Inductive reasoning: Sex abuse leads to trauma, addiction, therefore a less a productive society. A meteor might smash Earth in 300 years. Our preparation (survival) may be a function of how much sex abuse went unchecked. Thus, sex abuse is contrary to universal complexity.
-
-
Point of my example is that this moral framework can consistently judge what is "evil". Striving for "good" is a matter of accumulating complexity (or technocapital?), the end justifying the means. Competitors and natural cataclysms set the stage; adapt or die.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This puts morality on non-relativistic grounds. In a sense, "god" is the force of natural selection - the final judge, the wages of sin being death.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Complexity/technocapital is then a virtue and the only way to beat the planet's time-limit. Onto the next challenge, requiring more complexity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TeubenRoald @0x49fa98
The main flaw I see is defining "complexity". Apparently it's challenging to define rigorously (is it systematic? meta-systematic? mathematical? physical?), and even if we could, there's a subjectivity flaw: how can we know that humans are capable of judging universal complexity?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It seems like the real system is based on a hidden axiom: that human (bodies) are the sources of highest complexity, and that we should optimize for complexity. Which means we can totally dispense with the complexity stuff and call it some sort of humanistic utilitarianism.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @0x49fa98
It is utilitarianism, but only humanistic insofar as humans are the highest complexity. Suppose we have an AI that calculates with 99% certainty, complete human extinction is required for intelligence to escape the solar system. This is "good".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But we dont have AI like that, so this same moral system can argue we should feed the homeless, eliminate drugs, etc all so we can be productive enough to not perish. Survival and propagation is the only "good".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TeubenRoald @0x49fa98
The older I get, the more I tend toward a subjective-eye rather than a god-eye view of morality, in the sense that I believe ethics should preferentially focus on "the feeling human subject" rather than their bodies or physical existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The EA "suffering is inherently bad" stuff is the first step, but it's also obviously wrong: a life without suffering would not be "a good life." There must be a balance.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Personally I agree but I don't really know how to answer lol.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.