Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5119)	12/17/2000 2:47:28 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I would propose that the first two of your principles are flawed. What heuristics do you use to make this division?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5119)	12/19/2000 4:27:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Hey cosmicforce! Not much time to post these days; And when I do get the chance I am forced to grapple with horsefeathers and hackamores! I have wanted to look at your "first principles", and have finally time for a first impression. I resolved my understanding to some first principles: 1. There is me 2. There is outside of me 3. What is outside affects me (consequences) 4. What is outside of me behaves by rules 5. Application of these rules allows control (logic) 6. No model is without error (incompleteness) 7. The rules exist only as probabilities (imprecision) I assume that you also hold that what is outside you is affected by you...as a corollary to 3. Therefore, you affect yourself through this outside medium--so there is primary and secondary interchange proceeding constantly between beaker one and beaker two. You are not the exact architect of the consequences to yourself from 4 being acted on by 5, but rather you are able to anticipate probable consequences because you understand the rules. The more subtle your understanding of the rules, the greater the likelihood of meeting your goals. The definition between "me" and "not me" is missing. And I know you are intending an elastic and permeable boundary. But is it possible to give any more clarity to your model? I think it is something that some of us use, even if most of us have not put it in the modality of "first principles" :) I think that it is in this concept of me/not me that your model needs to supplies answers to interested parties. For instance, you state that these principles entail a complete view of moral truth; But is it a truth that needs to be defended against by others? A random illustration: Cosmicforce is at a party and sees a beautiful woman. She is "not me", but he acts with her, and according to the rules, she acts with him (she liked his wit, and was attracted to the huge bulge in his back pocket). Eventually she becomes his bride and they have a child. Now the line between "me" and "not me" has changed considerably. He cares for these two essential people in his life. They all identify with one another and project onto one another in various degrees--and they share innumerable goals that are group goals. They have developed a group identity, or a "me" with tentacles--a me-we. But something changes. She does not want the me-we type of me; She wants the me-me-me type of me. He has a gun so he holds her hostage, because he thinks she is not outside me...but IS me. This is a moral move on his part, but generally considered immoral by the outside me's. I'm eating chicken, french beans, and tators while writing this, so excuse the mess! (oh, and green tea) I like your paradigm, but it will be difficult to discuss without pinning down perhaps some of the terms. Perhaps that is not possible, or perhaps it is. Moo!