> The synthesized clips line up with what each region is known to care about, faces for FFA, places for PPA, bodies for EBA, motion for MT, patterns for V1 / V3A, and lively social scenes for pSTS / aSTS
Explain the potential to exploit strong stimulation of specific visual regions for evil. "Oh, I very much detect a face/place/body/motion/pattern/human", says the subject. What are you going to do with that, startle them?
Rural cities? Come again? What was demolished remained demolished, yes. Unclear on your point.
Oh I see (thanks to that edit). I mean, I agree with you. This is just the additional amusing detail that government-run services are still subject to a sort of dulled and homogenous version of market forces, which can be worse for small local concerns because it's less responsive. Though, admittedly, a giant corporation can simulate government very well, and can be just as crap.
Meanwhile in Britain in the 1960s, this cost-cutting closure of local rail lines did happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeching_cuts ... at a time when the trains and rail infrastructure had been publicly owned for about 15 years already. It doesn't dispel the incentive.
Could be an armchair, could be a toilet, either seems a reasonable standard for a commenter on a messageboard, are we expecting a focus group or something?
I don't get the argument either. Perhaps if you can't walk very far? If I put half an hour into walking I can easily buy all the essentials, such as a crash cymbal, oil of violets, steel nibs for my dip pen, a CD player, and a teapot.
If you're going to apply the golden rule to amoral objects such as flies, it should also apply to, for instance, bubblegum. You should refrain from chewing bubblegum and blowing bubbles and popping them, because then when a nearby star goes supernova it will spare your life. You are the bubblegum, the star would think, if it had thoughts. Except none of these objects have thoughts, including the fly.
You might wonder why I say that with confidence, but I might wonder why you wouldn't say it with confidence. But even if the fly does have thoughts, such as "yum, I smell a dead squirrel", it's not a participant in morality. Why should there be a golden rule about protecting animated things? Does it apply to the entities in Conway's Game of Life? Does it apply to alien flies that aren't based on DNA, but not to robots? What is the purpose of such a rule?
If the idea is self interest and reciprocity, you're essentially saying "if an alien civilization assigns rights to all kinds of crazy things, it will also assign rights to me, even though it doesn't understand what I am. Therefore I will assign rights to all kinds of crazy things too, to set an example!"
The example would go unheeded, though, if the aliens don't understand what you are. But if they do understand what you are, they'll hopefully spare you because they recognize you as having moral ideas. In that case, you'd reduce your risk the most by not appearing crazy.
I'm not doing those things, I'm making an epistemological point that I think is important, though it's an old one I picked up from reading Gödel, Escher, Bach in the 80s, but I do quite sincerely think that arguments that rely on reductionism are bad and frequently silly. Yet I also think that reductio ad absurdum is a crucial form of critical thought. Reductionism claims "there are no emergent properties when the parts are assembled", whereas reductio ad absurdum says "there's something that your simple rule doesn't account for", so it really is opposed to reductionism, unless it's carried out by misrepresenting the rule as being foolishly simple when it wasn't simple.
This is admittedly something of a sidetrack from the question of exploitation.
In the argument near the top of the thread, the point made is of course that lots of mundane and innocent things are the product of meddling with nature. I can't make sense of the phrase "exploitation is more important than its mere existence", by "its", do you refer to the existence of exploitation? Was that topic raised? I can't find the context. I don't understand what you're saying, but I'm picking up "when exploitation is bad, it's immoral", which is true by definition. But I suppose the unanswered question is why it's bad exploitation to make a cockroach into a robot.
I agree and I think games are ruined by dialog and quests. I like procedurally generated worlds, not stories, but I want the worldgen algorithm to be written by a human, crudely and with idiosyncrasies. I do not want to wander around a world of blandly plausible filler material.
Yes, "reductive argument" is fair enough, don't want to be reductionist and dismiss the emergent properties of the thing. (What were we talking about again? The ethics of meddling with nature?)
What on earth do you mean? That's a basic form of argument, where you demonstrate that the logic of a proposition leads somewhere ridiculous, or leads to a contradiction.
It reminds me of somebody I knew who thought that metaphors are dishonest and should never be used.
So we have that quote from the Oxford guy about explanations: "systems that can explain... You need models that can answer questions like: What matters? What causes what?", and then a mention of simulation of what the world looks like.
Fine, that describes theorizing.
But then a contradictory ending statement: "We're still going to need humans to figure out what questions to ask, what to build, what to create".
So that's moral theorizing. I don't think you can have one without the other. Then there's two more suggestions before the end of the article:
> smarter than us
> staff of assistants
Both of which are completely gratuitous assumptions. Why should its theories be better than established ones? Is it supposed to be a maverick hermit genius and come up with everything from first principles, or does it in fact participate in the existing world of ideas like a normal person? Then, being a normal person with moral theories, why would it take on the role of assistant rather than theorizing "I don't want to do that for you"?
(STS seems to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_temporal_sulcus in the temporal lobe, so I guess it's the "I sense a presence" region.)
Explain the potential to exploit strong stimulation of specific visual regions for evil. "Oh, I very much detect a face/place/body/motion/pattern/human", says the subject. What are you going to do with that, startle them?