science, if we did that we would arrive to experience. Laws work because they make good predictions and that´s all there is to it. In Mathematics if we kept asking why we would arrive to axioms.

But what about ethics? It´s not based on axioms or experience. Then, what is it based on? If there´s nothing in the bottom then it´s just ungrounded.

If it´s based on our moral intuitions then ethics is useless because:

1) different people have different moral intuitions;

2) if ethics is based on our moral intuitions, then we don´t need ethics. We´d be better off following our moral intuitions directly instead of worrying about philosophy.

What are your thoughts on this?

Its a tough one. In some cultures they shoot a lame horse. In others they shoot and eat the lame horse. In others they put the horse out to pasture and visit it often. In others... there is no horse.

But it is the ethic that harmonizes efficiently with natural law that will stick around the longest. For example the ethic of not marrying your brother or sister. Eventually that practice is eliminated by the extinction of the family practicing it because the genetic make up of the group becomes weaker over time.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Are you sure of this ? After all Lucius Cornelius Sulla's dictatorship was seen by many as required to save the state from the many wrongs of a paradoxical republic. And interestingly enough in 81 BC Sulla restored power to republic institutions, renounced his position as dictator, and proceeded to live a more or less normal life without any direct political power (save for the first year after the event, when he was elected in the office of consul ) until his death in 78 BC. He was never hunted and accused of stealing the liberty of the citizens, a conviction never sought for his many terrible crimes he did in the name of efficiency of the state.

Similar things happened with Julius Cesar several decades later. The man who single-handed destroyed the Roman republic , and set in motion a chain of events who caused the birth of the Roman Empire, was considered by many the man who saved the roman state from itself, from the inefficiency of republican offices, from the callosity of the man who where in the administrative apparatus of the republic.

Which brings me to a question. Is sometimes dictatorship necessary ? Will the citizens easily renounce the illusion of freedom and some of their rights to consolidate the state ?

One can argue that shifting the government form from a republic to an empire was required for the further evolution and stability of the state run by Rome. A shift which allowed Rome (later in tandem with Constantinople, after the state broke in Western and Eastern roman empire )to run the Mediterranean world for another 500 years. And in effect, protect civilization.

We all know what is the result of the fall of Roman Empire. Almost 800 years of plateaus (some would even say regress) in the raise of western civilization, the dark ages. In effect, the needs of social are sometimes protected by dictatorship.

...And people love Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush... etc. People are gullible idiots who write history books.

 

[Kajahtava]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

After his death, his successors took the title of Imperator, which basically means 'commander' which was not formally a dictator title without any limit to the term, it just meant they could do whatever the **** they wanted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator

* 'On cause of the case be dealt with', I'm using the Latin text here because the genitive gerundive and ablative of means make it pretty much untranslatable.

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

 

[baywax]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The 500,000 slaves led by Spartacus (the Thracian slave and gladiator who led a revolt against Rome in 73, but eventually was defeated by Crassus in 71 and crucified) certainly would beg to differ with regard to the efficiency of the Roman Empire or its Republic.

Who said it was efficient or not? That said, as they conquered a HUGE territory, invented concrete, and founded Londinium... Maybe they managed despite inefficiencies? Besides, slave labour can be highly efficient for a time, it's just morally wrong by most (and my) standards.

EDIT: Why on Earth would you feel the need to tell ANYONE who Spartacus was, given the fame of the movie? Even a teenager should know who he was, and what he did if not in such detail.

 

[Kajahtava]

It's ok, I took 4 years of Latin Granted... that was... a long time ago. Hmmm... O or M S T, Mus Tis, Nt...Yep, some of it is still there.

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

I take your point, but keep in mind that those people had a history of dictatorship (by any other name) prior to the "rise" of that period. Not to mention, that 6 month policy was as much for survival among rivals as anything else.

Caesar was also not just "Declaring" himself Dictator in Perpetuum, he was INCREDIBLY successful as a general and was given a fait accompli by the senate: Leave your armies, as all do, at the Rubicon despite your desire for more power. Caesar had enough men at his command loyal and popular acclaim, and THEN he revolted.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I didn't, I just looked at a Latin text one day and was like 'Wow, I can read this.', a couple of months later I began to spot grammatical errors. Now it's become my life's mission to correct metal bands on their dubious grammar. AD MAJOREM SATHANAS GLORIAM, ahahah. AD LVX TENEBRAE.

