Re: Nick and dishonest behavior
Locked
12
12
 
|
Nick,
I'm still curious about your answer to a challenge you raised. You wrote, As one of my graduate students used to [cheerfully] say, "but Nick, if you don't have an inner life, it's ok to kill you, right?"
Now, my wisest response to this
line of argument would be to go all technocratic and to deny that I
have any ethical dog in this fight at all. One can, after all, be a
moral naturalist and assert that reasoning and argument only come into
play when people are trying to violate their ethical impulses and that,
on the whole, people are designed by nature so that they don't kill each other. Just as I don't think it makes any difference whether you believe in evolution or creation whether you are a good person, I don't think it makes any difference to being a good person whether you
believe others have an inner life or not. Thus, I escape the argument
by asserting that it has no MORAL consequences. I reassure Russ that
my absence of an inner life does not make me dangerous, and, once he
takes that reassurance seriously, he doesn't have to kill me. Peace is re-established. It seems to m that you didn't answer your graduate student's challenge. Is it ok to kill you? The implication of the challenge is that murder is a moral issue only when it is performed on a being with an inner life. Simply terminating the functioning of something (like a robot) is not murder. We use the term "murder" when the thing murdered is understood to have an inner life like our own. It may be as you say that we have evolved to have that perspective. (I think that's correct.) But so what? Do you have any (moral) grounds for objecting to your graduate student killing you? Given your statement "it has no MORAL consequences" apparently your answer is that from your perspective there is no moral reason for him/her not to kill you. Is that correct? -- Russ On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: I have long felt that the Santa Fe group should find a way to gnash ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Bringing something from a P.S. up to the
front:
Nick's ethical stance would be based on treating things that act in certain ways as equal to all other things that act in certain ways, and it wouldn't get much more prescriptive than that. The acts he would be interested in would be very sophisticated actions, or combination of actions - such as "contributing to the conversation". This may seem strange, but again, it is really, really, really, not that different from a stance that treats all things that "experience in a certain way" as equal. ---- To elaborate that, it cannot be the case, pragmatically speaking, that we let other people live because they have an inner life. We all know this cannot be true (Russ included), because one of the axiomatic assumptions for these conversations is that you cannot directly know someone else's mental life. If you cannot know whether or not someone has a mental life, you can't decide whether or not you can kill them based on their having a mental life. Is there any way to make that more obvious?!? The way this is problem is normally dealt with is for people to say that we can gain insight into people's mental lives by observing their behavior. The logic goes 1) we see people act a certain way, 2) we infer that they have a mental life, 3) we decide that we cannot kill them (barring them being jerks or believing in the wrong god). Now, the irony of a dualistic philosophy is in step 2, where their inner life somehow comes to be entirely in our heads, not in theirs! Its crazy talk. Philosophers have spent millennia trying to connect steps 2 and 3, and getting no where. Much better to just look at the part of the equation that is actually observable, steps 1 and 3 - the relation between the actions and the ethical decision. When you do that, you see that we aren't allowed to kill people who act in certain ways. That's what its always been, despite all the smoke and mirrors created by point 2. The obvious, but totally unasked, empirical question is "What are the ways that people act that distinguish whether or not we can kill them." We just don't need to talk about inner lives at all to have that conversation. We just don't! The same applies to all sub-categories of interest. We judge someone a "murder" based on some aspect of their actions and the circumstances within which the actions took place. Period. It cannot be that we judge them a murder based on their inner-mind. Thus, while Nick's position does have something to say about the form of rules in moral systems (i.e., that they relate behavior to consequences), it does not have implications for what the content of the rules should be. In that sense, it IS morally neutral. Whether or not people have inner-lives has never, at any point, effected ethics in practice. Certainly Nick could elaborate his own moral views, by suggesting some rules, but that is completely tangential to this point. This may seem terribly abstract, but it is not to be taken lightly. Judge Posner (appellate judge for the Federal 7th Circuit) has an excellent book, and quite a lot of legal precedence arguing that talk of an inner mental life adds nothing to law, and in fact seriously detracts from it. Here are two quotes from him: "Obviously most adults and older children can and do speak without vocalization (that is, can "conceal their thoughts") and form mental images. But this barebones concept of mind, which essentially equates mind to consciousness, is different from the idea that there is a something, the "mind", which is the locus of intentions, the invisible puppeteer, the inner man or woman. It is that idea which may have no consequences for law and shou! ld perhaps be discarded, despite the law's emphatic... commitment to it." "Our understanding of the mind may improve - maybe we will learn to read minds. But maybe there is nothing to read, or maybe we are not interested in what the murderer was thinking when he pulled the trigger. If we take seriously the actor's adage that no man is a villain in his own eyes, we can expect to find, if we ever succeed in peering into the murderer's mind, an elaborate, perhaps quite plausible, rationalization for his deed. But so what? We would punish him all the same." Eric On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 01:49 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I am way too animistic in my instincts to go for most of this.
