Everything we do as humans is based in our moral values. That is truth. If you study philosophy you will see that this is the majority accepted view. Certainly I don’t make simple decisions directly on my morals … but underneath all my simple decisions are moral views that are directing my actions (and you don’t need be aware of your own morals for this to occur).
Physics is not however-- the sun is not … we weren’t involved … so no moral values. Once the network is up and running, we might talk about the moral values of those that created the network, but the network will be agnostic at that point…
but we are not yet at that point … and the moral values of those that decided what equations will go into the network in the future are undecided.
No, but we can make decisions based on physical and not moral precepts. Same for maths. Same for survival decisions. I need to pee so I do. Where I do it maybe a moral decision or a health one. But the decision to pee was based on physics and chemistry not morals.
Yes I know there is a school of thought that every thing we do is a moral decision at some level. But that relies on the assumption that morals is not a construct we humans created. A crutch if you wish to help us understand ourselves and describe what we should/should not be doing.
But that does not force us to make decisions based on normal moral concepts
So you do eh? Just where? in your pants? no probably not, you wouldn’t feel good about that. How about in the corner of the room? No why not? ah the smell. How about outside - water the bush? Oh that in public and I wouldn’t want to offend anyone — gotcha, a moral view has been discovered which is guiding your behaviour to pee.
They are everywhere underlying our simpler decisions.
No, you are making that assumption. I would say that moral views are not something that we as individuals may have created for ourselves, but all morals come from society and human experience.
I can choose to pee outside on the bush if I want, I can go nude in public if I want (until other people’s moral views come into conflict with my own!) … we can contemplate our moral views – which are handed down from society and we can challenge them and shift them and take another route. But such requires thinking about it and many don’t see the point in challenging the status quo.
Health decision … I want to live and not be in pain – this is a moral decision. Believe it or not some people like to feel pain and some people want to die … also moral decisions.
embarrassment? Why would you be embarrassed? What is embarrassment? It is the feeling that your moral view may be in conflict with anothers moral view.
If that doesn’t win me the argument here, then I think you are being evasive … in any case, we are moving off topic and I think I’ve given good enough arguments for most to understand.
You didn’t win anything, You just showed the human trait of being able to turn everything in to a moral decision, basically you defined morals to suit that, as have many who love absolutes of morality being the real god of our lives.
It is important to the understanding of “Moral Issues as regards to PTP and PTD”, because if everything is a moral decision then that means something different to the possibility that there can be decisions based on other things.
Like you turned a health decision into a moral one that can be turned against me
Morals are an invention of humans Correct or wrong??
No SAFE is not a new government. It can’t be a new government. If it was that would be in conflict with net neutrality and it’s primary functions of security, freedom, privacy and access for everyone. To govern is to control, to limit and inhibit freedom. SAFE’s purpose is to give people freedom. SAFE is the exact antithesis of government. SAFE’s purpose is NOT to govern.
Yes perhaps SAFE is based on moral precepts. Those precepts are that everyone should have freedom, privacy and security and access to the network and that the network should not discriminate based on one’s sexuality, race, creed, spirituality, gender or have any knowledge whatsoever about the user which is in keeping with it’s primary functions. Why is this such a difficult concept!?
Then how do you resolve the morality of farmers? Remember those pedophiles and terrorists can easily farm way more than they’d ever make from PtP and PtD.
How is it being taken from you? You opt for which content gets more GETS when you search or access data on the network. That’s how you choose. Safecoin is never taken out of your wallet at any point in time but distributed directly from the network. When you get GETS you aren’t getting content you are storing chunks of anonymous data for the network, there’s a difference. When you’re storing chunks it’s like renting out your garage as storage space for sealed containers. When you’re retrieving content from the network it’s like going to the store and getting a DVD or a book or something so you can watch or read it yourself. No a GET is not a Like but a GET is not equivilant to content retrieval from the network either. The network doesn’t care about morality. All the network cares about is the health and well being of the network. Increased content is increased health of the network. It’s none of your business what another user uploads to the network therefore you don’t get to know what they upload therefore it’s also not your place to say if they should or shouldn’t get rewarded for it because it’s not your place to know if or what they uploaded in the first place. From the network’s point of view all you are concerned about is your own stuff and any public interactions. Anything beyond that is none of your affair.
subjective. I’m in the Austrian camp of economics – all value is subjective (excepting possibly the fundamental metaphysics of existence).
You can also see my youtube video on the problem of induction which also points to the rational necessity of subjectivity (well, at least for me it does!) :
And in addition you believe everything is a moral decision. Health decisions are moral not health. Even though it is programmed in my DNA to prefer health over bacteria infestation.
It is a government in that it governs some aspects our economic activity and hence our lives. This is all I mean by government.
Okay then, so give me the freedom to choose for myself whether or not the producer is paid when I get. You don’t want to? Oh, so you don’t believe in my kind of freedom … only your kind of freedom.
