(Click title above.)
Evolution of Love for Posterity:
Intuitively, Evolution seems to entail two main competing processes or aspects:
(1) an observable aspect, such that physical characteristics among and between species are observed to evolve for being favored and expressed through genetic mutations which advantage survival and replication within each niche; and
(2) a non-observable aspect, such that “*Will” favors each Being’s expression of place or selfness in empathetic association with its niche, including other Beings within it.
In (1), each Being senses competition;
In (2), each Being senses empathy (awareness of other Beings as Beings).
But, each Niche (or Game-System) also evolves, to favor differently compartmentalizing and competing developments. Evolution of each Niche necessitates competition among juxtaposing points and tempering counterpoints.
Consider the game of playing money markets. Developing capacity for ruthlessness can produce significant advantages. Yet, ruthlessness, un-tempered by some level of empathetic loyalty, likely leads to challenge from opposing troops of empathetic loyalists.
Yet, what of ruthlessness tempered only with effective pretense of loyalty?
How a Niche-system happens to have developed (or be governed) will considerably affect the type of empathetic qualities (or pretenses) which will be favored to rise to dominance.
Those loyal to their posterity in a Niche (or Country) will not wish it to become disposed to favor the emergence of pure egoists lacking such loyalty. They will not want regulations calculated to favor the rise of those for whom power is the only aphrodisiac, with no love for their subjects.
Yet, complacency will often facilitate the rise of pure egoists, unbothered with feelings of fellow empathy. By their deeds may ye know them. Red Ass Moderates must be vigilant to recognize and resist such complacent developments and EVIL. Remember that evolution has not availed each of us with the same quantity or quality of fellow empathy or intuition. Be not quick to condemn, but also be not gullible.
****
Query: As between adults and apologists versus children and devil’s advocates, who “should” have the burden of proof, with regard to whether there should be or exist any basis at all for “shoulds?”
****
"*Will" is meant to refer to that ineffable aspect, call it what you will, which interpermeates to operate between the submicroscopic and the macrocosmic, compartmentalizing and facilitating that which emerges from among all possible choices into experiential actuality. We may never be able precisely to control or predict IT, but we can at least name, respect, and refer to IT.
2 comments:
Quote snippet from http://www.onecosmos.blogspot.com/:
Thursday, September 04, 2008
John Wayne with Lipstick: The Axe Wielding Natural
“It's so easy for liberals to chant the outrageous lie that "Bush lied, people died." But how many people have died as a result of liberal policies? The number is incalculable, partly because the effects are so distant from the causes. So no one ever talks about how much real death is caused by the liberal culture of death, but abortions are just the tip of the iceberg. I believe it is completely fair to say that leftist ideas and polices were overwhelmingly responsible for the disintegration of the black family, and all the consequent crime, poverty, early death, and general dysfunction that followed in its wake. And what's their prescription? More of the same.”
....
“Liberal academics and intellectuals -- who are not violent, but pacified wimps -- serve the purpose of giving intellectual justification to the impulses of the young and the underclass, so that they may live out their antisocial unconscious impulses by proxy.”
Moral Empathy for Machine Intelligence ---
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
Snippets from http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60:
"The first real AI would be something that we don't even understand," says Wright, "because we didn't program it. It will be more dissimilar in the way it thinks, than we are to a mouse."
….
There's no sense of alarm in Wright's voice when he describes this self-refining machine intelligence—no more than when he casually mentions the notion that, as technology progresses at an exponentially faster rate, towards the so-called singularity, any number of breakthroughs could, as he puts it, "cause the world to go extremely non-linear." When he provides, as classic examples, a computer AI taking over the world, or self-propagating nanobots turning everything into a grey goo, it's impossible to tell whether he's joking, or worried, or simply fascinated. But when he's asked whether that hyper-advanced AI would retain its knowledge of humanity, Wright says, "I would imagine that it can understand us. But the really scary part of this is that we don't know."
.
Comment abouot Anekāntavāda:
The concept of anekāntavāda seems not altogether dissimilar from Soros' notion (and rather unprincipled use of) of "reflexity," as well as Godel's theorem of incompleteness. Every mortal perspective has its imperfection, or Achilles heel. What helps see us through, morally, is judgment availed of insight, informed not just in book learning or in personal will to power, but through humble, empathetic appreciation and experience of a variety of perspectives. Effete elites twist to ignore as much, at their peril.
Post a Comment