Aboriginal Civil Disobedience

[Jarhyn]

Moreover, AM wants to ignore that morality has sprung up and emerged from wider principles governing strategic direction among groups of agents.

These are properties of agents with arbitrary goals, and properties of the interactions of goals. Aliens, computers, pretty much any other socially interactive self-replicator will emerge similar solutions around such similar problem. I completely reject AM's contention that "morality" (really, here, we are discussing 'ethics' not morals!) can be a human universal and not emergent among communicative replicating agents. Other organisms may organize slightly differently given different relationships with death, symbiosis, and such, but the core of goal oriented action is not a unique function of earth life.

I'm curious what other planets' life is it a function of?

The point is, any planet with individuals that are born, live learn, communicate, seek goals (which may include to reproduce), and die have this as a function because it is a function of that pattern. The function of other patterns can, however, be derived, assuming it converges as our patter of existence and capability does, on a strategic recommendation general to the pattern.

You can see these facts in that the elements that we apply to social situations, morally, echo themselves in the elements we apply to logical processes and functions, which are about as alien as any thing can be, But the solutions for problems still apply ethics, the thing our morality is an approximation of

I'm going to quibble here. You're conflating cause and effect. These elements didn't emerge within logical processes and functions, we imposed them.

No, we didn't. They were imposed, rather, by the structure of reality. There are a limited set of resolutions found for various problems: heap, stack, race, priority. You can desire for another model all you want, but those categories encompass all of it; race is in fact a subset of priority, priority being determined by an external factor (proximity).

This is not specific to our geometry. In fact, to compare the systemic/axiomatic structures of thought and modeling reality to the just-so elements of what we happened to be is a red herring. They are not the same and I do not claim they are. But I your comparison, you equivocate these things

Your comment here is kind of like remarking on the implicit superiority of generally man-height bipeds as an evolutionary adaptation by observing how well tables and charges are fit to that shape

On a more generally note... I think I agree with your core concept - morality (and ethics) are not universal, there is no objective and externally imposed standard. They are the result of evolution within a social species. But, given that they are a result of selection pressures, they are also not entirely stable. They change with the social group. Thus, morality varies from culture to culture, belief system to belief system, and across time.

No, that's AM's claim. I pose there are two things which you here conflate: an unstable morality that vacillates between a primitive darwinian paradigm and a more advanced neo-Lamarckian paradigm; the relativity exists in where one lands in applying Lamarckian strategy over Darwinian, and a stable Ethics which can be used to describe and prescribe how and when and why to apply paradigms such as these.

Ethics is more the discussion of, which paradigm gives better benefits to who and why.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point is, any planet with individuals that are born, live learn, communicate, seek goals (which may include to reproduce), and die have this as a function because it is a function of that pattern. The function of other patterns can, however, be derived, assuming it converges as our patter of existence and capability does, on a strategic recommendation general to the pattern.

On any planet with similar environmental characteristics, laterally symmetrical bipedal hominids will evolve as the dominant species, because that's a function of that pattern...

Okay, yes, that's tongue-in-cheek... but the point here is that you are making declarative statements that the thing that we have experienced - as the only sample of things that we can look to - is therefore the only way that such a thing can be experienced. You're effectively taking a sample of size one and assuming that it is perfectly representative of the population.

We have not yet found another planet with life on it at all, let alone life of the complexity that you describe. Why do you think that the social process that produces morality as a framework for group behavior is the only possible process that can occur?

 

[Jarhyn]

The point is, any planet with individuals that are born, live learn, communicate, seek goals (which may include to reproduce), and die have this as a function because it is a function of that pattern. The function of other patterns can, however, be derived, assuming it converges as our patter of existence and capability does, on a strategic recommendation general to the pattern.

On any planet with similar environmental characteristics, laterally symmetrical bipedal hominids will evolve as the dominant species, because that's a function of that pattern...

Okay, yes, that's tongue-in-cheek... but the point here is that you are making declarative statements that the thing that we have experienced - as the only sample of things that we can look to - is therefore the only way that such a thing can be experienced. You're effectively taking a sample of size one and assuming that it is perfectly representative of the population.

We have not yet found another planet with life on it at all, let alone life of the complexity that you describe. Why do you think that the social process that produces morality as a framework for group behavior is the only possible process that can occur?

You are again confusing morality with ethics in this framework. It is possible, absolutely that a different moral balance will be reached. But the chaotic, selfish structure that works for "darwinistic" will always work for "darwinistic". We have had billions of years for alternatives to evolve, fight it out, etc. After billions of years "neo-lamarckian" has surpassed the evolution rate of "darwinistic", and even incorporated targeted darwinistic reactor laboratories so as to synergize!

Perhaps there is another emergent pattern resonance for life, and I think about this often. The only way I can shift the calculus is by removing death, and then things get ugly. Interestingly, that becomes a discussion of Lovecraftian nature.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

These are properties of agents with arbitrary goals, and properties of the interactions of goals. Aliens, computers, pretty much any other socially interactive self-replicator will emerge similar solutions around such similar problem. I completely reject AM's contention that "morality" (really, here, we are discussing 'ethics' not morals!) can be a human universal and not emergent among communicative replicating agents. Other organisms may organize slightly differently given different relationships with death, symbiosis, and such, but the core of goal oriented action is not a unique function of earth life.

Take a look at different animals, even social animals. Their social organization is species-specific, even if there are commonalities. I'm not saying that aliens that talk and make spaceships would not have some analogue to morality. I think they probably would if they evolve - AI are a completely different thing -, but that would very, very probably not be morality, but an analogue. Moral rules evolved with us human monkeys, and other monkeys. Aliens would very probably evolve different rules, even if they would have similarities due to similar problems. And the same goes for what they would consider an alien-better outcome to bring about (as opposed to a better one). (if the universe has infinitely many stars or things, yes, there are infinitely many aliens with morality, but also infinitely many without. And chances are our successors will run into the latter).

As I posted elsewhere:

For example, let's say that there are two other planets in the Local Group where advanced civilizations developed. On Earth 2, 2-squids are smart, technologically advanced, etc., and evolved from something like squids. On Earth 3, 3-elephants are smart, etc., and evolved from something like elephants. While they are all social beings, their basic interests and preferences are quite different in many respects, from each other’s, and from those of humans. There is overlapping in their interests and preferences, of course, but there are also considerable differences.

After hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution as social beings, they evolved some species-specific rules, and something akin to a moral sense of sorts, but not quite the same. Their senses are tracking some other properties, rather than moral properties. The 2-squids have 2-squid morality, they care about 2-squid-good and 2-squid-bad, and about 2-squid-immoral behavior, etc., rather than about good and bad, and about immoral behavior. A similar story is true of 3-elephants.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The other very interesting manifestation here is the really detailed and persistant refusal to talk about the actual tragedy. The 1500+ bodies of dead children buried in unmarked mass graves on the site of religious residential schools.

I find it unexpected, and immensely interesting how several people can work so hard to avoid talking about that tragedy. It takes a lot of work. And it is work done by entering a thread on the topic, and writing thousands of words to avoid the topic.


Some people just avoid threads on topics like this. But others come to the topic and expend vast amounts of energy to change the conversation to something else. It’s very interesting to think about it what drives that.

I suspect it's more a case of every poster here agrees that the death of those thousands of children was a horrific abuse, a terrible thing to have happened. Nobody has any counter to that, nobody thinks it was a good thing, or even that it's not a big fucking deal that so many bodies have been found.

We all agree on that. There's no real discussion to be had on that aspect of it. Thus, it doesn't get air time.

Nobody is trying to avoid talking about the tragedy, because we all agree that it was a tragedy.

Exactly. Things with a unanimous opinion do not cause discussion and thus appear to be unimportant. We don't have a time machine, we can't undo it. It's unlikely any perpetrators are identifiable and most likely aren't even alive. There's nobody to punish.

 

[laughing dog]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

 

[Rhea]

There’s a concept of how humans can be overwhelmed by the scope of the needs - into paralysis. That if they are made to look at a problem they can’t fix immediately, they can’t take it in and they withdraw.

Perhaps that is what you are feeling, Angra?

No, I'm still replying, even though I know I can't fix the problems here. But now I'm no longer allowed to reply to the rest of the points in your post. That is too bad. Now I am considering leaving, as I'm not allowed to make my case and defend my arguments properly.

You don’t have to leave, just copy the post and start a new thread with it - then it won’t be a derail and we can discuss the topic appropriately and at length.

That’s all a person has to do to discuss something off-topic; start a new topic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

While the Church's conduct is atrocious I don't see how simply being silent about it now warrants burning down churches. (Now, if the problem were ongoing that would be another matter.)

They murdered children either through neglect or abuse. That was the mission statement. The children were stolen from their families and murdered. Then buried like inconvenient refuse.

Some lucky ones were just tortured by systemic neglect and abuse.

