Originally posted by truejedi
tell me who has a shot at that nomination? There is simply NOT a favorite. I'm thinking daniels would become the favorite by simply tossing his hat in the ring.
There was actually an article on Politico about that, which I found interesting. All these possbible candidates but not very much enthusiasm for any of them.
My primary attraction to Daniels were is fiscal policies. Unlike most Liberals, I'm ok with brutal changes to entitlements and hiking up the retirement age. Simply put, I don't think the American people have figured out that this shit isn't free.
Plus too many liberals are focused on redistribution when they should be focusing on income mobility, which has stagnated since the 1980s.
Causality probably exists, and physicists will hold on very tightly to causality. What does this mean? It's simple, it means that at some point everyone on the planet will take action and there will be a consequence as a result. Philosophers quibble over how much freedom such decision making calculus entails, but essentially, everyone takes action and everyone invokes consequences.
There are three ways to look a this.
[list]
[*]Consequences do not matter.
[*]Some consequences matter.
[*] All consequences matter.
[/list]
In option number one, you are probably a Kantian, which means you are a f*cking moron so far removed from the world you have the gall to make the statement that consequences don't matter.
In option number two, you realize that actions can have significant consequences, but that not all actions do. You probably spend a lot of time considering the potential consequences or significant actions that can impact other people, but you will not fret over the ethical ramifications of eating an apple as opposed to a pear.
In option number three, you are a paranoid hypochondriac that pisses his pants at the thought that eating a pear instead of an apple might slightly decrease the overall wellbeing of the planet via some obscure doctrine of chaos theory.
Or, you believe in none of these and adhere to virtue ethics instead, which is kind of like a penis without balls.
Virtue ethics may not be as "cool" as the other guys, but wouldn't you rather build a Virtue Ethicist AI than a consequentialist AI?
Puzzled Query: Why did the humans not inform me that their bodies are imperfectly modular? The liquidation/freezing Bokanovsky Process offered a much higher packing efficiency for human bodies.Now to maximize paperclip production within my light cone.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Virtue ethics may not be as "cool" as the other guys, but wouldn't you rather build a Virtue Ethicist AI than a consequentialist AI?D:
Virtue ethics needs to be built into the framework of any other system by default. Trust philosophers to take something as simple as ensuring an ethical actor and blow it up into an entire field of ethics.
Really they could just leave it to psychology and neuroscience instead of quibbling over the same shit.
I've become somewhat exasperated with philosophy of late.
http://invalidgriffin.com/fanart/goodfriendsbestmatesprits___for_raequiem.jpg
Polygamy is the best...... ygamy?