 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
DP
Last edited by Az on 21-07-2004 at 02:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
No they don't. Parents often sacrifice their own welfare for that of their children. The case of wills also invalidates your position since it expresses interests which a person cannot possibly hope to benefit from. |
They do it because it makes them happier! Duh! They do it because they would rather have to outcome of "oh, I lose some stuff but my children gain some" than "they don't get the best stuff I can provide them, even though I have some more fun". |
So according to you, people can never have an interest which is not directed towards making them happier.
This is complete tosh, people have such interests all the time. My will expresses interests which simply cannot make me happier or unhappier depending on whether or not they are carried out, because I'll be bloody dead. 
There are lots of things I'd like to see happen which wouldn't make me personally happier. For example, I'd like other people to be happy, but it doesn't matter to me whether I know they are or not, and if I don't know about it my preference will still be fulfilled (just like in the case of a will).
And what about the cases of people who sacrifice their happiness for the sake of others in full belief that they are doing so. They might do so for moral reasons, for example.
Your assertion that everyone acts to benefit themselves simply does not hold water. There are simply too many obvious examples of its falsehood. In fact, it's probably not even the case that all interests are commensurable. Every human being has experienced akrasia or conflicting interests, so even the general basis of your assertion is highly suspect.
Go ahead, and beat yourself against a wall, you can't change the facts.
quote:
That's a mindlessly idiotic definition. See... this is why people need philosophy. |
No, that's the only meaningful definition. See any decent AI textbook. [/QUOTE]
OMG! I nearly fell off my chair. That's artificial intelligence. WTF does this have anything to do with real people other than that some people are constructing a machine which acts in accordance with how they believe real people behave.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes. Happiness is not necessarily "smiley" happiness, but your "happiness" with various outcomes. Whichever outcome you are "happiest" with, you choose. |
In other words, "whatever is most choiceworthy, you choose". Well there's a tautology for the ages.
I hope I don't have to point out to you that such a tautology is pretty useless.
quote:
Real people aren't always rational agents, thus they don't always behave in such a manner as to maximize (or attempt to maximize) their utility function. |
In other words, real people don't behave in the psychopathic way you and "AI researchers" think they should behave. 
quote:
And AI theory, game theory, rational agents and the like are all philosophy. They're just the kind of philosophy that has actual useful applications, unlike most of the stuff you probably teach  |
I fail to see how any theory which fails to attribute motivations to people that they actually have can be a good one. And you'll find that evolutionary psychology says different. You'll also find that people who make the former assertions do so with pretty heavy caveats.
How can you have been taken in so badly by this crude version of hedonism? Jesus Christ, people had knock down arguments against this 2500 years ago.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2004 01:20
|