Well yeah, he was a populist. But I'm just explaining the position of dictator and that the other's didn't cease it. And that he just was dictator, but then till death.

Sure, he was popular and had loyal men, he's credited as a brilliant strategic mind.

However, the one thing that always goes wrong with this, even if you have a theoretical benevolent leader, is that sooner or later, that leader will die, and then you have a power vacuum that some one, oftenso less benevolent, will jump into.

Oh yeah... that last point especially is right on the money. Caligula springs to mind *wince*.

 

[DanP]

Point is though, that dictator in the Roman Republic was a different thing. I was a position the Senate could vote to a person rei gerundae causā*. This was a position for six months, in which the dictator ('he who tells what must be done') was essentially impetuous, he could do whatever he wanted and not be held responsible, he was the law, the senate and the people. He could put people to death without trial, including political enemies, so this was an extreme measurement taken in times of great peril. Afterwards, after those six months, the senate could again appoint a dictator if the matter was not dealt with, which would usually be another.

Obviously, they chose people that were not extremely power hungry, and so often, the dictators resigned their position before the six months when the matter was dealt with. And not doing so is crippling to one's political career.

Caesar however lead an army against the senate, and demanded to be Dictator in Perpetuum. Dictator into perpetuity, he was granted the rights of dictator until his very death. That is why he was called a dictator, but it was a completely different position, he just enjoyed the same unlimited rights and transformed the Roman Republic, into the Roman Empire. All the other Dictators headed a republic.

You should pay a little more attention to what happened in fact during the Sulla / Marius civil war, and carefully consider if anyone "choose" Sulla for dictatorship. Whatever you have read on internet offered only a cursory glance on the period. You should study it thoroughly.

 

[DanP]

He wasn't granted rights, he took them and held them by force of arms and vicious politicking, until his assasination. History may gloss over some details on Wikipedia (doubt it though), but the granularity of the time was IMMENSE. A lot was happening at that time of expansion for Rome.

This is more or less what Sulla did. At the height at his power, the Senate couldn't grant/refuse him anything. In fact ,after he won the civil war, nobody in the republic was in the position to refuse him anything. His political opponents where mostly destroyed during the civil war and what was left of them labeled "enemy of the sate" and executed soon after. Conservative estimates say he killed ~1500 persons from the senator and equites classes to consolidate his rule.

Another fact is that his dictatorship was with no time limits.

 

[Frame Dragger]

This is more or less what Sulla did. At the height at his power, the Senate couldn't grant/refuse him anything. In fact ,after he won the civil war, nobody in the republic was in the position to refuse him anything. His political opponents where mostly destroyed during the civil war and what was left of them labeled "enemy of the sate" and executed soon after. Conservative estimates say he killed ~1500 persons from the senator and equities classes to consolidate his rule.

Another fact is that his dictatorship was with no time limits.

Yep, this is the pattern we see again and again, in Rome and elsewhere. Look at the Akkadian "kings" and such! It may have looked nice, and there may have been less stercore in the streets of Rome, but politics = UGLY. Power will always draw people, and ESPECIALLY psychopaths.

 

[Kajahtava]

Oh yeah... that last point especially is right on the money. Caligula springs to mind *wince*.

Yeah, what would've happened if Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon?

There's apparently a tragedy series that takes place in an alternate history where England was never invaded by the Roman Empire, sort of 1984-ish apparently.

Spoiler

You have The Holy Empire of Britannica (which is seated in the US after England was lost to the Euro Universe in war), protagonist being some prince therein that hates his father and strives to take his father's empire down but as the story progresses becomes more and more tempted by the power he acquired to bring down Britannia. Never seen it though, but it's called Code Geass, like it up.

You should pay a little more attention to what happened in fact during the Sulla / Marius civil war, and carefully consider if anyone "choose" Sulla for dictatorship. Whatever you have read on internet offered only a cursory glance on the period. You should study it thoroughly.

Sure, I will if there's more.

Also, you mean to imply that there is a place where there is more information than the internet in this world?

 

[DanP]

Sure, I will if there's more.

Also, you mean to imply that there is a place where there is more information than the internet in this world?

Actually, for specific subjects yes. One of the classic works in this particular area is "Roman History" by Theodor Mommsen. For example, he devotes a whole volume, spawning ~400 pages only to the subject of origins of the military monarchy in Rome.

You will be hard pressed to find material of this quality on internet. (although you may find PDFs of many good treatises on history. Mommsen's included)

 

[Kajahtava]

Actually, for specific subjects yes. One of the classic works in this particular area is "Roman History" by Theodor Mommsen. For example, he devotes a whole volume, spawning ~400 pages only to the subject of origins of the military monarchy in Rome.

And this book does not exist on the internet? I mean.

Surely there's a means to pirate it at the least. Intellectual property != ZIENZ.

You will be hard pressed to find material of this quality on internet. (although you may find PDFs of many good treatises on history. Mommsen's included)

I see we think alike.

I praefer an XML over PDF container though because XML is more oriented towards semantics, structure and meaning, and PDF more towards layout.

 

[baywax]

Why on Earth would you feel the need to tell ANYONE who Spartacus was,

Don't get out much do ya!

 

[baywax]

Who said it was efficient or not? That said, as they conquered a HUGE territory, invented concrete, and founded Londinium... Maybe they managed despite inefficiencies? Besides, slave labour can be highly efficient for a time, it's just morally wrong by most (and my) standards.

Key word... "conquered" rather than influenced without twisting arms.

Actually the Eqyptians invented concrete,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

the Romans ripped off the idea like they ripped off all their ideas... ie: Greek architecture, sculpture. For every Roman idea there is a culture that was squashed by their armies. Sound familiar?

Founded Londinium...? I believe it was there when the Druids built their version with their name... so, just another rip off.

Managing despite inefficiencies means your thinking you're going somewhere as you walk up a slippery slope or on a tread mill.


Slave labour is slave labour... it will always end badly for all those involved.

 

[apeiron]

Intellectual property != ZIENZ.

I'm sure if you ever come to own some intellectual property, you will feel differently about its theft.

And this in a thread on ethics?

 

[DanP]

An interesting case is the case of taboos:

"Aidan and Kelly are brother and sister. They are spending the holiday in mountains with some of their friends. One evening, Aidan and Kelly decide that it would be interesting to have sex together. Both Kelly and Aidan are using contraceptive measures. They enjoy very much their experience and, if anything, the night they spent together considerably strengthened the bond between the two siblings"

Is it moral ? If you think that it's not moral , explain why.

 

[Kajahtava]

I'm sure if you ever come to own some intellectual property, you will feel differently about its theft.

Being sure without proof != ZIENZ.

I license my code under GPL and my graphics/music under CC By-Sa. In fact, I've had dealbreaker situations with labels because they refused an open licence.

Also, I have very little use for money in my life, andehonicism helps to keep your principles up you know.

Edit: Besides to call pirating a book you would have never bought just to read up some notes for a forum discussion 'theft'? No one loses here.

Also, one doesn't buy 'music' when one buys CD's, a CD does not contain music, a CD contains a formula in some accepted standard for a machine to produce music, from resources, music is sound is vibration, the machine transforms electrical energy into music accordingly that recipe.

Now, I can understand that artists are going to let you pay to visit a live concert, that's when they actually sell you music and not a recipe to make music which you also have to own a machine for that does it. Just as I understand that you have to pay to eat at McDonalds. But artists asking money for digital downloads is tantamount to McDonalds letting you pay money to download their Big Mac recipe and start complaining if you copy it from a friend who downloaded it first. Of course, a CD is still a tangible thing, so I understand that they want money for that, just as for cooking books, but if people download the contents of a cooking book, no one should complain. Especially because all the recipes in cooking books have evolved in traditions of hundreds of years. Just as music has, all music carries elements from its praedecessors. I can make some small adjustments to some recipe for a cake invented by another and cell that cake right? Why can't I do the same with music? But if I make a liberal cover, I have to pay intellectual fees. Why? Maybe because music is a big enterprise and legislative powers kneel before big corporations? Seriously, some corporations own entire species of planets because they genetically manipulated a species that mother nature already gave us. 99.9% of that plant already existed, but they own the whole species.

And this in a thread on ethics?

I consider the owning of information; intellectual property both a theoretically inconsistent model because information can be translated. And I consider the practice morally abhorrent and exploitive, unfair competition and I've yet too see any empirical evidence of it to foster creativity, we all know open source software with some minor exceptions (lulz, GIMP) outperforms proprietary software. Proprietary software just has the resources to advertise a lot and thereby trick consumers into buying crap when they can get quality for free.

Also, intellectual property is not a right, you can't sell a right, a fair trial is a right because you can't sell that to a person that doesn't have it. Intellectual property is simply a commercial good that can be sold to another party. A lot of labels, including all major labels demand the intellectual 'rights' to music from the artist before releasing it, TV networks obtain intellectual rights from creators of TV shows, publishers of comic books own rights to characters created by artists and not the artist itself. Intellectual 'rights' in this day and age no longer belong to the creative mind behind it, but to the publisher.

Also, it's hardly that bohemian to think that way, I mean, FSF, GNU, Creative Commons, Free Culture, Pirate Party all those movements, it's not like I'm the only person that considers intellectual 'rights' a dubious enterprise that for the most part works to financially aide publishers first, artists maybe a little or maybe compromises them, that remains to be seen and downright cripples the consumer. If I design a comic book and it's a smasher I can't get it published without giving up my right to the characters and the setting to that publisher, it then means I have a choice to make, I can either keep drawing the character I invented and the world won't know of it. Or I can only draw it with that publisher's permission, see it handed over to another artist later on, and it'll get published as a compromise.

An interesting case is the case of taboos:

"Aidan and Kelly are brother and sister. They are spending the holiday in mountains with some of their friends. One evening, Aidan and Kelly decide that it would be interesting to have sex together. Both Kelly and Aidan are using contraceptive measures. They enjoy very much their experience and, if anything, the night they spent together considerably strengthened the bond between the two siblings"

Is it moral ? If you think that it's not moral , explain why.

I have nothing against it, in fact I think taboo relationships are oftentimes cute.

Girl older than the boy, incest, paederasty, polyamorie, it's cute if people are willing to break rules that serve no purpose.

 

[apeiron]

Being sure without proof != ZIENZ.

You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality.

 

[Kajahtava]

You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality.

Encore, je ne comprend pas.

I don't really get what you mean by that or how it's related to my point.

Also, it has come to my observation that you seem to have some urge to try to find an error on my posts, any comments?

 

[Frame Dragger]

Key word... "conquered" rather than influenced without twisting arms.

Actually the Eqyptians invented concrete,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

the Romans ripped off the idea like they ripped off all their ideas... ie: Greek architecture, sculpture. For every Roman idea there is a culture that was squashed by their armies. Sound familiar?

Founded Londinium...? I believe it was there when the Druids built their version with their name... so, just another rip off.

Managing despite inefficiencies means your thinking you're going somewhere as you walk up a slippery slope or on a tread mill.


Slave labour is slave labour... it will always end badly for all those involved.

Fair enough on the concrete, but the Romans made USE of it to build a city-states, aquaducts, in fact Londinium was no city when the Romans arrived. By all accounts, it was mostly forest (REAL forest) and maybe a small Celtic settlement. It isn't even known if "Londinium" was a play on the original name (often the Roman way), or purely invented. Founded in... I think 45 AD, it fell with the Roman Empire, about 500 years later.

The Druids may have had a name for it, but if so, no one is sure. I'm familiar with Latin, and proto-Saxon (circa Dream of The Rood), but the Druids predate that language, so I don't know, and academic views are split. Frankly it wasn't a major player in the Roman Empire, and when it fell, it FELL.

As for the Roman culture... I'm half Greek (first generation) so believe me I know. You're right though, I don't "get out" in the way you mean enough to have a sense of what most people know or not anymore.

Of course, they didn't really "rip it off", they did what people have done as long as we've been people; they merged, and adapted. I'm sure if the orignal Romans saw their descendants of the Roman EMPIRE and its essentially Greek Pantheon, they'd have screamed! Such is history. Then again, the Greeks "ripped it off" too, from the language (all the way back to original Canaanite and proto-Phoenician).

Does that matter? As for Slave Labour, I think you're focusing on the American story. The reality is that Greece and Rome, Egypt, and Africa, and The USA were BUILT on the backs of slaves. In Rome and Greece, a slave of course meant a range of things not implied in the USA model of slavery. Perhaps the racism in the latter was the difference, and the view of Africans as "non-people"?