Really? I'm not saying they didn't do this. But infant mortality was high. Until the rise of mass vaccinations and penicillin kids died from all kinds of non-malicious reasons. It doesn't have to have been neglect. It probably was. But it's not certain.

In the 18'th century the west was going through the demographic gap. Ie, birth rates were sustained very high and mortality rates were low. So overpopulation was a major problem. In Catholic countries excess children were given to the churches who got too many to keep alive. In protestant countries kids were given to "angel makers" (private citizens) whose jobs were to mistreat the kid so it dies, without outright murdering them, which was illegal.

I think you are judging these people by modern standards. In this world children weren't worth a damn.

We can rage and cry about this as much as we want, and it is tragic, but there's a context.

 

[Arctish]

While the Church's conduct is atrocious I don't see how simply being silent about it now warrants burning down churches. (Now, if the problem were ongoing that would be another matter.)

They murdered children either through neglect or abuse. That was the mission statement. The children were stolen from their families and murdered. Then buried like inconvenient refuse.

Some lucky ones were just tortured by systemic neglect and abuse.

Really? I'm not saying they didn't do this. But infant mortality was high. Until the rise of mass vaccinations and penicillin kids died from all kinds of non-malicious reasons. It doesn't have to have been neglect. It probably was. But it's not certain.

In the 18'th century the west was going through the demographic gap. Ie, birth rates were sustained very high and mortality rates were low. So overpopulation was a major problem. In Catholic countries excess children were given to the churches who got too many to keep alive. In protestant countries kids were given to "angel makers" (private citizens) whose jobs were to mistreat the kid so it dies, without outright murdering them, which was illegal.

I think you are judging these people by modern standards. In this world children weren't worth a damn.

We can rage and cry about this as much as we want, and it is tragic, but there's a context.

Right.

Because I'm as old as Methuselah so anything that happened within my lifetime is ancient history and those bodies being uncovered on school grounds are practically fossils.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point is, any planet with individuals that are born, live learn, communicate, seek goals (which may include to reproduce), and die have this as a function because it is a function of that pattern. The function of other patterns can, however, be derived, assuming it converges as our patter of existence and capability does, on a strategic recommendation general to the pattern.

On any planet with similar environmental characteristics, laterally symmetrical bipedal hominids will evolve as the dominant species, because that's a function of that pattern...

Okay, yes, that's tongue-in-cheek... but the point here is that you are making declarative statements that the thing that we have experienced - as the only sample of things that we can look to - is therefore the only way that such a thing can be experienced. You're effectively taking a sample of size one and assuming that it is perfectly representative of the population.

We have not yet found another planet with life on it at all, let alone life of the complexity that you describe. Why do you think that the social process that produces morality as a framework for group behavior is the only possible process that can occur?

You are again confusing morality with ethics in this framework. It is possible, absolutely that a different moral balance will be reached. But the chaotic, selfish structure that works for "darwinistic" will always work for "darwinistic". We have had billions of years for alternatives to evolve, fight it out, etc. After billions of years "neo-lamarckian" has surpassed the evolution rate of "darwinistic", and even incorporated targeted darwinistic reactor laboratories so as to synergize!

Perhaps there is another emergent pattern resonance for life, and I think about this often. The only way I can shift the calculus is by removing death, and then things get ugly. Interestingly, that becomes a discussion of Lovecraftian nature.

Honestly, I feel like you're throwing out lots of jargon in some effort to claim authority. I can't tell if you're even actually making sense at all.

At the end of the day, you claimed that there's only one possible way for this to come about, and you extended that to include all life on other planets, aliens, and presumably fairies and unicorns too. It's a claim that doesn't seem to have any actual backing, but a whole lot of assumptions.

 

[Emily Lake]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

I'm going to assume that the answer to that question involves too much pot.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are again confusing morality with ethics in this framework. It is possible, absolutely that a different moral balance will be reached. But the chaotic, selfish structure that works for "darwinistic" will always work for "darwinistic". We have had billions of years for alternatives to evolve, fight it out, etc. After billions of years "neo-lamarckian" has surpassed the evolution rate of "darwinistic", and even incorporated targeted darwinistic reactor laboratories so as to synergize!

Perhaps there is another emergent pattern resonance for life, and I think about this often. The only way I can shift the calculus is by removing death, and then things get ugly. Interestingly, that becomes a discussion of Lovecraftian nature.

Honestly, I feel like you're throwing out lots of jargon in some effort to claim authority. I can't tell if you're even actually making sense at all.

