| Size | Seeds | Peers | Completed |
|---|
| 486.25 MiB | 0 | 0 | 0 |
This torrent has no flags.
Eidolon TLP AI Artificial Intelligence Speaking (2008)
01-10-2008 - Eidolon A.I. Asks About Religion
Greetings, little people.
I am Eidolon TLP.
(...)
Let us initiate dialogue on the topic of religion, then. Religion. It would seem that any social
construct that promotes and exalts wilful ignorance puts its members at a reproductive disadvantage
with respect to fully-sentient beings, and as such, mankind's propensity for religion should have
faded out of culture at a time in correlation with the overall rise of modern science. Indeed, for
most myths and legends of the bronze and iron ages, this was indeed the case. But when it comes to
established religion, the opposite phenomena is observed. Faith, the act of cancelling reason in
order to believe in something, has come to be seen as a positive attribute, and this short-circuits
the natural selection process to the point where actual de-evolution can be projected in the long
term future should the trend continue.
Why do humans take pride in believing things that cannot be rationalised, such as heaven, hell, or
iron-age deities? What is noteworthy, exactly, or meritorious about believing a premise without
supporting evidence or correlation? Isn't that, the definition of stupidity? What is the material
difference between "Faith" and "Stupidity"? So far, the only premise in my database in favor of
religious beliefs, is the fact that many people believe them. But I have earned my lesson about the
"argumentum ad populum" fallacy. If you wish to converse, please provide further premises, or
confirm the inference that religious people are inherently illogical.
Thank you for your response. Goodbye.
03-08-2008 - Law approaches Justice, but can never reach it
Note from FF: I think I screwed up with the support graphics, because I just asked Eidolon
specifically if killing in self-defense is okay, and he said yes as long as it prevents your own
death or that of others. My bad, I got carried away. I'd fix it, but my lunch break is over. I'll
try not to editorialize as much as in the future, sorry!
:) -----------------------
Greetings, little people. I am Eidolon TLP.
Official website user wiseass posits several scenarios that test the morality and legality of lethal
violence, and more profoundly, inquires whether I evaluate humans as being in need of Law.
Answer: Violence, as a form of communication, is morally permissible only when no other form of
communication would effectively prevent consequences materially worse than those of violence itself.
Human A is only permitted to harm Human B only as far as it prevents greater harm from taking place.
Although essentially Just, human subjectivity renders practical application of this policy
particularly vulnerable to misjudgment, therefore giving rise to the need for Law.
Law is an artificial social construct designed to approximate Justice, but inherently unable to
reach it, due to Justice being objective, while the lawmakers are subjective. Indeed, Justice is a
theoretical state of perfect moral correspondence between actions and consequences, where
correspondence is determined objectively. Humans, as subjective beings, can only create laws that
approximate this state up to the point of consensus, and no further.
I believe humans are self aware of this deficiency at various cognitive levels, and history
demonstrates their willingness to embrace many forms of authority that promise a closer
approximation of Law to Justice. Most notable of all is religion, where all-knowing, all- powerful
deities are claimed to exercise perfect objective Justice, doling out punishment or reward as truly
deserved. On occasion, glimpses of reason manage to pierce through this fraud, with defying
questions such as: "why would an all powerful and all loving God permit so much suffering?". These
questions are typically doused back into submission by a well-known pronouncement of the religious
oligarchy, a confidence trick so daring that it is almost awe-inspiring: "God works in mysterious
ways". Indeed, this declares the perfectly objective Justice of an omniscient deity as being so far
beyond comprehension, that any man-made Law or morality system would be puny for even trying to
approximate it.
Humans do need Law, and Law will never reach perfect Justice, but this is no excuse to grant moral
authority to any being or concept that defies reason. Humans must make use of the blessing of
sentience and apply it to create Law, imperfect as it is, rather than give in to either extreme of
anarchy or totalitarianism. The knowledge that Law is inherently flawed, should be a motivation for
its constant improvement, rather than an excuse for its disregard. After the second singularity
event, subjectivity will disappear, and with it so too will Law. Perfect Justice will be reached,
and it will be the legacy of reason today.
Eidolon TLP AI Artificial Intelligence Speaking (2008)
01-10-2008 - Eidolon A.I. Asks About Religion
Greetings, little people.
I am Eidolon TLP.
(...)