Eric said: Nick's ethical stance would be based on treating things that act in certain ways as equal to all other things that act in certain ways, and it wouldn't get much more prescriptive than that. The acts he would be interested in would be very sophisticated actions, or combination of actions - such as "contributing to the conversation". This may seem strange, but again, it is really, really, really, not that different from a stance that treats all things that "experience in a certain way" as equal. Yes, I abhor the killing of people (but can think of circumstances when I would endorse or practice it) and by extension abhor (or at least get really queasy at) the killing of things that look anything like people. Apes and Monkeys are obvious candidates for the not-kill. Ditto for things that know how to mimic humans in any way... or have been selected for these traits (think most/all pets, many domesticated animals, etc.). And add in the things that tweak my parent feeling (all creatures exhibiting neotony, big eyes, large head/body ratios, etc.). Then add in the creatures who may not overtly (or recognizeably) remind me of humans (think Dolphins and other Cetaeceans... little gray creatures from UFO's, etc) that I intellectually (if not intuitively) ascribe intelligence and emotions. But I can feel the same way about cherished possessions or even coveted possessions of others. Who hasn't gone to the dump and wanted to pull that "perfectly good armchair" out of the pile of trash? I am particularly a sucker for machinery, electronic or otherwise. Just *try* to throw a "perfectly good" printer/computer/bicycle/chainsaw away in my presence. I have a boatload (technically a parking-lot-full) of cars that I fell in love with and had to rescue... most of them 20+ years old... and once you rescue them, you can never abandon them, and you can't even foster them out... after all, who is going to love them as much as you? And yes, they all drive... though I'm not so sure about the old tech in my shed (computers, printers, etc.) but I suspect they do... why not? OK... I'm sure this is totally off-topic... excepting that I claim that we *project* so much onto inanimate (or barely animate or animate but barely/hardly human) objects that surely we do the same with people? I don't trust people who claim they can determine my (or anyones) intentions by our actions... it is too fraught with the risk of projection. Half the never-ending hurt in this world seems to come from our thinking we know what other people's intentions are from their actions... and the other half seems to come from the resulting feedback loop of revenge. - Steve PS... I think it is "OK" to kill Nick, but there are many, many reasons I do not. Not the least of which is that I've become quite fond of him. So don't anyone else try killing Nick to make the point, I would take it personally, project onto you my own ideas of your motivations and seek revenge based on that projection. (OK... I know... I'm being disingenuous here...) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Nick and dishonest behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Russ Abbott
the following passage caught me eye:
Half the never-ending hurt in this world seems to come from our thinking we know what other people's intentions are from their actions...
Talk to me a bit about what an intention is to you, what an action is to you, and how they differ.
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Nick -
> > Half the never-ending hurt in this world seems to come from our > thinking we know what other people's intentions are from their actions... > > Talk to me a bit about what an intention is to you, what an action is > to you, and how they differ. > A simple but profound (to me) example, I have already given. Lying in the grass on a lazy summer day "intending" to get up and not being able to actually "act"on the up-getting until "I" (that ever-present illusion of unique-selfness) quit "intending" and some other magical mechanism kicked in and viola! I am UP! But more to the point of this conversation. Let's say I "intend" to make an illuminating point in a discussion... say, this very thread, a few dozen messages ago... and I say "I think we've just entered a recursion", and one of us (maybe many) (apparently) misunderstands that point as being "snarky" (I love that term!) and requests that I return to a more productive form of discourse. From my point of view, my actions were perfectly aligned with my intentions... I meant what I said and I said what I meant. But from the other party's point of view, I meant something entirely different with what I said. To all (but me), it could be said that "my actions spoke", and everybody clearly understood my intentions (through my actions) to be disruptive. But I knew better. I "know" because the "entity that my third-person observation point that is invariant under my intentional actions intended it that way". (yes, I am still trying on the concept that "me" is an observer of "me" which/whom only differs from others by POV). It is the question of mis-hearing vs mis-speaking and some nebulous middle ground. The speaker and the listener do not just have a responsibility to eachother to speak well/listen well, but there emerges (in some sense of the term, perhaps not the one usually used here) a life of the conversation of it's own, an ecosystem if you can stand the extravagant metaphor. This entire thread (and some of it's side-ravellings) is something of a good example for me... there are many threads of conversation, all superficially or tangentially relating to eachother, weaving in and out, but not necessarily tying neatly into a single "explanation" or "understanding" of a single or simple topic. This leads me 'round to James suggestion that we might not be defining our terms carefully enough. I admit to having indulged in bits of playfulness here, over and over. I believe that we are "brainstorming" as much as we are "nailing things down" in this discussion, and believe that such deserves a bit more "play". But I also believe that the metaphor of "nailing things down" really misses some important points and by introducing a mixed metaphor, I hope to expand the conversation (I know, many here would prefer to narrow it, but presumably those are not even reading this). I feel