>My statement "I do not lie" is based on the classical definition of
>lying:
I understand. The point I was making is "I do not lie" is the
reply one would expect no matter wether the person saying it was telling
the truth or lying.
> but try always to remember to indicate such with
>>>emoticons (:-)) or abbreviations (VBG!).
It was these that I dont know about. (although I must admit I
never knew what a hyperbole was either.) Thanks for the VBG =very big
grin, any more?
>> Now you are reminding me a little of Data or more closely Kryten
>>from red dwarf.<
>Who is Kryten the red dwarf?
A charector from a British Sit com (Red dwarf). It is very very
very funny. Watch it if you ever get the chance.
>If you have children, would you not risk death
>to
>>>preserve them from harm?
>> Yes of course, but you are saying you would do much more.
>No, actually less. My being deluded is really a small matter if the rest
>of humanity would not be.
I was refering to the implications of your choice not to swallow
the pill. I interpret that you would exchange a lifetime of personal
total bliss for staying in this (real?) world to do your small part in
making it better. I want to make the world better but if I got a chance
to jump ship to paradise it would be a case of:
"Bye all..have fun...I wont be thinking of you because I wont
know you exist" Cinsider Prof Tim's response.
>ANYONE. if you
>> could swallow a tablet right now that would have the effect of making
>> you believe the world got better and better (imagine anything you like)
>> would you? (you forget you've taken it instantly etc)
>
>Oddly, there's an entry in my journal to the effect that I was about to
>swallow such a tablet. Although I don't recall ever doing it. Funny,
>that. Oh, well... Sure is a great day today isn't it? And I hear
>tomorrow will be even better! Things sure are looking up around here!!!
> I have difficulty following how
>deluding oneself would constitute self-improvement.
This was explored recently in a thread with Dave mcf and others,
part of the God and level 3 thread.
>>> I fail to detect how deceiving yourself about the morality of a given
>act is >>prevented. After the first use, any more use would seem to be a
>given (having >>deceived yourself that the actual use of such a button,
>even just once, was >>justified).
> > I could only ever press the button if it was morally justified
>>I don't think it is morally justified to deceive oneself about
>morality.<
>This has gone extremely recursive, and implies that personal morality
>would be exempt from the effects of the deception button.
I tell you what all this brings to mind. A dialogue between man
and God about free will which is near the beginning of "the mind's eye"
fantasies and reflections on self and soul. (Dennett & Hofstadter.)
> Rational analysis in this focused thought
>>experiment is easy, you can act so that one guy dies or two guys die.
>If you cannot disarm or incapacitate the murderer, can you remove or
>conceal the potential victims? Create a barrier between them? Divert or
>distract the potential murderer with a great danger from another
>direction?
No.
>One of the few things I actually liked from the Thomas Covenant novels
>was the warrior code: (paraphrased here) "It is better to hold than hurt,
>to hurt than cripple, to cripple than kill. The greatest warrior is he
>who never needs to kill."
I agree wholeheartedly.
>If you insist there is no alternative to someone dying, then PERHAPS one
>death is better than two;
Perhaps? I am intrigued. Without changing the spirit of this
thought experiment when would one death not be better than two?
>>>Empire Strikes Back, "Do or do not. There is no TRY."<<
>>I don't believe this, I don't believe I ever will. I want to though.<
>It should be demonstrable logically; if you do succeed, it was because
>you could succeed. If you did not succeed, some element of success was
>missing (ability, motive, method, whatever). Whether or not you try
>influences final success only by allowing a starting condition to be met;
>belief is only rigorously necessary to begin, not to succeed, at least to
>my understanding. What do you propose?
I think that we are programed with beliefs that exapt all our
mental energies for their preservation. Some of them can be a real
hinderance because they stop us from achieving certain goals. Take as an
example a belief held thus:
If I doubt X I will die.
Unless one decides one can sccept dying one cannott
doubt X and thetrefore cannott unbelieve it.
>> If I fail too often I give up.<
>Why?
Because rationaly I evaluate the evidence and accept the
apparently true conclusion "Its no good trying again Tony, You will
never get Claudia in the sack"
Tony Hindle.
This is such a long, in depth exchange James. I reckon nobody else will be
reading all of it so keep quiet about my friend's stupidity please.