Anyway, the Spartacus lost, and the Colliseum is a major tourist attraction. What do you make of that, in terms of slaves and the LONG term? I don't LIKE slavery, but it's VERY efficient. Probably, that's why it's STILL so prevalent: Outright, or sweat-shops, or Asian wage-slaves, or Americans bound by debt. Then there are the REAL slaves, being sold for sex or work, etc.

EDIT: @Apeiron: "You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality." Really? In the GENERAL Lounge? In the PHILOSOPHY section? Bull****. Either engage or leave, you're lowering the tone of the place; a difficult feat to accomplish in the Lounge.

 

[apeiron]

EDIT: @Apeiron: "You express plenty of opinion. But the only thing worth responding to would be a theory, some model of reality." Really? In the GENERAL Lounge? In the PHILOSOPHY section? Bull****. Either engage or leave, you're lowering the tone of the place; a difficult feat to accomplish in the Lounge.

This is the philosophy section as far as I'm aware. Not the rambling off-the-top of your head unsourced opinion and rant section.

 

[Frame Dragger]

This is the philosophy section as far as I'm aware. Not the rambling off-the-top of your head unsourced opinion and rant section.

It's the lounge, so really it's both. What I need is a citation for how you remove a stick from your... ah, never mind. Please, get on with your sharing deep philosophical rambl- err, thougths. To me it looked as though you were nitpicking for pages, but it must have been an illusion.

 

[apeiron]

It's the lounge, so really it's both. What I need is a citation for how you remove a stick from your... ah, never mind. Please, get on with your sharing deep philosophical rambl- err, thougths. To me it looked as though you were nitpicking for pages, but it must have been an illusion.

Fortunately this is a question where we can appeal to authority.

See forum guidelines...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294

For example...

In general, there is more legroom for speculation in philosophical discussion, but it must be in the form of a well motivated question or argument, as described above. In particular, even a 'speculative' argument should be logically consistent with well established scientific knowledge and theory.

So there was an attempt to set up productive global constraints on locally free discussion. The guidelines exist in the belief that there is a definition of functional chat.

We are now indeed discussing an example of ethics in action as I have described it. You are saying my "ethics" are out-of-line and not conducive to the persistence of the system by the standards of "a lounge". I am saying you and some others are not living up to the "ethics" of a philosophy forum.

We can both agree that either system can tolerate a certain amount of gray, of non-functional local activity, if overall the majority of activity is responsive to the system's overall purpose.

But my view of the purposes of this forum seem to be there in black and white.

Fire away...

 

[Kajahtava]

Well, to be honest apei, I get the feeling you think that I'm praetentious in some form and try to find point to tackle me on and 'expose' me, when the time arrives you will feel less than satisfactory as I will just respond with 'Hmm fair point, seems I was mistaken', and move on, it has already happened once or twice here I think.

 

[apeiron]

Well, to be honest apei, I get the feeling you think that I'm praetentious in some form and try to find point to tackle me on and 'expose' me, when the time arrives you will feel less than satisfactory as I will just respond with 'Hmm fair point, seems I was mistaken', and move on, it has already happened once or twice here I think.

My honest personal opinion - not that I think it is at all relevant to the purpose of the forum - is that I find you are interestingly different. So that would be a reason to probe a little further to find what you are actually made of.

If there is organisation behind the disorganised way you respond, then that is what I would look to expose as I am always very interested in other coherent world views.

 

[Kajahtava]

My honest personal opinion - not that I think it is at all relevant to the purpose of the forum - is that I find you are interestingly different. So that would be a reason to probe a little further to find what you are actually made of.

Ahh, I was going to post 'You seem to be at the same time intrigued and annoyed by me.', but I thought that would be bad style.

If there is organisation behind the disorganised way you respond, then that is what I would look to expose as I am always very interested in other coherent world views.

Oh well, I've noticed that people have a difficulty reading what I meant. But I also noticed that people have that from each other. People often don't seem to notice that they speak in different meanings when they use the same word, and care more for the words they use, than what meaning they have in a debate. I've seen it happening countless times that a single word has changed meaning dozens of times in one debate with neither party observing it.

Anyway, if you're interested: http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/

 

[apeiron]

Anyway, if you're interested: http://thisdomainisirrelevant.net/

This would suggest you consider your home territory to be lambda calculus - which is indeed an organised body of ideas.

My own interest lies in clearly recognising the limits of computability (and all its allied discourses - monadism, locality, atomism, mechanicalism, determinism, information theory) and then saying, well, what is the larger story, what is the broader view of logic and causality then?

This arose because computational approaches to mind science so clearly were not cutting it. I then found that all the most advanced alternative thinking was taking place in theoretical biology - the likes of Rosen, Pattee, Salthe.

And the alternative had many names, such as systems science, semiotics, hierarchy theory, holism, dissipative structure theory, complex adaptive systems, dynamical systems theory.

 

[Kajahtava]

This would suggest you consider your home territory to be lambda calculus - which is indeed an organised body of ideas.

Not at all, it's just a webcomic whose latest comic happens to be a piece of Scheme code which is a pun on the famous drone project Sunn 0))) (which is crap).

I think the connexion between Lisp and Lambda Calculus is overstated, I do however feel that Scheme is a lot closer than Common Lisp to it (dynamic scope, treating functions different than constants, wtf?) but still, the fact that all lisp procedures can take only a single list as argument and use that as some kind of ad-hoc hack to provide other things as argument as well as currying and letrec is a bit dubious to me. I think in most languages, especially Python or Haskell, the lambda keyword is just a nice way to make anonymous functions, they aren't true lambda expressions. I don't really see a difference between Javascript's 'function(a,b) { ... }' and Python's 'lambda x, y: ...' syntax. I don't think any languages which has statements that are not expressions or has variables instead of proper substitutions can have true Lambda expressions. Needless to say of course that what JavaScript and Python provide is more powerful at the cost of minimalism. I'm basically making my own programming language to address some of these issues where every single object is a higher order function and untyped, the only way to type check is for the programmer itself to manually check if data supplied to a function is of the correct internal structure.

My own interest lies in clearly recognising the limits of computability (and all its allied discourses - monadism, locality, atomism, mechanicalism, determinism, information theory) and then saying, well, what is the larger story, what is the broader view of logic and causality then?

I guess my interest is formalism when it comes to this. I'm not as much interested in the conceptual meaning behind a function as much as the explicit behaviour of how it rewrites data. Hence I think type systems are atrocious. Of course some transformations of data can be interpreted as humanly useful and intuitive concepts, such as 'addition', but it's still just a lambda abstraction to me that transforms one lambda abstraction to another, and if the former is a number it transforms it to a lambda abstraction which can be interpreted as raising by that number.

This arose because computational approaches to mind science so clearly were not cutting it. I then found that all the most advanced alternative thinking was taking place in theoretical biology - the likes of Rosen, Pattee, Salthe.

This is again where I ne comprends pas you.

And the alternative had many names, such as systems science, semiotics, hierarchy theory, holism, dissipative structure theory, complex adaptive systems, dynamical systems theory.

I guess this is where my view differs from most people. I don't believe in 'cats' or 'trees' or 'chairs', there's just a collection of elementary particles that collide with each other and feel each other. And I think all collections are best studied in an analogue way.

For instance, that program language, you can interpret it as 'a string', however, what it is is a list of chars, you can interpret them as 'chars', but effectively they're integers > 0 (unicode codepoint), now, you can interpret it as a 'list', but in fact, it's a pair whose first element is a natural number, and whose second element is another list. And you can interpret that as 'a pair', but in reality, it's a function that returns that natural number on given any value except F, and that other list (which can be interpret as the original string minus the first character) on F.

Which is a function, and since it's a function it can be given any argument, indeed, I just said it accepts F, and all other arguments but F. (F itself is a function too of course, but not a church boolean). I really think this how in the end its best to see programs, not thinking in human terms of 'numbers' and 'strings', but think of them in their behaviour. Which is why I, contrary to most people, consider Haskell and Ruby butt-ugly and inelegant languages because they're targeted at human abstractions of reality. Ideally, a language should be able to be run natively and easily on 'some' machine. Needn't be a register machine, might as well be some thing that implements lambda calculus physically. But it shouldn't be too complicated.

In the end, I favour grounding mathematics on treating all objects as functions or algorithms and not sets I suppose, I think set theory is quite ugly in the end. I'm also still a bit uneasy about recursive function definitions that require the function to be named.

Edit: I should add though that I mainly consider myself a musician and then a graphics artist / illustrator, then a programmer and only then some one interested in science.