I don’t know why you are lumping all those other points about:
As they aren’t to do with the OP so far as I can see … I think you are trying to imply that I’m not in favor of these, when I am … and PtP has nothing to do with them.
That’s a great question, please do tell my why you aren’t getting it.
Read the O.P. for me farming is morally ambiguous. Thus it’s not the issue of this topic. It’s also a completely separate issue technically. Farmers provide a resource to the network. If pedo’s want to farm they have to provide resources for the network - they aren’t getting paid to make child porn, they are being paid to provide resources which they in turn will have to pay for and maintain. For me farming is not immoral.
Already addressed that: [quote=“TylerAbeoJordan, post:115, topic:7791”]
a get isn’t a like. Someone may get a file that appears to be some photos of lolcats, but turns out to be photos of someone’s garbage.
[/quote]
… And with PtP the producer get’s paid anyway. I want to choose if I pay them, you want the network to pay them in any case. We disagree.
I’ve been over this very thoroughly with @neo, please read those posts. Basically, we as individuals make moral decisions and we are here having this disscussion to determine what moral values are embedded into the software. The software will act according to those moral values that we put in there. certainly is it just physics and it’s not making moral decisions … it’s doing what we have told it do … we thus are making the decisions in advance.
Here’s an example. I want to murder someone. I see them at the bottom of a hill, so I put my car at the top and unset the handbrake … the car rolls down and kills them … did the car make a moral decision? No, I did, in advance of the murder.
As a human being you can choose to override your behavioural genetic predispositions. When you choose to do so, it is because of your moral positions. In a way, I would say that having moral views is what separates us from other animals.
Its amazing what we can make ourselves believe. I know humans created the term morals and its widely varying definitions to both describe why we do things and to attempt to define a code to live by.
But to say that morals is what separates us is saying these morals which are defined by us cannot be performed by animals. But your point scoring replies fit exactly in with the behaviours of animals. You say peeing is a moral decision, well animals also exhibit similar decisions as to when to pee and where. how and when to nurture their young. and so on and so on.
This is why making every decision a moral one makes a mockery out of morals.
You even argue one way for humans then say animals don’t
Having moral views does not. Animals have moral views, they just don’t delude themselves and turn all decisions into something called morals. But they perform many decisions for the same reasons as we do. So them peeing deciding not to pee int he nest is without moral views? You call it such for humans but not them? Easy to claim something if you can bend the definitions. Does your moral precepts have a clause in them that says, if animal then exit.
Morals are a construct to define behaviour and to provide a framework to base decisions on. If you expand that to include physical decisions, health decisions, mathematical decisions then you fall foul to what others have. Going to the extent that since all decisions are moral that any maths decisions are moral and can be defined by morals. This allows them to morally believe that 1+1 should equal 3, since maths is only a moral decision. Then they continue with other immutable facts because we only decide they are that way since its morals and we did it to benefit but now they see better and some are not beneficial.
Is what I said garbage, well yea it is but the point is that we decide some things on not morals but physical/mathematical/health grounds otherwise we risk believing that deciding on physical laws of nature are just moral decisions and the laws of physical are thus moral, not real.
No. I welcome this debate otherwise I would just ignore it.
That is what I was hoping you’d say and in a perfect world all (including farmers) would contribute to the network voluntarily. We are not there yet IMO.
I was not speaking on your behalf but speaking for myself and others who may also belief that while PtD and PtP is not ideal, we would be going too far to say that PtP and PtD is immoral. You obviously disagree and you are entitled to your belief, but please understand my position to defend myself against the regulators that will come and use your very assertion to demonize me and justify controlling and regulating my every immoral move.
I didn’t precisely say that peeing was a moral decision. What I am getting at is that humans can adapt their genetic behaviours to fit their needs.
Perhaps it is a stretch … perhaps we are all working to create rules to build a better society (social order or structure) and perhaps this is part of our genetic proclivity/predisposition. If so, then the development of morals is a genetic predisposition. Still we can decide not to follow any particular set of rules … would that too be a genetic proclivity of some? Perhaps. Free will (to my mind) is making choices with regard to what we believe we know … not things outside of our range of comprehension or imagination.
In that way though all is genetic – and moral views and decisions are merely part of it – rules we make for ourselves for the betterment of society … but based upon a genetic predisposition to create a better society.
Still I think not. I am not convinced that our genetics are so far advanced. I think we are building this out of memetic components not genetic ones.
I don’t see in any case, how you get around the fact that we constrain our genetic behaviours based on fundamentally held values … I call them morals, you can call them whatever you like or nothing at all, these brain patterns are still there whether you see them or not.
One can choose to believe that. I’m unsure what the underlying moral for that would be, but I accept the premise. It follows then that one would also have to believe that two apples are also three apples – taking the abstract of math and transferring it to the hard reality of physics. Perhaps many people do act in similar ways though. For example there are many people who don’t accept the law of entropy. They go out and attempt to build (and claim success at building)
machines that produce more energy than they consume. At the heart of this is some sort of moral conviction … good or bad for better or for worse.
In physics right now there are two major camps (one very major and one small major!) for how galaxy’s rotate without flying apart. The majority camp is the ‘dark matter’ hypothesis; while the latter is the MOND hypothesis. MOND seems to answer more of the questions, but both hypothesis are ad-hoc … yet the majority of believe is with the Dark matter camp … morals at work I think. People apply them all the time to suit their own personal needs for success and/or to suit the needs of society as a whole.
Buy surely you can see what happens when you turn everything into a moral decision.
Even people who believe that stop at some point before they start with the 1+1=2 is just moral decision and it can be changed if it can be shown to be more moral to say 1+1=3. Even they accept some decisions that we make are based on mathematics so when we decided that 1+1=2 is correct then that is not moral but a mathematical one. And the moral decision was to not decide and allow it to be a mathematical one.
any how I will leave you to it. Because this is what happens when claim all decisions are mral, common sense leaves the room and arguments ensure.
Well what you wrote certainly implied that you did not like it and hence wanted it to go away.
Why do you think it is not ideal? Such a statement implies that you think that the ends of PtP doesn’t justify the means of PtP … Note: such is a statement of morality … which hence indicates that you do think this is a moral issue, in contradiction with your earlier statement.
Point of order. You don’t get to choose what to do with other people’s money, only what’s in your own wallet. The network can do what it likes with it’s own funds. You only get to choose what to do with your own funds.
It has everything to do with them because as soon as the network starts favoring any particular party then that breaks security and privacy and violates the prime purposes of the network.
But the network can’t tell a photo of a naked 6yr old from a photo of Santa Clause! For the love of cream cheese on pumpernickle make some connections! From the network’s perspect it’s all just DATA. Imagine giving a guy who ONLY speaks Swahiilhii a bag of letters written in English. He can’t read them! He has no idea what any of them say! They’re meaningless jibberish to him. Better example! Imagine giving a sighted person a bunch of books written in braile. (Or if you prefer for better security a blind person a regular book.) For the most part sighted people are utterly illiterate when it comes to braile so it’s meaningless to to them. Point is the network can’t read the data, the sighted person can’t read the books written in braile, the swahiilii guy can’t read the english letters, so they just measure them based on weight! 1kg, 2kgs, 3kgs, or in the case of the network 1mb, 2mb, … until you get to say 1gb and then 2gb, 3gb and so on. The network measures the data volume, plugs in a formula of farming rate/10 and reimburses the uploader for sending them the bags of foreign script it can’t read but which it’s literate users can. The network does not know, nor care, nor is capable of discerning what is contained in the data that is sent to it. It just measures volume, stores it and forwards it to the appropriate recipients.
The reason I am getting so exasperated is you are claiming that you have some say to dictate what is done with network’s funds. You claim something is taken from you but no that isn’t true either. At no point is anything taken from your wallet.
But YOU aren’t dishing out a cent. PtP != to taxation. You can still choose if YOU pay them or not. There is nothing compelling you to pay them or not pay them. Nothing in PtP touches your wallet. PtP draws from the network’s wallet. Also if you’re about to argue dilution that argument has already been defeated.
Yes SAFE is a tool, like the car. And how we use it is what matters. Which is why any politics should be done at the app level not network level. You’re arguing PtP is immoral but I can’t see how if everyone gets it equally because everyone would be balanced and getting the same. No one’s particular moral intrests would be elevated above anyone else’s it would simply be the network rewarding all users for content just as it rewards farmers for computer storage. Your arguments against PtP have largely had to do with the type of content involved but the type of content is irrelevent from a network perspective since the network has no idea, and can’t have any idea, as to the kind of content being uploaded to it. All the network knows is data has been uploaded and that possibly that those chunks of data are in high demand. That’s it.
Which implies that how/where you choose to pee has underlying moral considerations … which is different from saying that peeing is a moral decision.
and I said:
which implies that I think I’ve given enough evidence to win the argument … but such is not a claim that I did win the argument … which clearly I didn’t or you wouldn’t still be here making argument with me.
BTW, it’s really tedious for me to have to go back and quote myself to prove that I said or didn’t say something that you think I did … please take the time to read more carefully.
Again, I’m not - I’m saying that moral values underlie or underpin other simpler decisions. … and I’ve said it several times now.
well that partly right. There is no ‘common sense’ though. And again I’m not claiming all decisions are moral, but that they have moral underpinnings. Moral values are the ‘why’ we decide to choose to believe that 1+1=3 in spite of what likely appears to be a clear contradiction on the face of it. Moral values are held for both personal and social reasons and they are subjective. So not everyone is going to agree with them.