At the end of the day, you claimed that there's only one possible way for this to come about, and you extended that to include all life on other planets, aliens, and presumably fairies and unicorns too. It's a claim that doesn't seem to have any actual backing, but a whole lot of assumptions.

No, I claimed that it is likely the case that there is a single core ethical model for any given evolutionary strategy, and that if you wish to demonstrate the possibility of another one you have to actually model it, and show how it evolves faster, survives more tenaciously.

If you want to know how we got here we got here because you and AM and a number of other posters really don't want to accept that right and wrong is a function of universal geometry.

At any rate, who is right will not be bourn out today or even tomorrow. I suspect it will be a good decade before people agree with me on this. I'll be here, waiting.

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I claimed that it is likely the case that there is a single core ethical model for any given evolutionary strategy, and that if you wish to demonstrate the possibility of another one you have to actually model it, and show how it evolves faster, survives more tenaciously.

As soon as I manage to create a new lifeform, I'll put it on fast forward and see.

Here's a problem: You're relying on the concept of modeling, and you're assuming that those models are somehow universally true. Except that the model can only be based on what you have observed - which is what has worked *here*. But you're assuming that what worked *here* is the only thing that can work anywhere. Furthermore, you're taking human experience of modern day current interpretation, and you're generalizing it to all species and all times - even to other planets.

Let me try an example...

Let's say you grew up on a remote island, with no exposure to the rest of the planet. Your island has your small community of humans, it has several species of birds, several species of insect, and it has many species of fish. You've got coconuts, a few different types of roots, seaweed, and one bush that produces edible berries. Your community has a set of morals that includes only eating fully mature fish, never eggs, and that prohibits the eating of shellfish. You community defines eating more than two coconuts from the same tree within a two-month period as immoral and wrong. Girls in your community get married within one year of menarche, and boys get married within one year of their first nocturnal emission. Marriages are arranged by extended families, and are predominantly for the purpose of social cohesion. Nobody is expected to be monogamous, and sex is viewed as being an expression of affection and entertainment.

You want to model ecologies, and the dynamics between different species. You can do a great job of modeling them, it can be an excellent model, that truly and accurately describes and predicts the interactions between species on your island. It incorporates all of the aspects of morality that you have been taught and that you have witnessed and experienced.

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that your model is the core ethical model for any given evolutionary strategy? Does the fact that your model doesn't even know that reptiles and non-human mammals exist might be a problem? Do you think that having a view of morality and ethics that is limited to only your community might present a fundamental limitation?

If you want to know how we got here we got here because you and AM and a number of other posters really don't want to accept that right and wrong is a function of universal geometry.

I don't see any compelling reason to accept the existence of a universal objective and absolute morality, regardless of whether you dress it up with terms like "universal geometry" or simply call it god. You've made an unfalsifiable claim, based on belief, and then you except other people to take it on faith because you've said so?

At any rate, who is right will not be bourn out today or even tomorrow. I suspect it will be a good decade before people agree with me on this. I'll be here, waiting.

I expect that the outcome will be rather akin to that of the Jewish faith, insisting that there is only one god and it is their god, and eating pork is a sin.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

You can read the exchanges and you'll get the answer. Short version: as is often the case when people make moral claims (like, all the time), someone challenges that there is a universal morality. Then someone else says it's a human universal, though probably it would not extend to aliens (details in the posts), and someone else disagrees with that. You can find out who did what in the exchange. The starting point of this particular diversion can be found in the claim that " There is no such thing as a universal code of morals."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

There’s a concept of how humans can be overwhelmed by the scope of the needs - into paralysis. That if they are made to look at a problem they can’t fix immediately, they can’t take it in and they withdraw.

Perhaps that is what you are feeling, Angra?

No, I'm still replying, even though I know I can't fix the problems here. But now I'm no longer allowed to reply to the rest of the points in your post. That is too bad. Now I am considering leaving, as I'm not allowed to make my case and defend my arguments properly.

You don’t have to leave, just copy the post and start a new thread with it - then it won’t be a derail and we can discuss the topic appropriately and at length.

That’s all a person has to do to discuss something off-topic; start a new topic.

But that's not very useful to me: you made the claims in this thread, so I'm interested in replying in this thread, where some of the posters read your post. Anyway, nothing I can do about it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you want to know how we got here we got here because you and AM and a number of other posters really don't want to accept that right and wrong is a function of universal geometry.

But there is no good reason to believe that.
Let's leave moral obligations aside for a moment, and consider, say, bad situations. Take, for example, a situation where some lions kill and eat an elephant. The elephant dies a horrific, slow, very, very painful death, given that the lions don't (can't) kill her quickly. Another scenario: the elephant escapes, and some of the lions starve to death. Which situation is worse, starving lions (S2) or an elephant horribly dying, killed by lions(S1)? Regardless, suppose that two species of advanced aliens who are studying Earth: 3-elephants and 4-lions (similar definition). It would be an enormous coincidence that both 3-elephants and 4-lions find S1 and S2 equally negative, and that the relation between how 3-elephant-bad S1 and S2 are, is the same as the relation between how 4-lion-bad S1 and S2 are. Plausibly, S2 is 4-lion-worse than S1, whereas S1 is 3-elephant-worse than S2. At any rate, even if that were not so, how much 4-lion-bad S2 is would be (almost certainly I would say) different from how much 3-elephant-bad it is.

In other words, 3-elephant-badness and 4-lion-badness of situations would be almost certaintly different things, and both different from just badness (which is our own thing). The same for goodness.

And now look at the connection between moral obligation and bringing about good or bad situations, all other things equal; 3-elephant-moral obligations would be connected to 3-elephant-badness, etc.

That's one way of seeing that 4-lion-morality, 3-elephant-morality, and morality (which is human monkey morality) would almost certainly be pretty different things.

 

[laughing dog]

How in the hell did an OP about unmarked children's graves morph into people babbling about alien life?

You can read the exchanges and you'll get the answer. Short version: as is often the case when people make moral claims (like, all the time), someone challenges that there is a universal morality. Then someone else says it's a human universal, though probably it would not extend to aliens (details in the posts), and someone else disagrees with that. You can find out who did what in the exchange. The starting point of this particular diversion can be found in the claim that " There is no such thing as a universal code of morals."

Nah, I think Emily Lake's explanation nailed it.

 

[Patooka]

Fun fact: The Anglican, Presbyterian and United Churches have all admitted responsibility and guilt for their actions in these types of schools. So not only can you assign guilt to an organisation, the RCC is the exception for not apologizing for its actions.

On a side note; I thought the United Church, Anglicans and Church of England were interchangeable. I guess I'm not as knowledgeable about Protestant faiths as I thought.

 

[Bomb#20]

It turns out, when you asked where I imagined you saying the church did not owe an apology. I said to myself, “self, why did I think he said that if he didn’t?” And I went back and re-read every single one of your posts on the thread to figure out why I thought that about you. The answer turned out to be, because all of your posts were about avoiding the possibility of discussing whether the catholic church had done anything to result in someone being angry/frustrated enough to burrn down their church. And so I concluded, All right, I thought he was arguing against the church owing an apology because all of his posts fail to support the church owing an apology.

Since you re-read every single one of my posts on the thread, you must have noticed my focus on the harm the arsonist did to indigenous people: the parishioners who attended services in the churches he destroyed. It turns out, all of your posts were about avoiding the possibility of discussing whether it's wrong to forcibly deprive other indigenous people of their prayer venue*. Do you think, therefore, that it would have been reasonable for me to write "Rhea argues that First Nations people do not have a right to free exercise of religion** if it's not a traditional First Nations religion."? Would that have been a fair way for me to characterize the position you've taken in this thread?

According to Matthew 12:30, Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me". That's an illogical inference rule. We're atheists; let's not think like Christians.

(* That's exactly as fair a characterization of your posts as your characterization of mine was, as "avoiding the possibility of discussing" the aspect of the events you thought was more worth talking about than the aspect I thought was worth talking about.)

(** When an anti-Semite burns down a synagogue, does anyone here fail to see it as an attack on Jews' right to free exercise of religion?)

Is it an insult to say your M.O. is “duck and run” when each of your posts ducked the topic and ran from taking the side of the victims?

Excuse me? I was taking the side of the victims. You repeatedly taking for granted that the arsonist hurt some abstract world-wide institution rather than his own neighbors doesn't magically transform those neighbors into non-victims.

I can say it in english and it is still not an insult. Your responses were an example of “duck and run” on the topic.

According to Google translate, "oretur et absconderis" means pretty much the exact opposite of "currere et saltare". You make a self-contradictory accusation and then offer a truth defense? Of course you were insulting me. For you to deny it is insulting our readers' intelligence.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, it was too hard to get “duck and run” into the translate for the purpose of continuing the Latin joke without it being a literal water fowl. I improvised.