Good

"

Veracocha wrote:

"

SkyCore wrote:

Consequentially lies and useless information not only dont facilitate future freedom, but indeed retard it.

What's left for you to do is to define what "lies" and "useless information" are. Because different people are going to have different interpretations of the notions "lies" and "useless information". Then you're gonna enforce the one homogenous interpretation of these notions and you've got yourself a nice totalitarian state. Well done.

And what is wrong with totalitarianism when you have more freedom, more resources, and more knowledge sharing than any other possible state?

You hold onto some negative connotation of totalitarianism despite its negative properties being completely absent.

"

Veracocha wrote:

What's left for you to do is to define what "lies" and "useless information" are. Because different people are going to have different interpretations of the notions "lies" and "useless information".

A lie is still a lie even if some believe it to be true, and useless information does not become useful because some would overestimate it's validity.

For example, I don't need to understand fluid dynamics to plan my next meal. It is useless information in the context of making dinner and (falsely) assuming otherwise is going to seriously halt my progress towards that goal.

Or if somebody claims the earth, the universe and everything is a mere 6k years old then we can look at nature wich has kindly provided us with an aswer sheet and say with certainty, the person is lying. Even if he believes his own lie.

The whole point of the pursuit of an objective moral compass is to have one such answer sheet to wich we can compare various claims to see if they are indeed truths or lies, useful or useless.

Personaly, I think it's too early to get all hyped about this, as the saying goes: "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is".

The Earth IS 6k years old. The only question is, what is k?

This is all so Utilitarianism 101, I find it to be such a rigid philosophy at its extremes (which this is) and its definitely nothing new. There is no greatest good, it is a purely relative concept.

Was SkyCore a pun on SkyNet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY

Ok, as it seems the op is more serious about this than I originally assumed, I'd like to break it down a little more:

1. You're talking about "maximizing of future freedom of action" and then go on to explain that you'd achieve this through a totalitarian dictatorship. The whole concept is an absurd paradox from the outset, and I don't understand how you could possibly not see it.

2. "A religion or an entire branch of science could be formed around this" many already have been. Most religions rely on theory of divine command, which means they basically say "we have a special formula with all the answers and anyone who disagrees is wrong", only difference is they use big long winded books instead of formulas. There have also been numerous attempts to program computers into performing our governance for us, with the aim of creating the possibility of a cyberocracy. The gentleman in my signature has a lot more to say about that than I do, but the bottom line is that cyberocracies would be dictatorships by definition (it would just be computers doing the dictating), and dictatorships don't represent freedom of action, so your paradox is back to square one.

3. "I think it's too early to get all hyped about this" Too early? The Chileans were hyped in the 70's when they thought they had invented a computerized system to manage the national economy for them, thereby removing those pesky humans and their irrational decisions. It didn't work out well. People have either been trying to come up with perfect formulas for how we should all live our lives, or been claiming to already have said formula (in various forms and contexts) for thousands of years. It's nothing to get hyped about.

4. "And what is wrong with totalitarianism when you have more freedom, more resources, and more knowledge sharing than any other possible state?

You hold onto some negative connotation of totalitarianism despite its negative properties being completely absent."

There is so much wrong with that statement it's hard to stay calm while responding to it, but still, I'll give it a go; Totalitarianism by definition does not offer freedom, and you seem to be warping the concepts of both totalitarianism and freedom to make them fit your needs. "Totalitarianism when you have more freedom", are you kidding me? If you have freedom then it isn't totalitarianism. You can't say that the state should dictate everything and then claim that the net result is freedom, that's beyond rediculous and utterly nonsensical.

5. You should read some of Pol Pot's speeches. You sound a lot like him ideologically.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

3. "I think it's too early to get all hyped about this" Too early? The Chileans were hyped in the 70's when they thought they had invented a computerized system to manage the national economy for them, thereby removing those pesky humans and their irrational decisions. It didn't work out well. People have either been trying to come up with perfect formulas for how we should all live our lives, or been claiming to already have said formula (in various forms and contexts) for thousands of years. It's nothing to get hyped about.

...Yes? That's pretty much what "too early" means, is it not? And I'm wondering if perhaps you're fusing some of his statements with mine.

deceptionist quality thread

"

Upandatem wrote:

...Yes? That's pretty much what "too early" means, is it not? And I'm wondering if perhaps you're fusing some of his statements with mine.