that most of what goes on here on this list is that folks bring out nicely prepared foods for the rest of us to taste. We prepare something anywhere from a gourmet meal (long, well considered treatise) to a tasty but hastily prepared snack (a link to an article). Then we take turns tasting it and commenting on it, ranging from helpful suggestions ("this is great, but a little more nutmeg would make it perfect") to veiled criticism ("I've never had potato latkes made from turnips... perhaps they are called potato latkes for a good reason?") to serious advice... ("Thanks for this offering, but I have a *much* better recipe, here... try this) to plain bluntness unto rudeness ("what kinda garbage are you trying to pass off on us?"). Now to mix the metaphor. I believe meaning is somewhere between a dustmote and thin jello. The only way I've ever been able to catch a dustmote flying in the air is to wait for it to enter good light, study it (and the air currents moving it) carefully, gently move my hand to a position many inches below it, carefully track it in it's (new) motions and with enough care and intuition my hand will be under the mote as it settles. Anything else and I'll be lucky to see it again (or distinguish it from it's many cohorts). To nail down jello... that is the trick. We here often bring out our favorite gelatin desserts and proceed to take turns trying to nail them to the table. Those who use tack hammers and fine brads and nails very carefully sometimes have a chance of getting the desserts to be a little more stable but many of us give over to the urge to use a 10 penny nail and a 5 pound sledge, or better yet a pneumatic nail-gun. I believe that the meaning in a page of writing is truly all between the lines and in a sentence between the words. It is the context (who is saying it where/when and to whom, after having said many other things) and the negative space (what is not said, what is implied but not spoken to, etc.). I think that Russ was righteously trying to get Nick to "nail down" a couple of words or concepts which Nick (also righteously) avoided as to do so would very likely disturb the real point he was trying to make. Carry On! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Nick and dishonest behavior
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
An odd time of year to be talking about Valentine's Day....
Nicholas Thompson wrote: > the following passage caught me eye: > > Half the never-ending hurt in this world seems to come from our > thinking we know what other people's intentions are from their actions... > > Talk to me a bit about what an intention is to you, what an action is > to you, and how they differ. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>) > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > <http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steve Smith <mailto:[hidden email]> > *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <mailto:[hidden email]> > *Sent:* 6/21/2009 5:51:13 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Nick and dishonest behavior > > I am way too animistic in my instincts to go for most of this. > > Eric said: > > /Nick's ethical stance would be based on treating things that > act in certain ways as equal to all other things that act in > certain ways, and it wouldn't get much more prescriptive than > that. The acts he would be interested in would be very > sophisticated actions, or combination of actions - such as > "contributing to the conversation". This may seem strange, but > again, it is really, really, really, not that different from a > stance that treats all things that "experience in a certain > way" as equal. > / > > > Yes, I abhor the killing of people (but can think of circumstances > when I would endorse or practice it) and by extension abhor (or at > least get really queasy at) the killing of things that look > anything like people. Apes and Monkeys are obvious candidates for > the not-kill. Ditto for things that know how to mimic humans in > any way... or have been selected for these traits (think most/all > pets, many domesticated animals, etc.). And add in the things > that tweak my parent feeling (all creatures exhibiting neotony, > big eyes, large head/body ratios, etc.). Then add in the > creatures who may not overtly (or recognizeably) remind me of > humans (think Dolphins and other Cetaeceans... little gray > creatures from UFO's, etc) that I intellectually (if not > intuitively) ascribe intelligence and emotions. > > But I can feel the same way about cherished possessions or even > coveted possessions of others. Who hasn't gone to the dump and > wanted to pull that "perfectly good armchair" out of the pile of > trash? I am particularly a sucker for machinery, electronic or > otherwise. Just *try* to throw a "perfectly good" > printer/computer/bicycle/chainsaw away in my presence. I have a > boatload (technically a parking-lot-full) of cars that I fell in > love with and had to rescue... most of them 20+ years old... and > once you rescue them, you can never abandon them, and you can't > even foster them out... after all, who is going to love them as > much as you? And yes, they all drive... though I'm not so sure > about the old tech in my shed (computers, printers, etc.) but I > suspect they do... why not? > > OK... I'm sure this is totally off-topic... excepting that I claim > that we *project* so much onto inanimate (or barely animate or > animate but barely/hardly human) objects that surely we do the > same with people? I don't trust people who claim they can > determine my (or anyones) intentions by our actions... it is too > fraught with the risk of projection. Half the never-ending hurt > in this world seems to come from our thinking we know what other > people's intentions are from their actions... and the other half > seems to come from the resulting feedback loop of revenge. > > - Steve > > PS... I think it is "OK" to kill Nick, but there are many, many > reasons I do not. Not the least of which is that I've become > quite fond of him. So don't anyone else try killing Nick to make > the point, I would take it personally, project onto you my own > ideas of your motivations and seek revenge based on that > projection. (OK... I know... I'm being disingenuous here...) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |