Consider it done. Give me some time to also clear up my old posts.

I guess after spending so much time in massive data sets and code lines I have become immune to their size. I didn't mean to clutter the place, I simply no longer perceive the mess :)

Edit
@DAVIS_500:
RE

EDIT: I went back to my old posts on this thread and fixed some minor spoiler problems and content issues (style/layout only). I'd like to solve the problem for addressing the proper targets for future posts only if you don't my doing so as I believe we may just end up making it even harder to read.
I don't blame you. I've stared at large datasets as well (like Kona's DB). However, those are inherently organized in some form to begin with.

I've stared at large Windows BAT files before. However, in make those, I learned to be judicious with blank lines and section titles (and remarks) to make it easier to parse. May not be necessarily neater (depending on the fucntion being called), but it made it far easier to parse and find the section I'm looking for during debugging.
@SK7000
Let's put it like that: I'm not VERY ignorant of European history. I do, however, lack a "qualification" of any relevant type. Actually, I was hoping that all of you would be knowledgeable enough to think up examples...

Also, people wanting to miss out on "a little poverty" doesn't mean it's bad for them.
"Poverty is a blessing that everyone hates" - proverb of some sort...
(I'm inviting you to debate this)
I wonder if that phrase actually used the word poverty. Poverty is quite well understood in the context of countries, but I don't think you are using the same definition.

Poverty as an obstacle that needs dealing immediately.

Alternate viewpoint: a life of moderation or even scarcity.

Sorry if it goes back to a previous topic, but a humble life like that allows one to develop a deep insight and appreciation for life. It's not quite unlike hermits or monks in retreat from society.

I was really bad at history classes. I wonder why we didn't even learn the chronology of events for the world wars :/ Well, maybe we studied that, but my memory is so bad I didn't keep track of anything.

Mnessie trying to figure himself out.
LOL
I didn't mean that you should debate the legitimacy of the proverb...
I meant that we should discuss the nature of not wanting things that are good for you.

anyways, is "animal rights" a taboo topic in here?
Gregol said:
anyways, is "animal rights" a taboo topic in here?
It's not exactly philosophy and although I personally wouldn't mind I do think you should cancel this idea on this specific thread. As Stahn mentioned before, to the point where even I started noticing, you should probably stick to the content of the thread as much as possible to keep things structured.

Or you could be creative and look for a link between philosophy and animal rights. If such a thing exists I'd like to know it.

We won't have to stop on account of lack of topics.

I'm a little busy right now but I'll be for a real discussion when time permits it.
Nah, I was thinking of the connection between animal rights and possible future AI-rights.
Specifically, the way computers would be (in theory) deserving of rights, since their "intelligence" would surpass that of more primitive mammals in the "foreseeable future", if one might call it that.

Also, about the previous topic, a thought crossed my mind:
If there was a drug, that, say, increases performance of the brain, and it was administered to an unwilling patient, but after it takes effect, the person wouldn't want to change back to the previous(undrugged) condition.
There is no guarantee that the test subject retained the ability to think independently.

Your thoughts?
Gregol said:
Your thoughts?
AI rights

You're smart question linked question that already skipped to the next point
Animal rights, if framed that way, seems a bit off. Though the more interesting question (that is directly related to all these) is at what point we should honor life of other species? So far mankind treats pretty much every other animal as if they were just there to serve us.

Is this just about respecting life? Why not all life?

What if we were to aliens as ants are to humans?

How are we different from ants, anyway?

More examples of current treatment (sentience acknowledgement and emotional attachment)

I think it's quite a mess. And we are only lucky that so far other species haven't tried to claim revenge on us for our lack of respect for them.

If only it were as easy as just not mingling with other species.

Though, for the near future, I think the definition that will apply to new entities (what Gregol was hinting at) is drawing the line at sentience when communication is possible.

If you can give an order to "something", and they can reply "why should I do as you say?", then they probably deserve "human" rights and respect.

I don't understand so well the second question as to comment on it. :B
SK7000 said:
So far mankind treats pretty much every other animal as if they were just there to serve us.
Actually I think this is both an overstatement and understatement. We do treat other humans like this in some cases while other people wouldn't harm a fly. I think it's all overcomplicated. We are using higher level reasoning to understand a basic agent with a survivor script running in his/her head. Isn't the end goal of pretty much anything and everything to just survive and fill up the rest afterwards? When you speak of rights can we not rush to the conclusion "what's best for the most scaled over their influence?"

I would like to ask the following question. What is morality? And why do "Living Things" require such a thing? At what point can we speak of morality is a critical factor here.

Disorganized train of thought after asking the question
Well, I think it's time to look out for a Technological Singularity

I don't think that "does this have morality, or does it not?" is the right question to ask.
Morality is used to judge actions, not people, or things.
Also, "living things" do not really require morality, unless they have freedom of choice.
"With great power comes great responsibility"
Entities that can choose their own course of action(regardless, do you believe in fate or not) will be inevitably "responsible" for a lot of change.
Morality is critical for the entity to have a measure of which choices are "bad"/harmful and which are "good"/beneficial.
It's like a chess computer that has been preprogrammed not to think of brainlessly retarded moves in the first place.
Basically, morality is a kind of security barrier, that prevents us from doing "harmful" things, much like the self-preservation instinct for unintelligent lifeforms.

(sheesh! I think I just learned a new point of view from my own words!)

To have a "good" morality(i.e. one that most people agree with and/or are inspired by) is crucial for the survival of the species as a whole.IMO it is also the fundamental ingredient for true long term happiness/contentment.

Also, @mnessie
A++ on your AI-speech. Agree fully.
But that other thing...
Is it moral to impose a change(even if it is for the better) on other beings if they disagree, even if they might not be fully aware/knowledgeable?
I would like to hear any other answers first, before posting my own.
Gregol said:
sheesh! I think I just learned a new point of view from my own words!
So did I but I doubt it was the same. I'll make it absolutely to the point to avoid confusion. "Morality is just another script but its a lot harder to understand the purpose it has, but in the end its just a method for the same person with the same drives." That's what I personally got from that.

This would mean indeed that what has morality or not is quite pointless because its asking why someone runs a script / set of functions. Obviously to complete tasks like you just mentioned here:
Gregol said: Morality is critical for the entity to have a measure of which choices are "bad"/harmful and which are "good"/beneficial.
So its a segmentation method for reward functions! Long term planning and prediction modelling. This actually matches the proposed "human basic needs" pyramid with this (morality being at the very top and food/water at the bottom). This is getting more and more intersting by the second >_>.

Why they focus on THOSE tasks (Survival?) is the real question then?

I'm going to be quiet and think now before I rant about this for hours and confuse the holy bajeebus out of everyone using this area as a notepad for my train(s) of thought. (Which will also cause a mess in the thread which obviously isn't going to help anyone either)

Definitely a keeper this one Gregol. Let's continue on this later shall we?
*pokes SK7000* And you ^_^
Almost, mnessie.
Although, I'd rather say that morality is itself a choice. A subconscious choice at that.
A choice to restrict your own choices, to keep your head clear, to avoid confusion, and to avoid too long thinking-rampages, that can cost you precious time in a critical situation.

You can choose to play by the rules, and your path will be clearly set out by said rules, so in the end, it will be easier.
Or you can choose to "fuck the POH-lies" and live without limits, but you don't know where to turn to get where you want.
(I used a game of snakes-and-ladders as an analogy)
Hmm... so now you are trying to discuss morality? I don't have too much to say on that, so I'll just be brief.

Why focus on survival?
This is like gravity: an unknown required to exist.

Likewise, the innate traits and impulses on all living beings exist for a very simple reason: to preserve life and pass it along to the next generation. If it were not that way... well, I imagine any species that didn't follow that plan went extinct rather quickly.

Our base programming is based on instinct and self-preservation. Looking at the now to maximize our survival rate.

Why do we need morality?
Morality is the higher-level system that we build on top of our instincts in order to be more far reaching. Our biological preservation system is limited to deciding what is best for us here, now. Morality looks towards what is best for us in general, for the long term.

It is not as apparent and that's why it requires years of building, testing and refining.

Can it be moral to impose decisions on the ignorant?
There is no right answer here. Or rather, the only right answer, as with pretty much every question, is "it depends on context". The key issue here is how can you know you have the right answer? Example of wrong while believing you are morally right.

A much more difficult scenario: preventing suicide.

In the end, imposing a decision on others is morally right depending on what focus you are giving to morality. It's moral to look for the benefit of the whole, but it's also moral to respect the free-will of others. When both concepts are pitched against, I imagine the answer then is not so obvious and it's a per-case decision.
People went on really crusades when they wanted treasure, or to reduce population, but I see what you're saying.
"With good intentions is paved the way to hell."
my own opinion on imposing decisions

BTW, survival:
We all know that humans in particular can be self-sacrificial and even suicidal, as long as it doesn't go against their morals, and sometimes when it does.
Like I said: IMO "morals" are a build up on the survival instincts for intelligent things, but they are not a given; i.e. they are not necessarily present in every intelligent being.
That would explain why there are as many "justices" as people.(why everybody has different morals)
Because, if you think about it: all animals and non-animals have the same survival instinct(namely:don't die), don't they, but people can have completely opposite morals, or none at all.
Also, you don't see animals going against their survival instinct often(if they aren't protecting their young), but humans can live with a guilty conscience most of the time(and people can risk their lives for no apparent reason).
As I mentioned before, morality just is highly dependent on context. And because of that it is also highly dependant on the point of view taken.

The same actions in two different contexts can be good in one case and wrong in the other; and the same actions in the same context, can be seen as both good and wrong depending on the point of view of the observer.

We just do what we consider right given what we know. It might not be the same for people in other shoes or at different times, but we don't know that, we don't have access to that information, so we do what we can with what we do know.

This is why it's perfectly fine to follow your own morals in your life (even if you end up regretting them), and it's much harder to justify imposing your morals on others (even if you think you are doing the best for them).

I feel like we've discussed this topic before, though... I remember talking about the model we use to understand the world and how it is build on our life experiences. That's exactly the same way that morals arise, shaped to fit the experience of each individual.
i like to believe that life has no specific "purpose" or rather it's only purpose is life itself. In other words to continue life. I see in nature that creatures are born simply to give birth. In our youth we are provided for so that we may later provide for our young.

This purpose leads me to believe that every thing we do should be to create a better future for what comes after us, be they our own offspring or our species as whole.

for the reasons above i also do not believe in morality. i feel that the guidelines of survival itself provides us with reasons not to do evil. Survival is easiest while functioning within a group. If i do wrong against said group i am then left alone, whether that be actual removal from the group or simply losing their support within the group. My reputation will be ruined leaving my offspring to also be disadvantaged by their association with me. Perhaps it is improper for us to associate the faults of one man to any who are associated with them but sadly this is how humans seem to function, just as the Chinese continue to blame the Japanese for the happenings of a war which took place several generations ago.
If everybody could think like that...
Gregol said:
If everybody could think like that...
the problem is not with the politicians but rather with ourselves. We the people have the power to throw out politicians. All we have to do is vote. The problem is that stupid people want stupid things. Most of us do not understand what we need only what we want, and what we want is almost never the right thing. This gives a foothold for bad politicians to get into office and gain power, they give us what we want and take away what we need. Like pulling the rug out from under our feet we don't notice till it's too late because we always focus on our wants and forget about our needs.

Good politicians don't give us what we want thus they never get into office. we never want what we need because what we need is hard, what we need is difficult, it requires effort from us or that what we need takes away what we want. Even if they do get into office we tie their hands with matters which cancel each other out. We want better education, better services, improved infrastructure, and we want lower taxes. You ask for security but demand privacy. You blame the authorities for their inaction when you yourselves are the ones who tied their hands.
Makes me wonder why you aren't a politician yet.

Let's start a party, actually!
Bringerof_D said:
the problem is not with the politicians but rather with ourselves. We the people have the power to throw out politicians. All we have to do is vote.
Soon I'll have the time to give proper feedback. Almost started my vacation.
But let me just drop a line on this argument. for now.

You are in NO way in control by voting. That's just the illusion of control. Follow the money follow the crime.

On Democracy

Do I have alternatives? Not really, since sharing power amongst select groups.... No just sharing power. That in itself is bound to become a disaster and/or dictatorship. Which makes my point, the least worst system.

But control? More like game controller without the cable hooked in. You can button bash but you're really just watching the demo repeat itself. You can lobby for bigger groups but then you became one of them using power to move power and you lost the point you wanted to make for the strength of a single vote.
Mnessie said:

You are in NO way in control by voting. That's just the illusion of control. Follow the money follow the crime.
voting is only a small part of democracy, when i say throw out the bad, it can literally mean that. And of course the problems i listed above with us as individuals is the main flaw in democracy.

Democracy is surely a failing system, but only because it fails to account for human short comings. Democracy as a system assumes that a majority of people know what is the right and what we need as a nation. Sadly we know the average man and woman are not this way. Now that i'm done defending it, time to bash it.

In our real world i often refer to democracy as possibly one of the worst systems, particularly in a multicultural setting such as Canada where every group has it's own opinions and prejudices. Politics here are much like what's going on at the UN on Syria. Because of the split in opinions nothing gets done, ever. Even if it does it's a half baked compromise that pisses everyone off. It is the least efficient of systems. i would personally prefer a dictator such as Hitler just for the fact that shit gets done. Now of course best case scenario the dictator is not a bastard.

another flaw in democracy is that as i said before most people are stupid. I can never put into words more clearly what i mean than this comic.http://9gag.com/gag/3873544
Bringerof_D said:
i would personally prefer a dictator such as Hitler just for the fact that shit gets done.
You do of course realize that statements like that could use a little objectivity and nuance? Besides being unfriendly in nature it also weakens your point as it obfuscates it by oversimplification. Having a dictator can be a topic by its own rights. And for all not so objective readers the results are obvious.....

From my point of view its monkeys in trees flinging their feces at one another in which we always find some reason to have something against other people. It doesn't really matter whom we call king...a man the people or a god. We'll just keep flinging like we always do and the only thing that changes is the targets.

Maybe when we have "just add water" intelligence knowledge and wisdom download options can we "cure" such problems?

But I fear we're going on social structures now rather than philosophy.

I would like to circle back to a comment made by SK7000
SK7000 said:
This is why it's perfectly fine to follow your own morals in your life (even if you end up regretting them)
Is that really so? This would be a rule then for those that live to live guided by morals. This also denies the option of a guideline in life to live it without regrets. I'm sure you've heard me and other say it before, live life to the fullest and regret nothing. How would that fit in here? Is it then still perfectly fine to just follow morals? It's a bit of a direct question I know....
Just want to throw this one out about democracy since you guys are talking about it. Sorry for the off topic by the way.

It's easier for countries such in the west control a dictator who have his/her people in check than to control the people of the country. Why? Because it's easy for a nation to control one man with money than a national group of people. In other words money can't rule against people of a nation. That one of the strong points with democracy: You can't buy people but you can buy one man such as a dictator.
Mnessie said:
You do of course realize that statements like that could use a little objectivity and nuance? Besides being unfriendly in nature it also weakens your point as it obfuscates it by oversimplification. Having a dictator can be a topic by its own rights. And for all not so objective readers the results are obvious.....

From my point of view its monkeys in trees flinging their feces at one another in which we always find some reason to have something against other people. It doesn't really matter whom we call king...a man the people or a god. We'll just keep flinging like we always do and the only thing that changes is the targets.
i never said a dictatorship was good, i just said it got shit done. though i do feel that getting something done be it right or wrong is better than nothing. Consider this, under hitler's rule prior to ww2 Germany went from being in a depression to being one of the most prosperous nations at the time, new technologies were developed, new infrastructure built, it got shit done. At least in an area where there is no particular right nor wrong it gets things done fast. In democracy the same issues such as new highways or funding for research would be debated on for months if not years because one group thinks that money and effort should be put into something else they want.

by no means is a dictatorship a great system, i just think it is marginally better than democracy.

@foliff: perhaps we cannot buy the people, but even better yet we can sure as hell sell ourselves to them. Democracy is all about marketing. it's one big popularity contest, and just like in highschool the kid that knows what needs to be done to improve the school will be over shadowed by the kid who bring in shorter fridays and pizza parties at the student council elections. We don't need to buy them, they will buy us.
Hitler...you know, he wanted to go to art school. He wanted to become a painter. Buuuut, his father didn't think it manly enough, didn't want his son being an artist. So Adolph joined the armed forces, and it all went down hill from there.

And, Bringer, I'm sorry, but totalitarianism and dictators are in no way better than classical democracy. Mass genocide and famine are in no way better than what you consider to essentially be "marketing". I'd rather watch a hundred political commercials than be blind-folded and shot in the back of the head or burned alive by the people who are supposed to protect me.

I'd like you to try and explain that to a Syrian or a Chinese person.

P.S. First philosophy post!
I agree with emmy.
What we have now is very little like "actual" democracy.
It's more like we have an "aristocratic republic"

BTW, Adolf Hitler is not his real name. I used to know his real name, but it keeps escaping me...
Also, he was conscripted because Germany was at war(it was already called Germany by then, right?)
He was quite the man apparently, and won the iron cross for bravery.

Also, @FoliFF
The whole purpose of a dictator would be that it's a charismatic person, and unites the people emotionally or keeps order through military power, not some desperate bureaucrat who tries to appeal to the people with his wealth.
Originally, "dictators" were appointed in ancient Rome to be a badass during emergencies.

Also, that link Bringer posted had some interesting ideas.
What if we said that only people who pass specific test could be in government(apparently they did that in ancient china)?
Or only people who are sufficiently educated can vote?
Although, I realise that this brings its own drawbacks...
Like I said before, I blame the crap education system.
By no way is a dictatorship a better system of government than democracy.... I don't even know where to begin with how aburd that is. I refuse to even discuss this further, the difference in points of view is simply too large for me to attempt to gap right now.
Hitler wasn't even German, he was Austrian. Jeez.

Anyway, I definitely have no confidence in America's current governmental system, mostly because the politicians are in it for themselves and because they're taking all of our money. They're are too many needless taxes.

I'm not saying I don't support some of our tax-funded programs, but...why should we pay taxes on things we OWN? And why do we need to pay taxes for groceries and food?

I definitely hate the whole political party system. I personally identify as "Independent".

P.S. Shit! I just noticed I mispelled something yesterday that could've changed what I meant slightly. I fixed it though. I hate dictatorships.
@ emmy: i don't see how Hitler's actual nationality is relevant regarding our topic. He lead the Germans not the Austrians.

A dictatorship needs not necessarily be one which commits genocide or other such deeds. that is simply the stereotyped dictatorship we get when someone unfitting is put at the head of the state. I of course would not say such a dictatorship is good. you speak as though i were a fool.

Though it may seem otherwise in my earlier posts, i do not actually like dictatorships. As this is a philosophy thread, i simply make my statements with that in mind. I prefer efficiency and progress over waste and stagnation. That is all i mean when referring to a dictatorship as better. the base system of a dictatorship is superior in those aspects to democracy. From an objective standpoint. A good dictatorship would be one where the dictator has no affiliation or opinion on the group he reigns over and has integrity so that he cannot be influenced by those who do, but that's impossible just as much as a democracy that works. Contrary to what you said, a dictatorship is in fact much better than a democracy if viewed objectively simply as a tool to govern. And by that i mean to have a dictatorship which ignores all opinion. Such forms of government only turn sour because opinion existed within it.