Too early implies it's some sort of new idea and we have yet to see whether one person dictating a magical formula for the rest of us to live by will result in freedom for us or not. It's not a new idea, and even if it was it's still absurd and certainly not too early to call bullshit on the whole concept.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

Ok, as it seems the op is more serious about this than I originally assumed, I'd like to break it down a little more:

1. You're talking about "maximizing of future freedom of action" and then go on to explain that you'd achieve this through a totalitarian dictatorship. The whole concept is an absurd paradox from the outset, and I don't understand how you could possibly not see it.

4. "And what is wrong with totalitarianism when you have more freedom, more resources, and more knowledge sharing than any other possible state?

You hold onto some negative connotation of totalitarianism despite its negative properties being completely absent."

There is so much wrong with that statement it's hard to stay calm while responding to it, but still, I'll give it a go; Totalitarianism by definition does not offer freedom, and you seem to be warping the concepts of both totalitarianism and freedom to make them fit your needs. "Totalitarianism when you have more freedom", are you kidding me? If you have freedom then it isn't totalitarianism. You can't say that the state should dictate everything and then claim that the net result is freedom, that's beyond rediculous and utterly nonsensical.

It was not I who said such a system would be totalitarian, but someone else. Instead of arguing the semantics, i jumped right to the end result which is maximal freedom within the constraints of not reducing future freedom. You can label it all you want, and carry over its baggage of prior associations, but to do so is erroneous. It is what it is, it is not what you generalized some other related thing which you first were aware of.

In AI we call that concept 'overfitting'. And it is a real problem when dealing with generalizations. Especially with ambiguous things such as ill-defined and often contradictory words. And id imagine absurdly more so when agencies have been propagating negative bias towards those words since long before we were born.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

2. "A religion or an entire branch of science could be formed around this" many already have been. Most religions rely on theory of divine command, which means they basically say "we have a special formula with all the answers and anyone who disagrees is wrong", only difference is they use big long winded books instead of formulas. There have also been numerous attempts to program computers into performing our governance for us, with the aim of creating the possibility of a cyberocracy. The gentleman in my signature has a lot more to say about that than I do,

3. "I think it's too early to get all hyped about this" Too early? The Chileans were hyped in the 70's when they thought they had invented a computerized system to manage the national economy for them, thereby removing those pesky humans and their irrational decisions. It didn't work out well. People have either been trying to come up with perfect formulas for how we should all live our lives, or been claiming to already have said formula (in various forms and contexts) for thousands of years. It's nothing to get hyped about.

You are invoking a fallacy here. Because one thing is a member of a common set which has another member with the property of 'bogus bullshit' does not imply that the original thing also has the property 'bogus bullshit'.

Take a few moments and instead of coming up with an argument to validate your prior beliefs, examine your beliefs. What are your morals? What are the exceptions? Now re-examine maximizing future freedom. Try to map those beliefs onto this formula. Ill wager you can do it in almost every case. And the cases were you cant... perhaps you need to truly ask yourself if you should update them.

It is elegant and simple. And is the ONLY rational attempt iv seen which does indeed formalize morality into a mathematical equation.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

but the bottom line is that cyberocracies would be dictatorships by definition (it would just be computers doing the dictating), and dictatorships don't represent freedom of action, so your paradox is back to square one.

Your logic is all messed up. The fact that a governance is a dictatorship is in no way related to freedom of action.

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

5. You should read some of Pol Pot's speeches. You sound a lot like him ideologically.

I think you are trying to insult me. And what's funny is that pol pot had a lot of well intentioned and effective ideas. They were just smeared and distorted in the subversive media under direct influence of CIA propaganda. That is not to say i agree with what and how things were done. Im just pointing out i know what you think and why you think it. A cascade of events and influences generating bias to keep you under control, both intentional and un-intentional.

"

Metronomy wrote:

The Earth IS 6k years old. The only question is, what is k?

Ease up on the crack, mate.

"

Metronomy wrote:

There is no greatest good, it is a purely relative concept.

Outdated philosophy. 'greater good' is just a concept...words. Words mean what we define them to mean.

This formula on the other hand is real. Objective. It is math. It will exist long after our planet is a radioactive shitball.

I assert that the greater good IS the maximum future freedom. It is what i define it to be. And i think anyone enlightened would also see the value in this.

"

Metronomy wrote:

Was SkyCore a pun on SkyNet?

Iv had this handle for decades. I also go by the names Negawatt, Cosmic Voodoo, Judge Omega, and Not_I.

As should surprise no one, the systems which produce the most freedom of action are those ofa government which acknowledges rights of the people and doesn't infringe upon those rights. The problem with starting with anything remotely totalitarian is that once you start removing freedom from the system it becomes difficult to reintroduce it.