Recent content by MxM111

Of course they can. I once saved a mouse from manhole. Despite of (small) risk of being infected and despite the fact that probably this mouse would run and do mousy things which are not quite beneficial for the city and me. And even I now would use mouse poison without any problem to fight mice...

You absolutely right that the moral values and beauty standards is something about minds. But why do you think that there is no something objective that can be said about intelligent conscious minds? If we have a general AI, for example, sure, its preference will be different, but are you sure...

Why do you think the moral values are not provisional? As for how to test the moral value - look at our history, it is a test case of moral values implemented as, well, values in different societies. The societies themselves reject or accept the values, as it has been done, for example, with...

If you have a power of god and make all intelligent creatures in universe suffer at nearly maximum suffering capability as they themselves define it, then arguably making so is morally bad, objectively so.

You are really on something here. Is it immoral to do things differently? It is simple question but think about it. It may be the cornerstone between different political movements (conservative vs liberal), different types of society (dark ages vs resonance) and so on.

Would you like to explain the trouble I have with the word "objective". I might. Also, if you will, can you describe differences in the process of scientific knowledge versus moral value knowledge. Both has observation, argumentation, and experiment/implementation parts, may be on different time...

From epistemological point of view I see nearly no difference about those three. We run models in our head (and sometimes with the use of pen and paper or computer) about the properties of the surround world. The models in our heads compete with each other for being accepted on top level as...

Is there principal possibility of illogical laws or of universe without laws at all? I intuit that the answer is no. And this is why math (and I consider logic is part of it) works.

Yes, it is also called "grok that person completely" (Stranger in a strange land). This is for sure not a new idea.

One can always say that it is Babylonians that got it partly right somehow. But it is indeed mysterious that while God could have created the universe in an instant, was laboring for 6 days. And even needed a day to rest? Or is there a god's union controlling these things?

Sorry to bring such example but it is considered immoral in many cultures "to have sex with yourself", also known as masturbation. No relationship with society is required (talking from my friend's experience).

So your argument is that it is wrong because of symbolism, i.e. because the current culture considers it wrong? I think by virtue of the question this is not allowed argument. You can think of the original question as "is our culture is wrong that we consider eating dog (or grandma) wrong?"...

It is also interesting that a) it exists b) it is quite close to being omnipotent within physical laws, which arguably its own laws. But not sure about benevolent part. Also, we are, part of this god. Like cells are part of us. We run software for it, which can be called culture or memes...

It all depends what you call moral. If moral is currently culturally acceptable moral values, then I suspect that all of the examples are wrong. If you accept moral wrong as something that increases probability of suffering and decreases probability of well being, then provided that other...

I think the problem is the following. Modus ponens principle is a logic principle, not probability principle. If A, then B. Then A happens. 100% happens. No "probably happens". Then B Applying to the election example, it is misleading to say "A Republican will win the election", because it does...