AJJ

You used the saying (I assume), “The road to hell ” in reference to a gentler approach that you said could be perceived as domineering. Seems critical...

You seem here to have criticised an approach for being potentially domineering before advocating for being as domineering as possible.

This appears to highlight a problem with claiming that two things are the same if they aren’t discernible: whether they’re discernible or not is subje...

This might be wrong then, since limitations in the AI’s programming would be unavoidable.

This is interesting. I’m not sure either that a human would necessarily be fooled—it seems logically possible for an AI to be indiscernible from a hum...

This is true, but an AI will always be an extension of the intelligences that programmed it; it won’t have its own mind.

Seatbelts don’t have side-effects.

You’re not making sense. Yes, I wear a seatbelt.

The virus poses me no greater risk than driving my car does (I expect it’s even less). If I bought into the war analogy it would be easy to feel brave...

If you like I’ll at least consider that my characterisation of you is wrong if you do me the same favour.

I think narrating this situation as if it’s a war is a way for frightened people to consider themselves brave.

There isn’t anything more to say about it.

There it is, clear as day.

My fear is acknowledged and controlled; this is why I haven’t gone in for the wilder theories. The fear we’re seeing from those of your persuasion app...

I am afraid of the vaccine. I believe the accounts (because why shouldn’t I?) of blood clots, heart inflammation, blindness, cognitive difficulty and ...

I’m a POS because you perceive me as doing something you’re afraid of, i.e. spreading my “nasty, filthy germs”.

A matter of quashing someone’s perceived will to do something you’re afraid of.

I just don’t believe you. This is from one of your posts: I’m not very afraid of this virus and so I can’t imagine speaking of it in that fashion.

Do you deny that you’re fearful of the virus?

Read the OP again, it’s full of contempt.

Do you acknowledge your own fear? I personally accept that fear plays a role on both sides - do you?

Well I am one of those who consider it weird and aberrant; whether it needs a special explanation I’m not sure (could be another thing that just is).

This is an interesting one, because I think you’re right in that even if the p-zombie isn’t actually conscious it may as well be if this difference ca...

I was slow to appreciate that you’ve inadvertently likened the *vaccine* to a bullet here. Really good stuff.

The war analogy isn’t in your favour. If you liken this to a war then the viruses are the bullets and you are far more scared of them than those you c...

Well, we still disagree here. I don’t mind believing that pure chance causes those outcomes; that they’re random and have no explanation.

Fair, guess we’re not substantially in disagreement then.

What I should have said is that I don’t accept that everything can be known such that the outcome of the roll could be predicted.

I accept that there’s physical stuff governing the roll of the dice; I don’t accept that you could predict the outcome even if you knew everything.

Can you demonstrate that this is always (or ever?) the case in any event? Because then they wouldn’t be chance outcomes, but determined ones we only c...

Sure, but ignorance of an outcome is not what I’ve been referring to as chance. If someone believes only that sort of chance exists then I don’t see w...

You’re referring to it as chance, but it isn’t really chance; it’s just ignorance of a determined outcome. If true chance outcomes exist then they nec...

If there is an explanation for why A happens rather than B, in what meaningful sense is A a chance outcome as opposed to a determined one?

This seems fair. I’m inclined to accept that chance outcomes exist and have no explanation; explanation being something that appears to run out regard...

So it looks like the choice is between a view that forgoes further explanation and one that claims but can’t demonstrate its explanation.

My understanding is that chance entails lots of brute contingencies. Why does A happen and not B? It just does and it isn’t possible for there to be a...

It seems to me that we’re going in loops because your view isn’t coherent and you’re being obtuse about it. If an organism is unconscious then in what...

This is what I’m getting at. If an evil doer is unconscious then they lack that intention.

Even if they’re unconscious?

If evil doers are on your terms unconscious just as robots are, then they can’t actually intend anything and so are not capable of evil.

I agree. But I also say that those organisms providing the intentions can do so precisely because they are conscious, and intentions spring from consc...

Do you think deliberation can be an unconscious act also?

So this appears to be your main problem. Evil can’t both be deliberate and unconscious.

And intention in a conscious act; so if “evil doers” are unconscious then they aren’t capable of intention, and so aren’t capable of evil.

If a conscious person always considers their own actions justified but is sometimes wrong about this, then they are capable of committing an evil act ...

I’m contending that if a person always considers their own actions justified then evil is always a mistake, never deliberate.

Is this not a contradiction?

Are you saying then that a person can commit an act they themselves consider unjustified?

...