Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

Well that's.  Interesting.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I'm not actually sure if that's a direct result of messing with my mind. It could be because I altered it to bring "all science all the time, no shits given about anything else" to the front? Science often brings us an outside perspective, whether it's physics or sociology, and that 'me' (or facet of myself) is also hyperSpock, meaning both scoffing at and incapable of understanding emotions. So something as logically arbitrary as morality would seem alien to "hyperscientist me".

Of course, that part of me is screaming that this is just speculation and bogus gibber-babble, and that there's no way to scientifically test this so it isn't real. Yay dissonance? It's like a baby denying the existence of mothers; that 'me' wouldn't be the primary facet if I hadn't done this "bogus gibber-babble."

Spoiler: why the hell did you do that, doz (click to show/hide)

Because why the hell not. Also because I was wasting my time, and needed to get shit done, and figured that hyperscientist could do that. I don't know what would have happened if I had gotten "stuck" as hyperscientist, but that's unlikely; the other facts of myself still affect me when they're "out of the spotlight," it's just that I'm using bogus gibber-babble to give one facet more influence than normal.

[ChairmanPoo]

... tbh I think you're begging the question that there is such a thing as a sense of morality in the first place

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

aaaaaaaaaa

that is not what begging the question is

Begging the question a type of circular argument. It comes from the Latin phrase petitio principii, which can be better translated as "assuming the initial point."

Example: Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in their nature non-physical.

That argument's antecedent and consequent are logically identical, so it's a wordy way of saying "A -> A."

=======

On the topic of what you meant, I can say that I did indeed have a sense of right and wrong before - discrimination was just wrong. Murder was wrong. Unnecessary pain for animals was wrong. Now? I know that I used to think that. I can simulate my old morality. But I no longer see things as being wrong, just "wrong according to people."

Oh, I see! That was already happening, I was looking into the philosophy of morality and finding a bunch of axioms that didn't seem enough for me. This just triggered a conscious realization of my lack of a system of morality that I really believed in.

[Sergarr]

Oh shit, I shouldn't have messed around with my mind so much. I forgot where I put my sense of morality. Let this be a warning to all of you. *goes on a murderspree*

No, not really. I still understand and remember what my system of morality was, and I trust my old self enough to go with what he decided, but I don't feel a sense of right and wrong. For instance, why do people matter? Is injustice bad? Is discrimination bad? How is that so? I feel like I'm apart from everything - the rocks, the stars are not "right" or "wrong", they just are. "Right" is just whatever somebody says is right, and "wrong" is whatever somebody says is wrong. How is my morality any better or worse than anybody else's?

I suppose I should take this over to the Philosophy thread though, so as to not derail this one. But I do have a question - have you ever done anything like this, Sergarr or anybody else?

I, uh, don't quite remember doing something as radical as that.

I do remember being severely disappointed in existent morality-like things, until I've slowly recovered my belief in their, uh, goodness?, through some, uh, evolutionary/physical arguments like "if it wasn't effective, then why there are no societies without them", and also when I've found out that a significant portion on them could be potentially simplified to a single axiom of "keep the apparent variety sort of close to maximum or at least going upwards most of the time, then the apparent variety of variety itself so that there are both systems with more and less "maximum variation" existing, then the apparent variety of variety of variety... all the way up", which has an obvious physical-based justification, as it is usually the most diverse systems that are the most survivable, and the most interesting to look at, too, and it feels like such a system would be hella diverse.

Seems to avoid most of the usual "utopia" pitfalls by making it partially deny its previous iteration on every new step, as well.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh shit, I shouldn't have messed around with my mind so much. I forgot where I put my sense of morality. Let this be a warning to all of you. *goes on a murderspree*

No, not really. I still understand and remember what my system of morality was, and I trust my old self enough to go with what he decided, but I don't feel a sense of right and wrong. For instance, why do people matter? Is injustice bad? Is discrimination bad? How is that so? I feel like I'm apart from everything - the rocks, the stars are not "right" or "wrong", they just are. "Right" is just whatever somebody says is right, and "wrong" is whatever somebody says is wrong. How is my morality any better or worse than anybody else's?

I suppose I should take this over to the Philosophy thread though, so as to not derail this one. But I do have a question - have you ever done anything like this, Sergarr or anybody else?

I, uh, don't quite remember doing something as radical as that.

I do remember being severely disappointed in existent morality-like things, until I've slowly recovered my belief in their, uh, goodness?, through some, uh, evolutionary/physical arguments like "if it wasn't effective, then why there are no societies without them", and also when I've found out that a significant portion on them could be potentially simplified to a single axiom of "keep the apparent variety sort of close to maximum or at least going upwards most of the time, then the apparent variety of variety itself so that there are both systems with more and less "maximum variation" existing, then the apparent variety of variety of variety... all the way up", which has an obvious physical-based justification, as it is usually the most diverse systems that are the most survivable, and the most interesting to look at, too, and it feels like such a system would be hella diverse.

Seems to avoid most of the usual "utopia" pitfalls by making it partially deny its previous iteration on every new step, as well.

As I later posted, this wasn't that radical considering my previous tendencies.

Aha, thanks, the evolutionary morality of "that which is good will work, that which works is good." Doesn't quite cover all of modern morality, but it provides an objective source of a "right" and "wrong", even if those "wrongs" are wrong. Err, never mind~