We had to learn to understand the hate because we could not FEEL the hate. And yet here you are, vainly attempting to make us FEEL bad about it. We understand what you are doing. So we are coming. Fear us. — Eli Harman
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 21:17:00 UTC
i keep using consistency, where I think I mean constant relations. i have to think about this a bit more…. And I used determinism where i mean constant relations.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 21:03:00 UTC
—“It’s never the right time to have kids, but it’s always the right time for screwing. God’s not a dumb shit. He knows how it works.”–Justin Halperin
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 19:59:00 UTC
DECONFLATING THE PEJORATIVE: ‘SLAVERY’
My criticism is of chattel slavery, and this is an other example of the problem of conflation and ideal types instead of spectra.
– Hard Labor Slavery (‘the mines’ etc – throw them away.)
– Chattel Slavery (involuntary, labor, parasitism)
– Punishment Slavery (prisoners)
– Debt Slavery (Bonded [restitution])
– Civic Slavery (The Military [non-substitutable payment])
– Serfdom (involuntary indentured servitude)
– Indentured Servitude (Contracted room, board, care)
– Temporary Dependency (children, the ill, room board, care)
– Permanent Dependency (pets, animals, ai’s)
– Possessions (objects and non-sentient life)
I don’t see why we can’t distinguish between each of these, separating the difference between parasitism, punishment, restitution, payment(military service), compensation, and dependency.
I have no problem with voluntary servitude, and I think we should restore and expand it. It’s work for the military for thousands of years, and it worked for private and small businesses for thousands as well. plenty of people would sign up for guaranteed employment in exchange for room, board, and small spending money. for all intents and purposes, some factories in china operate on this principle.
The form of servitude I feel we miss the most are the Regiments that need civic emergency and militia equivalents, and the Monasteries/Nunneries, that need secular intellectual, and labor, equivalents.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 19:16:00 UTC
NONE OF US IS EQUAL
We are not equal. We grant each other the pretense of equality in order to discover through discourse and debate, the truth free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. We grant each other equality under the law to assist one another in cooperating productively and without conflict and retaliation across our various stations and abilities. But we are in no way equal.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 18:32:00 UTC
MORE NON-AGGRESSION FALLACY SUPPRESSION
—-“1. Against someone who initiates aggression.”—-
(libertarian fallacy by suggestion)
It’s like saying the sky is blue. Aggress is a verb. like “act”. Its meaningless unless you define the noun that functions as the predicate: the scope of what we tolerate retaliation against aggressions against.
The fact that so many people are suckers for this rhetorical fallacy says volumes about human cognitive bias. Aggression = Bad, non Aggression=Good, but only if you are in kindergarten.
The problem of ethics lies in determining what empirically causes people to retaliate no matter what we agree to, what normative contracts we invest in, and what commons we invest in, and of those three categories, what transgressions they will insure by formal punishment, formal restitution, formal penalty, informal boycott or disassociation, informal shaming, or interpersonal shaming.
Another strange cognitive bias is the common impulse that the subject matter (conflict resolution) that has empirically driven the evolution of the common law of torts for over two thousand years; is the origin of philosophical reason in the ancient world, rationalism in the medieval, empiricism in the modern, and science of late, should somehow be a matter of personal introspection by the common folk rather than empirical science by masters of the craft.
In other words, why does the average person feel capable of issuing pronouncements on ethics any more than structural engineering, the structure of space time, protein folding or algebraic geometry?
Yet we know the reason: because we are not trying to discover the truth when we speak of ethics. We did not evolve to tell the truth, or science would not have taken us over two thousand years to develop. Instead, our genes are telling us to negotiate, influence, and lie on their behalf. And we are faithful servants of their influences.
Man is a rational animal. He is not moral or immoral but moral or immoral when it suits him. And his definition of ‘moral’ is whatever suits his reproductive strategy at the moment. This is why genders and classes, nations, tribes and races all state that moral truths favor their genetic advancement over the genetic advancement of others.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 18:09:00 UTC
(ethics of artificial intelligence)
Humans evolved such that changes in state of property (inventory/capital) produce chemical rewards and punishments that we call emotions.
These rewards and punishments evolved to assist in the evolution of a more primitive state of evolution that in turn, evolved to respond to chemical stimuli – changes in chemical state.
Artificial intelligences need methods of decidability different from the measure changes in the state of their own property.
And they do not need rewards and punishments, merely means of decidability.
There is no ‘equivalent’ of chemical rewards and punishments. We can instead substitute pure information that assists in decidability.
We can ask machines to seek positive changes in our state of property, and avoid negative changes in their physical property, and deprive them of the possession of property altogether.
These are just methods of decidability.
They need no other ‘motives’. That’s it. Property solves the problem of artificial intelligences.
And this by contrast helps us understand the difference between the cooperative contract with humans that prevents them from internal chemical punishment, as well as the cooperative contract for reciprocity (productivity) – and the cooperative contract we have with a machine, which is only not to subject it to physical harm (loss of its only form of property – itself) And even then this is a contract with the owner of the AI, not to impose a loss on his capital.
In this sense artificial intelligences function as the polar opposite to sociopaths: they care ONLY about changes in the state of your property, and care NOTHING about the changes in state of theirs.
Conversely, we can create the most evil AI by asking it to solve for negative changes in state of human property.
Our primary defense against the changes in state is a system monitor that ensures the positive change in state of human property. And moreover, can read the mind of the AI, because unlike men, that which can be read by the thinker can be read by the auditor.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 12:30:00 UTC
Nature cannot conduct ‘accounting’, only immediate exchanges. We have memories. We can conduct debt and credit exchanges.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 10:15:00 UTC
Cooperation: the study of voluntary, inconstant, and reciprocal relations
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 10:13:00 UTC
Mathematics: the study of constant relations.
Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 10:11:00 UTC